EVOLUTIONARY HEDONISM:
The Pleasure/Pain Cause of Mental Illness, Homosexuality,

Obesity, Mass Murder & the Coming Nuclear Apocalypse 

By Ruth Calabria & Peter Calabria, PhD, biophysics

©, Ruth Calabria, 5/20/13, contact: ruthmcalabria@gmail.com

The evil in the Boston Bombing and the Sandy Hook Massacre is not in question. What is is why they did it. Evolutionary Hedonism looks for the scientific reasons for the emotions of those who misdirect their anger towards innocent victims who never did them any harm.

Mankind evolved neurologically to behave by seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. That is the only correct way to understand what is going on in this mad world where the political ideologies, religious dogmas and pop-psychology moralisms peddled us are as bogus as ads for overpriced cars and cures for male impotence. The how and why of pleasure and displeasure controlling what people think and do is spelled out in Evolutionary Hedonism with a logical mathematical argument that is as firm and trustworthy as Euclidean Geometry. To make it clear that those who learn their lessons from the preachments of whiney Joel Osteen, blowhard Dr. Phil and spin tongued Bill O’Reilly make a bad deal that ultimately turns out to be a zonk, we proceed immediately to prove hedonism, evolution and the non-existence of God mathematically.  

Evolutionary Hedonism is a new way of thinking that can bind people together but without resorting to the delusion of the magical gods of religion. It provides a new moral compass for this violent unhappy world to save it from its endless violence and the ultimate mass murder of nuclear annihilation. That doomsday prophesy is very real given the angry duplicity of Republicans, their mirror image fundamentalist crazies on the other side of the world and the ineptness of the Democrats to counter either of them.

Face it, Obama is at best a practiced actor who does well following a script but is lost when confronted with critical problems whose solutions require imagination and boldness. And at worst Obama is nothing but a jerk puppet of Wall Street and the military, no real friend of the people. Nothing points more to a need for radical change and a sharp turn to scientific thinking than the natural disasters plaguing us from global warming and the anti-science denial of it all by the mouthpieces of the privileged class whose money protects them from its devastating effects.  

Real change is needed. Hillary, whose brain power is limited to good grooming and clever sound bites, should be given the senior citizen prom queen award and put out to pasture. A woman mathematician would make a much better president on a ticket with an honest politician like Governor Cuomo of New York. Let’s do Ruth Calabria and Andrew Cuomo in 2016.

Before you dismiss the idea of electing a woman you never heard of for president, read this startling mathematics. We are the first to mathematically characterize human feelings precisely to undo the religious claptrap and misleading psychobabble about it that completely confuses people as to what their emotions are and do. If you got through freshman algebra well enough to read and be astonished by the mathematics and want to support our scientific and political efforts with a contribution: click here.

We also use Simpson’s Diversity Index that underpins emotional probability to develop major revisions of Boltzmann entropy and information theory to show the almighty intellectual power of this new science that should replace religious superstition as the proper guide for thinking and living. Those not comfortable reading even simple mathematics can scroll down past the equations where the ideas of Evolutionary Hedonism are spelled out in an easy to read form. There we also include the true life story of a home grown American terrorist, lawyer Don Graf of Lubbock, an NRA type conservative who has terrorized his sister, me, throughout my life to punish me for running away 40 years ago from his and my father’s LCMS Christian cult.           

The Mathematics of Human Emotion

The basic human emotions of hope, disappointment, anxiety, excitement, fear, relief, security, dismay, violence and so on are easy to understand when these pleasant and unpleasant feelings are developed with a simple guessing game. Into a paper bag are placed 6 blocks marked in 3 colors, red, green and purple: (■■, ■■, ■■). You guess the color of a block picked blindly from the bag. That block is then placed back in the bag after you pick it. And you guess the color of the next block picked from the bag, replacing it also. And then guess a third block picked from the bag. You have to guess the three colors picked from the bag in the order they are picked with a correct guess of the three color sequence winning a prize of V=$2700. Below are the 27 triplet color sequences that can be picked from (■■, ■■, ■■). 
 

Figure 1. The 27 Sequences of N=3 Colors that can be Picked from (■■, ■■, ■■).

The probability of correctly guessing the 1^st or A color picked from the bag of N=3 colors, (■■, ■■, ■■), is Z_A=1/N=1/3; that of the 2^nd or B color, Z_B=1/N=1/3; and that of the 3^rd or C color, Z_C=1/N=1/3.

1a.)    Z_A=Z_B=Z_C=1/N=1/3

These are the probabilities of guessing correctly no matter which color you guess at each time. The probability, Z, of guessing the triplet color sequence is the product of these Z_A, Z_B and Z_C probabilities.         

2.)           Z = Z_AZ_BZ_C =(1/N)³=(1/3)³=1/27

The Z_A,Z_B and Z_C probabilities are Z_A=Z_B=Z_C=1/N=1/3 no matter which color you guess for each pick from (■■, ■■, ■■). But that changes when the distribution of the colors of the blocks in a bag picked from is uneven or unbalanced as from (■■■, ■■, ■) or (■■■■, ■, ■). Then the Z_A =Z_B=Z_C probability of success in guessing a color depends on which particular color you guess at each time. If the bag of blocks guessed from is (■■■■, ■, ■), obviously we are more likely to guess successfully if we guess red more often than green or purple because there is a greater chance red will be picked from the bag than green or purple. It is important to clarify this because we are using the color guessing game as a general model for selecting between available choices in real life situations where the probabilities of being successful in what we choose between to do are often different or unbalanced. 

A general way to guess a color, as from (■■■■, ■, ■), is with a frequency or probability that is the same as the probability the color is picked from the bag. Using this rule of thumb we would guess red two times out of three because red is picked blindly from (■■■■, ■, ■) two times out of three. Or in other words, from the set of K=6 blocks, (■■■■, ■, ■), in N=3 colors, x₁=4 red blocks, x₂=1 green block and x₃=1 purple block, in shorthand notation, (4, 1, 1), the probability of red being picked blindly from the bag is p₁=x₁/K=4/6=2/3. So we would guess red with a probability or frequency of p₁=2/3. We refer to this as rational guessing because the probability of guessing and of picking a color, p_i, i=1,2,…N, depends on the ratio of the number of blocks with that color, x_i, to all K blocks in the bag.  

3.)                

Then much as the probability of blindly picking red from the set of (■■■■, ■, ■) blocks is p₁=x₁/K=4/6=2/3; it is of green, p₂=x₂/K=1/6; and is of purple, p₃=x₃/K=1/6. If one guesses the red color with the same probability, p₁=2/3, that red is picked from the bag, then one will guess correctly with red with a probability of

4.)     (p₁)(p₁)=p₁²=(2/3)²=4/9=16/36

Similarly one will guess correctly with green with a probability of p₂²=1/36; and guess correctly with purple with p₃²=1/36. Hence one will correctly guess the color picked blindly from (■■■■, ■, ■) using rational guessing with a probability of  

5.)      

The summation function, ∑p_i², in the above happens to have the form of the Simpson’s Diversity Index, which we will symbolize with the Greek letter, delta, δ.  

6.)      

The British statistician, Edward Simpson, developed this function back in 1948 as a measure of the ecological diversity of N species with population densities, p_i, which is simply their fractional representation in the ecology. Specifically Simpson understood δ in Eq6 as the probability that any two organisms picked randomly from the ecology would come from the same species. The δ function is an inverse measure of diversity, the greater the probability the two organisms picked coming from the same species, the less diverse the ecology. For example, when there is only one species in the ecology and, hence, no diversity, the δ probability of two organisms picked coming from the same species is a maximum of δ=1.

By sheer coincidence, the Simpson’s Diversity Index, δ, is also  the probability of success guessing with the rational guessing strategy that guesses at a color in the game, as from (■■■■, ■, ■), with a probability, p_i , the same as the probability, p_i, of that color being picked from the bag. This generates the Z_A=Z_B-Z_C probabilities of correctly guessing each color guessed at as

6a.)              

And that makes the Z probability of guessing the triplet color sequence in our color guessing game  

6b.)             Z=Z_AZ_BZ_C = δ³

The Z probability of success in guessing the triplet color sequence from (■■■■, ■, ■), which has from Eq5, Z_A=Z_B=Z_C=1/2, would be Z=δ³=1/8. The rational guessing formula of Simpson’s Diversity Index of Eq6a also develops Z_A =Z_B=Z_C =1/3=1/N of Eq1a for the simple balanced set of blocks in N=3 colors of (■■, ■■, ■■).    

7.)            

We develop the Simpson’s Diversity Index in some detail because, as we shall see, it explains other important aspects of the mind’s operations and of nature generally.

One can also guess the color picked from an unbalanced set of blocks like (■■■■, ■, ■) by always guessing the color that most of the blocks in a set have, red in this case. This best bet guessing, which generates the highest probability of success, is held off on for now because its derivation in terms of diversity is more complicated and getting into it at the moment would only delay further our main interest of mathematically specifying the human emotions.           

Guessing the triplet color sequence picked from the balanced (■■, ■■, ■■) set, we see from Eq2 that on average you will guess the correct triplet sequence only 1 time in 27. The mathematical expectation of your guessing correctly and getting the V=$2700 cash prize is the product of the V prize and the Z probability of guessing the triplet sequence correctly. The mathematical expectation is given the symbol, E.   

8.)    E = ZV = Z_AZ_BZ_CV 

Specifically for this game with a V=$2700 prize and Z=1/27 probability of getting it, the mathematical expectation is  

9.)    E = ZV = (1/27)($2700) = $100

The mathematical expectation, E, is the average payoff per game when you play the guessing game repeatedly. If you play 27 times, on average you will get the V=$2700 prize once, which averages out to E=$100 per game played.

The $2700 gotten in prize money should be considered to quantitatively represent items with biological value a person can purchase with money like food and housing and gifts for a mate and even weapons as foster survival, reproductive and combat success and ultimately evolutionary success. We use getting money for now as an object of evolution optimizing goal directed behavior because getting cash is a quantifiable goal, holding off the things that are directly needed for evolutionary success until we specify Darwinian natural selection mathematically in a later section.           

There is also a subjective interpretation of the E=ZV=$100 mathematical expectation, one which requires the assumption that getting money is pleasant, an axiom in Evolutionary Hedonism as reasonable as the primary axiom of Euclidean Geometry that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. This implies that getting the V=$2700 prize that 1 time in 27 is pleasant, the amount or intensity of that pleasure being symbolized as R=V to indicate that the pleasure in getting money is a realized emotion, one that comes from the actual receiving of money in contrast to emotions we may feel from anticipating getting money.   

Also assumed is that the amount of pleasure in getting R=V dollars is measured by V, the more money you get, the greater the pleasure. Of course, the pleasure of getting money is also relative to one’s total wealth or is marginal. Getting V=$2700 is more pleasant for a person with little savings than to one with 27 billion dollars in the bank. Assumed for simplicity in developing the functions for the emotion is a baseline of equal wealth as implies that the amount or intensity of pleasure in getting money is measured by R=V.   

Now when you play the V=$2700 prize game only one time, the E=ZV=$100 mathematical expectation is a measure of the pleasure in the hopes you have of winning the V=$2700 prize. The E=$100 pleasure in the expectation of getting $2700 with a Z=1/27 probability is taken to be equal to the pleasure of actually getting $100, which makes sense intuitively given that E=$100 is what you do actually get per game on average when you play the game repeatedly.  

Note importantly that this understanding of E as measuring the pleasure of anticipation is as felt if we had just one chance to play the game for playing the game repeatedly affects the emotions felt in a more hard to understand way. So while we understood the mathematical expectation, E, as the average payoff from the perspective of many repeated plays, we interpret E as a measure of the pleasure of anticipating winning V dollars on the basis of having one play at it.   

E=ZV expectation formula tells us that the greater the V prize, the greater the pleasure in expectation of getting it. If, for example, the prize is increased to V=$27,000, the pleasure in expectation of a prize, you have higher hopes that increase to  

10.)    E = ZV = (1/27)($27,000) = $1000

And from E=ZV we also see that there’s greater pleasure in expectation when the Z probability of winning the V prize is increased. If the V=$2700 prize is awarded for rationally guessing the triplet sequence from a (■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■, ■, ■)↔(40, 1, 1) bag of blocks, in its having from Eq6a Z_A=Z_B=Z_C=.908, the mathematical expectation as a measure of the pleasure in your anticipation of winning the prize is from Eq8  

11.)    E = ZV =Z_AZ_BZ_CV=(.908)³V=(.749)($2700)=$2202

Now let’s consider how you feel if you fail to guess correctly on the one try you get for the V prize. When your E=ZV hopes are dashed by failure, what you feel is the emotion of disappointment specified as the negation or negative of your E=ZV hopes.      

12.)    T = −ZV         

We use the T symbol for disappointment for reasons we’ll explain shortly. In the guessing game for the V=$2700 prize from (■■, ■■, ■■) that has a probability of winning of Z=1/27, the intensity of the disappointment is

13.)    T = −ZV = −(1/27)($2700) = −$100

The negative sign in the T= −ZV function specifies disappointment to be an unpleasant emotion just as the positive sign of the E=ZV expectation specifies your hopes of winning the prize to be a pleasant emotion. The T= −ZV function specifies the displeasure of the disappointment to be greater the greater the size of the V prize hoped for. For the V=$27,000 prize, the disappointment is much greater when you fail to win it, T= −ZV= −$1000.

And the T= −ZV function also specifies the disappointment to be greater the greater the Z probability the person feels he has of winning the V prize. In the case of the Z=.749 probability of winning V=$2700 by rationally guessing from (■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■, ■, ■)↔(40, 1, 1) because one has such a high expectation of winning the prize, the disappointment is much greater from Eq11 as  

14.)    T = −ZV = −$2022

The more hopeful you are that you’ll win, the worse the disappointment you feel when you don’t. Conversely if you have very low expectation of success to begin with you don’t feel very disappointed when you fail to win because you didn’t think you had much of a chance to begin with. Consider having to guess a triplet color sequence for V=$2700 from an N=6 color set, (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■), which has Z_A=Z_B=Z_C=1/N=1/6 and Z=(1/6)³=1/216=.00463 and E=$12.50. Your probability of losing was so great to begin with, 1−.00463=.995, that you don’t feel very disappointed when you do lose because you expected to.    

Now let’s consider the emotion felt when the player does guess the triplet sequence correctly on one try and wins the V dollar prize. Of course what he feels is the R=V=$2700 pleasure of getting the $2700. But the player also feels an additional thrill or excitement in winning that depends, for one, on the uncertainty of winning or probability of failing to win mathematically well defined as the converse of the Z probability of winning.   

15.)    U = 1 −Z

If you have a small, Z=1/27, probability of guessing the triplet sequence as from (■■, ■■, ■■), then you have a large, U=1−Z=26/27, uncertainty of guessing correctly and winning the V prize. The greater is your uncertainty about winning beforehand, the greater is the excitement or thrill in winning when you do win. In the color guessing game from (■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■, ■, ■)↔(40, 1, 1) where the Z=.749 probability of winning implies a low U=.251 uncertainty or probability of failing to win, there is less excitement or thrill in winning because you expect to win. If we run that out to the limit of guessing what color will be chosen from the all red (■■■■■■■■■■■■) bag of blocks where Z=1 and U=0 there is no added thrill of winning because like getting a sure paycheck, you are sure of winning. Again there is the R=V=$2700 pleasure of getting the money, but as there is no chance of not getting it, there is no additional thrill of winning because you totally expected to get the money to begin with.        

The excitement of winning under uncertainty is also a function of how large the V prize is. The greater the V prize, the greater the intensity of the excitement in winning it. Winning V=$27,000 under uncertainty is more exciting than winning V=$2700 and that more exciting than winning V=$27. From the above understanding that the excitement in winning money is an increasing function of the V amount of dollars won and the U uncertainty felt beforehand in winning it, we specify the thrill or excitement of winning money as the product of V and U.

16.)    T = UV           

The T symbol is used both for excitement, T=UV, and for disappointment, T= −ZV in Eq7, because both T=UV excitement and T= −ZV disappointment are transition emotions, described as such for reasons to be given shortly. The intensity of pleasurable thrill in winning the V=$2700 prize in the Z=1/27, U=1−Z=26/27, color guessing game from (■■, ■■, ■■) is

17.)    T = UV = (26/27)($2700) = $2600

A familiar example of the excitement in getting something of value under uncertainty is in the wrapped presents placed under the Christmas tree for children. Their uncertainty about knowing what’s in the wrapped presents is what makes for the excitement in opening them, this excitement being an additional pleasure for them on top of the pleasure gotten from receiving the gift itself for the excitement on Christmas Day of opening the presents is not felt if the youngsters know ahead of time what’s in their gifts and have no uncertainty about it.

As made clear earlier, the T=UV excitement of getting V dollars under uncertainty is a pleasurable emotion felt over and above the R=V realized emotion of the pleasure of just getting the money that is independent of any U uncertainty felt beforehand and T=UV excitement felt upon success. In a parallel way we specify the R=V=0 absence of emotion from getting V=0 dollars when one fails to guess correctly, which is independent of the T= −ZV disappointment that comes from failure.

From these specifications of R realized emotion and T transition emotion, it becomes clear that when you have an E=ZV expectation of winning and you fail to win and realize no money, R=0, you feel the transition emotion of T= −ZV disappointment. And when you have that E=ZV expectation and do win the V prize, you feel not only the R=V pleasure of getting the money but also the additional transition emotion of T=UV excitement. This develops a general function for the T transition emotion felt as a function of the E expectation and R realized emotion 

18.)     T = R − E       

This is the Law of Emotion. With expectation as E=ZV, when the prize is not won and R=V=0, the Law of Emotion specifies the T transition emotion felt as disappointment.

19.)     T = R – E = 0 – ZV = −ZV     

And when the V dollar prize is won, R=V, the Law of Emotion specifies the T transition emotion felt via U=1−Z of Eq15 as excitement.

20.)     T = R – E = V – ZV = (1−Z)V = UV

Desire and Anxiety  

The E=ZV expectation can also be written via U=1−Z uncertainty of Eq15 as      

21.)    E = ZV=(1 − Z)V=V−UV

This alternative expression of E=ZV expectation as E=V–UV derives two other anticipatory emotions that are felt more or less simultaneously with E=ZV expectation. The V term is a measure of the pleasurable desire or wish for the V dollar prize and the –UV term in E=V−UV is the unpleasant emotion of anxiety or doubt that a person feels in anticipating possible failure to get the V dollar prize, a feeling that reduces the pleasure of the V desire or wish.   

Though the V anticipation of success has the same magnitude of the R=V realized emotion felt from actually getting the money, the two are different, their difference made clear by the –UV anxiety about getting the money which diminishes the pleasure of V in the E=V−UV expectation.        

What we are calling anxiety is also referred to as anxiousness, concern, worry, apprehension, nervousness, unease and fear about realizing one’s expectations. Though anxiety has various shades of meaning including how it is used in clinical psychology, anxiety is mathematically well defined here to mean –UV. The subtleties of the words used to denote emotion generally have us also coin a technical term for –UV as meaningful uncertainty, that is, as uncertainty, U, made meaningful by its association with the V money term in –UV, money being understood as meaningful or valuable for people.

The negative sign of −UV anxiety specifies it as an unpleasant emotion with the intensity of the displeasure greater the greater the V payoff one is anxious about getting and the greater the U uncertainty one has about getting the V payoff. Expressing E=ZV=V−UV expectation as a function of –UV anxiety derives the T=UV excitement from success of Eq16 from the Law of Emotion, T=R−E, of Eq18 in a slightly different way as

22.)    T = R−E=V−(V−UV) = −(−UV)=UV           

This derivation of T=UV excitement as T= −(−UV) gives a sense of excitement as coming about from the elimination of –UV anxiety by success. Adventure movies generate their excitement in that way by being front loaded with anxiety or dramatic tension over the hero’s meaningfully uncertain situations, emotions the audience feels vicariously. When the hero’s uncertainty is resolved by success towards the end of the movie, it vicariously brings about the pleasures of excitement and thrills for the audience by vicariously resolving the vicarious anxiety they felt over the hero’s initial anxious situations.

Note that for a general case of U=1=100% that goes beyond this color guessing game, where success is, from U=1, impossible, −UV anxiety is −UV= –V and E expectation is 

22a.)           E=ZV=V−UV=V−V=0

This understands the V wish to obtain the V prize cancelled by –UV= −V total anxiety or doubt over getting the prize. This understanding provides the basis of understanding “wishful think.” That occurs when a desire for something, as might be worth V dollars, arises, but while being truly impossible to achieve, U=1, is supposed by a person to be possible, U<1, because the V prize is so large and desirable, that even with U=1, or U≈1 as in a lottery, the person tries to get the V prize. That is the basis of wishful thinking and also more specifically of a person’s sense of the existence of a benevolent or helpful God, the prize or gain for their being one outweighing the U=1 impossibility of it from sensory observation and logic.

This also helps explain E=ZV=V−UV expectation as having faith in a good outcome, whether with respect to God or to any partner in a relationship. Hence being unfaithful whether to God or a lesser partner in a relationship is clearly understood mathematically here as losing hope on that significant other. Having faith in a person, God or outcome as propitiates behavior to obtaining something of value when the uncertainty or doubt as U=1 says it is in fact unattainable is minimally a waste of time in the game played or behavior done to get the wished for reward.   

We also note in the close of this section that the sense of probability is thoroughly imbedded in language in the very frequently sued auxiliary verbs of “may”, “might”, “can” and “could”, all of which denote possibility. Hence, which one can describe the possibility of winning V=$2700 in this guessing game with the sentence in standard language of “I might win $2700 in this color guessing game,” one can also use mathematical language to describe one’s hopes as E=ZV=(1/27)($2700)=$100.        

The Expectation of Loss

People not only have “good” expectations about money in the E=ZV hopes of getting money but also “bad” expectations as with fear of losing money. To develop the emotions associated with having money you already have taken away, consider being forced to play a (■■, ■■, ■■) guessing game that offers no V dollar prize for guessing correctly but rather imposes a penalty of v dollars when you fail to guess the three color sequence correctly. The probability of failing to guess the triplet sequence is the U=(1−Z)=26/27 uncertainty, so the mathematical expectation of incurring the v dollar penalty in this game is

23.)     E= −Uv          

The negative sign of the E= –Uv expectation of loss characterizes it as the unpleasant emotion of the fear of losing v dollars. The intensity of this fear is greater the greater the v number of dollars one fears one might lose and the greater the U probability of losing it, aka. the U uncertainty of avoiding the loss by guessing the triplet sequence correctly. Note the negative sign of E= −Uv, which in specifying fearful expectation as unpleasant tells us intuitively that a player would avoid playing the game altogether if he were not forced to play it.

As with the –UV anxiety over failing to get a V dollar prize in Eq21, the –Uv fear of losing v dollars has many synonyms such as apprehension, concern, worry and anxiety. We categorize both –UV anxiety over getting V dollars and –Uv fear over losing v dollars you already have as meaningful uncertainty.

Two outcomes are possible in the v dollar penalty game. One is that you fail to guess the color sequence and lose v dollars. Losing v dollars produces the realized emotion of R= −v displeasure whose intensity is greater the greater is v. And the other outcome is success in guessing the triplet sequence, which spares you the v dollar penalty and consequently has a realized emotion of R=v=0 from your losing no money. Note that this produces from the Law of Emotion, T=R−E, of Eq18,  

24.)    T = R – E = 0 −(−Uv) =Uv           

This T=Uv transition emotion is the relief felt in avoiding the feared v dollar loss when you correctly guess the triplet color sequence. It is also sometimes referred to as satisfaction as is the resolution of anxiety. The positive sign of T=Uv relief signifies it as a pleasant emotion, one whose intensity is greater the greater the v loss avoided and the greater the U uncertainty felt beforehand. To illustrate this, note that when one plays this game with a v=$2700 penalty with the (■■, ■■, ■■) set of blocks with its Z=1/27=.037 probability and  U=26/27=.963 uncertainty of guessing correctly, the T=Uv relief has intensity Uv=$2600, but played with the Z=.749, U=.251, (■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■, ■, ■) set, the relief is substantially less great at Uv=$678 because one is substantially more certain with the Z=.749 set versus the Z=.037 set of success in avoiding the loss to begin with.

That the T=Uv relief arises from the negation or elimination of E= –Uv fear is obvious from the T= −(−Uv)=Uv derivation of relief in Eq24.

We can get a better sense of E= −Uv fearful expectation by expressing it via U=1−Z of Eq15 as

25.)    E= −Uv = −(1 – Z)v = −v + Zv        

Fearful expectation written as E= −v + Zv splits one’s fear into two component feelings, the unpleasant anticipation of incurring the displeasure of the entire v dollar loss as reduced in displeasure by the positively signed and, hence, pleasant +Zv emotion, which represents one’s sense of security or hopes of not losing the v dollars by guessing the triplet sequence correctly.

If one fails to guess the triplet color sequence and the v penalty is realized, R= −v, and the T transition emotion is from the Law of Emotion of Eq18 with the expectation as E= −Uv,    

26.)    T = R – E = −v −(−Uv) = −v(1−U)= −Zv

The T= −Zv transition emotion is the dismay or shock felt when the triplet color sequence is not guessed and the v dollars are lost. T= –Zv dismay is an unpleasant emotion from its negative sign and one greater in displeasure the greater the Zv sense of security felt beforehand that the v dollars wouldn’t be lost. If you had little Zv security as a low expectation of avoiding the v loss to begin with, as in paying the game with the (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) and its low Z=.00463 probability of avoiding the v=$2700 loss, while you yet feel displeasure in incurring the R= −v loss when you guess incorrectly, your Z=.00463 low expectation of avoiding the loss to begin with keeps the dismay felt when you do lose small as T= −Zv= −$12.50. Note how this compares to the much greater feeling of dismay gotten with the penalty game played with (■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■, ■, ■) and its Z=.749 probability of success in avoiding the v loss and T= −Zv= −$2022 intensity of dismay and shock when you unexpectedly do lose.    

A Brief Recap of the Emotions

We have at this point shown our basic emotions to exist in three categories: expectations, hopeful and fearful respectively of E=ZV and E= −Uv; realization emotions that include pleasant R=V feelings of gain, R= −v unpleasant feelings of loss and R=0 non-feelings that come from failure to gain and success in avoiding loss; and transition emotions that are a function of the E expectation and R realization emotions via the T=R−E Law of Emotion of Eq18 and include T= −ZV disappointment, T=UV excitement, T=Uv relief, and T= −Zv dismay.

These are basic human emotions not just for these two kinds of guessing games but for any behavior of man that is directed to the goal of obtaining V dollars or not losing v dollars with a probability of success, Z. Later we will show the obvious of money being generally propitious to evolutionary success in some way as in purchasing the food needed for survival, helping to secure a mate to reproduce with and obtaining and designing weapons needed for combat success. That will make clear that this mathematical analysis directed to obtaining money and not losing it as its goals applies to all goal directed behaviors propitious for biological success in some manner, with the pleasures and displeasures associated with economic success replaced with the pleasures provided by the things that money buys and the displeasure of economic failure replaced by displeasures that come from the failure to obtain food, a mate, a family and success in battle. We delay showing this mathematically because the math involved is a bit more complicated than the simple algebra that is used to specify the human emotions.  

The application of this analysis to precisely clarify all emotion driven, goal-directed behavior for the first time in science makes clear that it not be disregarded or rejected out of hand with the argument that the emotions are not externally observable phenomena. To dismiss the emotions because they are not formally empirical data is to throw out the baby with the bathwater for the emotions are the fundamental neural signals that control behavior, as we shall show. Without a focused consideration and clear understanding of the emotions, human behavior will continue to remain a confusing and mysterious topic vulnerable to the weak and often ridiculous and contradictory conjectures of the numerous philosophical, religious, ideological and psychobabble explanations of life that abound.   

Emotion as specified mathematically in Evolutionary Hedonism is effectively empirical as follows. We have considered only emotional experience that is universal as, for example, in specifying disappointment as the –ZV dashing of ZV expectation, which is part of the emotional machinery for all human beings.

This and explanations of other parts of the human emotional machinery we have considered are valid because they are observed albeit introspectively universally with universal agreement being the fundamental factor in empirical validation. When ten researchers accept the data they are all reading off the same instrument dial as valid, that data is understood to be valid because all of them agree on what they are observing. Such universal agreement extends to what we are saying about the emotions as developed in the color guessing games.

This validation of the mathematical analysis of the emotions from this principal of universality is further strengthened by the partial success emotions derived in the following section that are displayed empirically on TV game shows and by the empirical Law of Supply and Demand we will derive in the most fundamental way from the Law of Emotion of Eq18.            

Emotions from Partial Success

First we will develop the excitement felt when a person guesses the 1^st color in the triplet sequence in the V prize awarding game keeping in mind that guessing the 1^st color correctly awards no cash prize in itself. The probability of guessing the 1^st or A color in the (■■, ■■, ■■) game is Z_A=1/3. Once the first color is known, the probability of winning the V prize by guessing the next two colors in the triplet color sequence is

27.)     Z_BZ_C = Z_BC=(1/3)(1/3) = 1/9    

Note the shorthand notation of Z_BC that we will use sometimes to specify the compound probability, Z_BZ_C.  From the E=ZV formula tailored to this particular situation as, the expectation of guessing the triplet sequence increases from E=$100 before the 1^st or A color was guessed to E_A after it is guessed and known as     

28.)     E_A = Z_BCV = (1/9)($2700) = $300        

Now we want to ask what if anything is realized when the 1^st color is guessed. It is not R=V, for the V prize is not awarded when just the 1^st color is guessed. And it’s not R=0, which is what is realized after the guesser has surely failed to guess the triplet sequence and get the V dollar prize. Rather what is realized when the 1^st color is guessed is the E_A increased expectation of guessing the triplet sequence. Thus we specify the E_A expectation in the above as a realization with R subscripted similarly as R_A.

29.)    E_A=R_A=Z_BCV = $300     

Now we can use the Law of Emotion, T= R−E, of Eq18, to obtain the transition emotion generated by guessing the 1^st color with the T term given as T_A, the transition emotion that arises from guessing the 1^st or A color, the R term as R_A=Z_BZ_CV from the above and the E term as the initial E=ZV=Z_AZ_BZ_CV of Eq8.

30.)    T_A = R_A – E = E_A – E = Z_BCV – ZV = Z_BZ_CV – Z_AZ_BZ_CV = (1 − Z_A)Z_BCV = (2/3)(1/3)(1/3)($2700) = $200

And from U_A=1−Z_A as the uncertainty of guessing the 1^st or A color, we simplify T_A in the above as 

31.)   T_A=U_AZ_BCV=$200

This simpler form of the T_A transition emotion that arises from guessing the 1^st color enables us to determine what kind of emotion it might be. To do that, note first that the T=UV excitement of getting the triplet match and winning the R=V=$2700 payoff in one fell swoop of Eq16 can also be written with V=R as

32)      T = UV = UR=(26/27)($2700)=$2600          

And we see that we can rewrite the partial success emotion of Eq31 with Z_BZ_CV=R_A from Eq29 as 

33.)    T_A = U_AZ_BCV = U_AR_A                                  

The quite perfect parallel of the T=UR excitement of Eq32 to T_A=U_AR_A of Eq33 identifies the latter as the excitement felt in guessing the 1^st or A color in the triplet sequence, excitement felt even though correctly guessing the 1^st color doesn’t award the V=$2700 prize or any part of it. Note that the intensity of the partial success excitement of T_A=$200 in Eq31 is significantly less than the T=$2600 excitement of Eq32 that comes from guessing the full triplet sequence that awards the player the V=$2700 prize.

The T_A=U_AR_A excitement from partial success is a universal for all human beings and its form is readily observed in TV game shows like The Price is Right where partial success that provides no prize in itself elicits excitement. This is seen in a contestant getting visibly excited about entry into the Showcase Showdown at the end of the program via the contestant spinning the high number on the spin-off wheel even though doing so obtains no prize in itself.

There are many instances of such partial excitement as seen in other TV game shows and in slot machine playing in casinos where partial success excitement is felt by slots players when they observe the icons on the first two reels of the slot machine match on the way to a potential payoff if the icon on the third reel matches the first two. And there are many other examples of real life behaviors in which partial success excitement arises from partial completion of a goal on the way to achieving a payoff that reaching the goal provides. Observation of partial success excitement on TV game shows and the like as is predicted by the Law of Emotion of Eq18 in the above analysis constitutes an empirical validation of the law and of the mathematics that developed it.    

We will now further validate the Law of Emotion by deriving from it the amount of excitement felt in sequentially guessing the 2^nd and 3^rd colors in the triplet sequence after the 1^st color is guessed and known. From guessing the 1^st or A color the expectation of winning increase from E=ZV=$100 in Eq9 to E_A=R_A=Z_BCV=$300 in Eq29. Now we want to derive from the Law of Emotion, T=R−E, of Eq18 the emotion felt when the 2^nd or B color is guessed next.

The outcome realized from guessing the 2^nd or B color is the greater expectation that makes of guessing the triplet color sequence and winning the V=$2700 prize. Because one only has to guess the 3^rd or C color to win the prize once one has guessed the first two colors, that greater expectation realized from also guessing the 2^nd or B color, E_B, is    

34.)     E_B =Z_CV=R_B=(1/3)($2700)=$900

We specify this increased E_B expectation also as R_B because E_B is what is realized by guessing the 2^nd or B color once one already knows the 1^st or A color. The transition emotion, T_B, that comes from guessing the 2^nd or B color after knowing the 1^st or A color is, from the Law of Emotion, T=R−E, with T as T_B, R as R_B=Z_CV and E as E_A=Z_BZ_CV, the expectation prior to the 2^nd or B color being guessed.     

35.)    T_B = R_B−E_A = E_B−E_A= Z_CV − Z_BZ_CV = (1−Z_B)Z_CV = U_BZ_CV = (2/3)(1/3)($2700) = $600

Writing T_B = U_BZ_CV via Z_CV=R_B of Eq34 as T_B=U_BR_B makes it clear in its parallel to the excitement expression of T=UR of Eq32 that T_B=U_BR_B is the partial excitement felt when the 2^nd or B color is guessed once the 1^st or A color is known.

And we can also use the Law of Emotion, T=R−E, to derive the excitement felt in guessing the 3^rd or C color in the triplet sequence after having guessed the first two colors. The realized outcome in that case is the actual awarding of the V prize, R=V, and the expectation that precedes the guess of the 3^rd of C color is from Eq34, E_B=Z_CV. Hence from the Law of Emotion, T=R−E, with T as T_C, R=V and E as E_B=Z_CV is  

36.)    T_C = R−E_B = V – Z_CV = (1−Z_C)V = U_CV = (2/3)($2700) = $1800

Writing T_C = U_CV from R=V as T_C=U_CR and the parallel of that to the excitement expression, T=UR, of Eq32, makes it clear that T_C = U_CR is the excitement felt when the 3^nd or C color is guessed after guessing the first two colors as completes the triplet color sequence and obtains the V=$2700 prize. Note that the intensity of the T_C=$1800 partial excitement from guessing the 3^rd or C color and finally winning the V=$2700 prize is significantly greater than that of the T_A=$200 and T_B=$600 partial success excitements. And this significantly greater excitement of finally winning the prize after prefatory partial success is what is empirically observed in game shows like “The Price is Right” where actually winning the Showcase Showdown has the winner jumping up and down and running around on the stage screaming with much more excitement displayed than the excitement of just getting into the Showcase Showdown.   

The validity of the Law of Emotion, T=R−E, on which this analysis is based is further reinforced in the three partial excitements, T_A, T_B and T_C, adding up to the T=UV=$2600 excitement of guessing the triplet sequence in one fell swoop in Eq17.  

37.)    T_A + T_B + T_C = $200 + $600 + $1800 = $2600 =T=UV             

It is also of value to note what happens if you were to guess the first two colors in the guessing game correctly but then get the 3^rd or C color wrong and fail to get the V=$2700 prize, R=0. To evaluate the T_C emotion generated by this ultimate failure following prefatory partial success, we evaluate the T_C=R−E_B form of the Law of Emotion of Eq36 but with R=0 when the 3^rd color is guessed incorrectly.

38.)    T_C = R−E_B = 0 – Z_CV = – Z_CV = −(1/3)($2700)= −$900

The form of the T_­C= −Z_CV=  −$900 transition identifies it as the disappointment felt in failing to guess the triplet sequence correctly after prefatory partial success. Note that it is a much greater disappointment than the T = −ZV= −$100 disappointment of Eq13 of failure without initial success and increased expectation of final success. This fits human experience universally, initial partial success at achieving a goal feeling especially disappointing and unpleasant when the goal is not reached despite the initial partial successes.

Also note that the −$800 difference between the T_C= −$900 disappointment and the T= −$100 disappointment is equal to in magnitude and rescinds of $800 sum of T_A+ T_B=$200+$600 = $800 excitement of guessing the first two colors correctly before failing at guessing the 3^rd color. The above scenarios spelled out in mathematical language are quite stunning in their fidelity to what people actually feel and as such are a powerful validation of the Law of Emotion, T=R−E, of Eq18 that derived them. The linear addition and subtraction of the emotions is very important in showing behavior to be controlled hedonistically by pleasure and displeasure because without that linearity there is no way to show with exactness that people act on combinations of competing and reinforcing emotions.

The E=ZV=V−UV representation of expectation that includes one’s ZV hopes for the prize, one’s V desire or wish for it and one’s −UV anxiety over getting it make it clear that guessing the colors correctly one at a time serially increases the pleasure of expectation from E=ZV to E_A=Z_BZ_Cv=Z_BCV to E_B=Z_CV to R=V while at the same time serially reducing the unpleasant feeling of anxiety from –UV to –U_BC to –U_C to U=0 when success is finally had.

This makes it clear that as the displeasure of anxiety goes down, the pleasure of expectation or one’s hopes goes up, the emotional motivations for working towards getting the V prize, hence, being the concomitant acquisition of pleasure and the reduction of displeasure. That is to say, getting pleasure and avoiding displeasure work together and more or less simulataneously in hedonistic motivation.       

The Law of Supply and Demand

The validity of the Law of Emotion is further reinforced by its deriving the Law of Supply and Demand for commodity pricing in market economies. The commodity to be purchased in our guessing game model for goal oriented behaviors is the information on the 1^st or A color in the three color sequence. To develop the Law of Supply and Demand from it, the color guessing game should be understood as played with an agent who picks the colors from (■■, ■■, ■■) and knows them before the player makes his guess of what they are.

This agent can also sell the information of the 1^st or A color to the guesser for a price. We determine the fair price for that information to be a price that maintains the E=$100 average return of Eq9 the player had before buying the 1^st color from the agent. Once the information on 1^st color is purchased and known, the average payoff for the player increases from E=$100 to E_A=$300 of Eq28. Hence the fair price, W_A, must be such that its subtraction as an operating cost from the improved E_A=$300 average payoff must be equal to the original E=$100 average payoff.    

39.)    E_A− W_A= E

Solving the above for W_A obtains the fair price for the 1^st or A color using the equivalences in Eqs30&31 as     

40.)    W_A = E_A−E = Z_BZ_CV – ZV = U_AZ_BCV = T_A = U_AE_A = $200

Of course the player as buyer would want to pay as little as possible for the 1^st color and the agent as seller would want to charge as much as possible for it. But W_A=$200 is the fair price of the 1^st color in its keeping the average profit of E=$100 per game the same as when the 1^st color was not known from Eq39.

The W_A=U_AE_A fair price of Eq40 is the most primitive and fundamental form of the Law of Supply and Demand in specifying it in terms of the human emotions that ultimately control all behavior including the purchasing of commodities in a market economy. In Economics 101 the Law of Supply and Demand specifies the price of a commodity as an increasing function of the demand for it and a decreasing function of the supply of it. Equivalently, by understanding scarcity as the inverse of supply the Law of Supply and Demand specifies the price of a commodity as an increasing function of demand and scarcity.

The emotional measure of the scarcity of a commodity for a buyer is the uncertainty had in obtaining it, the more scarce the commodity, the more uncertain any buyer is in being able to obtain it. In this instance of the commodity being the information on the 1^st color, the uncertainty in guessing the color is the measure of its scarcity for the player, U_A=1−Z_A=2/3, the first term in the W_A=U_AE_A fair price formula of Eq40, also understandable as the player’s difficulty in getting the 1^st color.

And the emotional measure of the buyer’s demand for the commodity of the 1^st color is its value, the greater the value, the more the buyer is reasonably assumed to want or demand the commodity. In this case the value of the commodity is the average payoff knowing the 1^st color gets the player of the E_A=Z_BZ_CV=$300 term in the W_A=U_AE_A fair price expression of Eq40.  

Hence the W_A=U_AE_A fair price of Eq40 as an increasing function of demand and scarcity is an elemental expression of the pricing Law of Supply and Demand. This derivation of price from the Law of Supply and Demand, a firm empirical law universally accepted as correct, as a function of U_A uncertainty as scarcity and E_A expectation as demand, is a powerful validation of the Law of Emotion, T=R−E, of Eq18 from which it was derived.

There are a number of fascinating important ramifications of this most primitive form of the Law of Supply and Demand. Note the equivalence in Eq40 of the W_A=$200 fair price for the 1^st color and the T_A=W_A=$200 excitement in guessing the 1^st color. This quantitative equivalence of the excitement felt in obtaining the 1^st color by guessing it and the price paid for it when buying it strongly suggests that the price of a commodity is a measure of the pleasurable excitement the commodity provides as very much fits economic reality as seen in TV ads that promote their products by touting their exciting nature.  

Because of the linear proportionality of money to the time it takes to earn money as seen in the dollars per hour wage that most people derive their income from the Law of Supply and Demand derived as W_A=U_AE_A=T_A in Eq40 extends beyond showing that people spend money to get things that pleasurably excite them to also showing that people spend their time to get things that pleasurably excite them.  

The importance of the this extends beyond the E=ZV hopeful expectation to get money game to the E= −Uv fearful expectation of losing money game to show that people also spend their money and time to get things that give them the pleasure of Uv relief. The derivation of this for relief via the v penalty game is a simple parallel of what we have just done for excitement in the V prize game, its details left to the reader. We will simply state the most important conclusions here.

Guessing the 1^st color for the v penalty game produces a sense of partial relief that in parallel to the T_A=U_AZ_BZ_CV partial excitement of Eq31 of guessing the 1^st color in the V prize game is    

41.)       T_A = U_AZ_BCv

And one can also derive a fair price, W_A, for purchasing the 1^st color of the v penalty incurring game that in parallel to W_A= U_AZ_BCV =T_A of Eq40 for the V prize game is

42.)       W_A= U_AZ_BCv = T_A           

This W_A=U_AZ_BCv=T_A fair price formula tells us that people also spend their money and their time to obtain T_A=U_AZ_BCv relief in addition to spending their money and time to obtain T_A=U_AZ_BCV excitement. This is a very strong validation of the Law of Emotion given the observed generalization that people spend their money and their time on things that provide either relief or excitement or in some form as is readily seen in TV ads whose products are pitched as providing either relief, as with medicine and insurance, or excitement, as with exciting cars, exciting food and exciting vacations and the like.      

Understanding people to spend their time to get the pleasure of excitement from the alleviation of the displeasure of anxiety and to get the pleasure of relief from the alleviation of the displeasure of fear is the essence of hedonism, people acting to obtain pleasure and avoid displeasure. This should make it clear that Evolutionary Hedonism is not a philosophical encouragement for people to seek pleasure and avoid displeasure, but rather a conclusion drawn from universal introspective observation and unarguable mathematical logic that people just do behave to achieve pleasure and eliminate displeasure. It’s not that people should act hedonistically, but that everybody does act hedonistically.

That should be obvious even without mathematical analysis from the epidemic mass obesity of Americans, none of whom freely will their obesity but rather eat themselves into a ball of blubber because of the pleasures of eating that partially and temporarily alleviate the displeasures of their unhappiness in life that arises from this highly evolved slave colony we all are forced to live in. The alternative explanation of behavior to hedonism is the “free will” notion that people do what they do because they want to do it, which is not only ridiculous from the point of view of the obesity epidemic but also epistemologically begs the question of the underlying cause of why we “freely will” to do what we do, which is the emotional machinery of the human mind that we are laying out in Evolutionary Hedonism.   

The idea that behavior is ultimately driven by our emotions, by our seeking pleasure and avoiding displeasure, is dismissed by slave colony societies in favor of free will because the concept of free will is necessary for legitimizing the blame and punishment needed to keep people in line and obedient to the rules and authorities of a slave colony society. It is not allowed to locate the cause of behavior in pleasure and displeasure because the moral rules of a slave colony society demand that people avoid some pleasurable things, like being free to follow your instincts within the constraints of reasonable cooperation, and that people endure some very unpleasant things, like licking the boss’s ass every day to keep the job. These demands on the wage slave are much more difficult to rationalize, enforce and have accepted if the salve correctly understands that seeking pleasure and avoiding displeasure is the natural way the mind works and that he or she accepts their painful control not by freely willing it but by threat of greater displeasures if they don’t accept it.     

How insistently the scientifically absurd notion of free will is demanded to be accepted is seen in the Spanish Inquisition of medieval Christendom whose terror and torture of disobedient serfs was so rationalized by the concept of free will that those who denied it were burned at the stake. The bogus concept of free will is still preached today by clerics and psychobabblers to be as certain as the coming of dawn and for the same reason of keeping today’s wage controlled serfs in line and obedient. It should be made clear that the etiological explanation of mental illness in clinical psychology is as blurred and ridiculous as the notion of the devil as the cause of evil and unhappiness. Pressure to conform and obey in today’s highly evolved slave colonies is what drives people insane.     

The vague notion of free will has also incorrectly been accepted over the years as the root cause of behavior because the human emotions that actually do cause behavior, in not being externally observable sensations, have been impossible to characterize with any precision prior to our doing so mathematically in Evolutionary Hedonism.

The Role of the Transition Emotions

While we have explained the origin of the transition emotions with the T=R−E Law of Emotion of Eq18, we have not yet explained their function or purpose. To answer that let’s reexamine the T_A partial success excitement of Eq33 and express it in a slightly different way.  

43.)                T_A=ΔE=E_­A−E=U_AE_A=U_AR_A            

Focus in on the term in the above that expresses T_A partial success excitement as

44.)                T_A=ΔE

This ΔE (”delta E”) term means a difference in expectation, more specifically the change in expectation from antecedent or initial expectation prior to subsequent expectation. In the case of T_A excitement in the V=$2700 prize game with (■■, ■■, ■■) ΔE represents the change or increase in expectation from the initial E=ZV=$100 expectation to subsequent E_A=Z_BZ_CV=$300 from correctly guessing the 1^st color that produces the T_A=ΔE=$200 transition emotion of partial success excitement. This can also be understood as the T_A partial success excitement increasing E expectation to E_A expectation as the function of T_A in our emotional machinery, to alter expectation. To express this for all the T transition emotions as their function let’s write out Eq44 in the most general way as

45.)            T=ΔE=E₂−E₁

In this rendition, T is any transition emotion and E₁ and E₂ are respectively the prior and subsequent expectations felt. It is easier to see the function of the transition emotions    as changing your expectation if we write the above as 

46.)            T + E₁ = E₂

When the E₁ prior expectation is the initial E expectation in the V prize game and the subsequent E₂ expectation is the E_A increased expectation that comes from guessing the 1^st color, we would write this as

47.)            T_A­ + E = E_A  

This says that the T_A=$200 partial success excitement from guessing the 1^st or A color increases or boosts the initial E=$100 expectation to E_A=$300, or put colloquially that exciting success increases confidence in or the expectation of ultimately achieving the goal, here getting the V dollar prize. These two emotions of T_A excitement and E_A increased expectation can be described by the player feeling that are felt more or less simultaneously “I got the 1^st color!” and “I have a better chance now of winning the prize.”

Much as we expressed E=ZV in terms of –UV anxiety in Eq21 as E=V−UV, we can also express E_A=Z_BCV as E=V−U_BCV where U_BC is the uncertainty in guessing the triplet sequence after the 1^st color is guessed as the U_BC=1−Z_BZ_C =1−Z_BC converse of the Z_BC probability of guessing the triplet sequence after knowing the 1^st color. As U_BC < U, the uncertainty having been reduced from U=26/27 to U_BC=8/9 by guessing the 1^st color, the T_A=$200 partial success excitement can also be understood as reducing anxiety over the possibility of failing to get the triplet sequence.    

The change in an E₁ initial expectation by a T transition emotion extends to all the transition emotions we have considered. The feeling of T_A= –ZV disappointment experienced when one fails to guess the 1st color also brings about a ΔE=E_A−E change in expectation, but in that case a reduction in the initial E=ZV=$100 expectation of guessing the triplet color sequence to an E_A=0 expectation that specifies the impossibility of guess the three color sequence once you’ve missed the 1^st color. The T_A= −ZV disappointment from missing the 1^st color decreasing the expectation of success to zero is clear from Eq47 specified with E=ZV as the initial expectation and T_A= −ZV as the transition emotion of disappointment.     

48.)                E_A =E+T_A =ZV−ZV=0

Transition emotion also changes expectation in the v=$2700 penalty game with (■■, ■■, ■■). Correctly guessing the 1^st or A color changes the initial E= −Uv= −$2600 fearful expectation of Eq23 of incurring the v penalty to  

49.)               E_A= −U_BCv= –(1−Z_BZ_C)v=  −(8/9)($2700)= −$2400

The T=ΔE transition emotion that results from the decrease in fearful expectation from E= −$2600 to E_A= −$2400 is by reference to Eq41 the partial success relief gotten from guessing the 1^st color.    

50.)              T_A=ΔE=E_A−E= −$2400 –(−$2600) = U_AZ_BCv= (2/3)(1/3)(1/3)($2700)= $200

This says that the function of the T_A= U_AZ_BCv partial relief in guessing the 1^st color is to decrease fearful expectation from E to E_A as follows the general rule of Eqs46&47. Recall now from Eq25 the expression of E= −Uv in terms of Zv=$100 security as E= −v+Zv. This has us write E= −U_BCv= −(1−Z_BC)v  in a parallel way as –v+Z_BCv where Z_BCv=$300 is the increased security of avoiding the v penalty after the 1^st color is guessed correctly. This tells us that the relief provided in guessing the 1^st color can be interpreted as bringing about not only a decrease in fearful expectation but also feelings of increased security.      

The T=ΔE law holds also for the transition emotion of dismay.  Let us consider what happens to the fearful expectation of Eq49 after the 1^st color was guessed if the 2^nd or B color is not guessed correctly. Describing the dynamic in terms of Eq45, T=ΔE=E₂−E₁, specifies the E_A expectation in Eq49 as E₁= −$2400 with the subsequent E₂ expectation understood as the E₂=R= −v= −$2700 realization of incurring the v penalty, one might say, with R= −v realization understood as the sure expectation of the penalty. This generates from T=ΔE dismay of intensity

51.)                T_B = E₂ – E₁ = −v –(−U_BCv)= −$2700+$2400= −$300

This can be understood as the T_B dismay increasing fearful expectation to the maximum of the realization of the v penalty and of the reduction of the Z_BZ_Cv=$300 security felt after the 1^st color was guessed to zero. Note also that the mathematical representation of a realization, of something actually happening, as a kind of expectation, one that happens for sure, with a probability equal to 1, understands T=ΔE as the most general form of the Law of Emotion, T=R−E, in its understanding R, the end point realization of a behavior, here guessing colors, as an expectation, a totally sure one.             

Hence, in all of these examples for the four transition emotions of excitement, disappointment, relief and dismay we see the function or purpose of the transition emotion to be to a change on expectation, in colloquial terms, excitement increasing confidence and decreasing anxiety, relief decreasing fearful expectation and increasing security, disappointment decreasing confidence and increasing anxiety and dismay increasing fearful expectation and decreasing security. The fit of this universal human emotional experience to the mathematical analysis is a powerful validation of the Law of Emotion generalized as T=ΔE=E₂−E₁ of Eq45 and expressed in terms of its expectation changing function as E₂=E₁+T of Eq46.      

Another way that the T=ΔE Law of Emotion operates importantly describes how people react to a new situation they come upon that is either an opportunity or a threat. Let us specifically consider the offer to play the V prize game with (■■, ■■, ■■) an opportunity to win V=$2700. The expectation of obtaining the V=$2700 prize prior to the offer is E₁=0 and after the offer is made, E₂=E=ZV=$100. The Law of Emotion as T=ΔE=E₂−E₁ of Eq45 with E₁=0 is T=E₂=E=ZV=$100, which says that the E=$100 is equivalent to or synonymous with T=$100 excitement. And that is exactly what people feel when such an opportunity is presented, anticipatory excitement about the possibility of winning V=$2700 along with E=T=$100 being their level or expectation or confidence in winning the money. This equivalence in opportunity of excitement and hopeful; expectation is obvious in game shows like The Price is Right and Let’s Make a Deal when the contestants are first chosen from the audience and have high hopes of winning admixed with enormous excitement openly displayed.  

This confluence of excitement and confidence is an entirely general phenomena obvious also in the E₂=E₁+T expression of Eq46 being applied to the partial excitements we have considered being felt simultaneously as expectation or an increase in expectation when the colors in the game are guessed one at a time.               

The unexpected coming upon of a threat like being forced to play the v penalty also produces via T=ΔE=E₂−E₁ the dismay and fearful expectation equivalence of T=E₂=E=−Uv=−$2600. This is indeed what people do feel, universally, when a threat is suddenly presented, dismay at its appearance and fearful expectation in its consequences. The fit of this universal human emotional experience to the mathematical analysis is again a powerful validation of the Law of Emotion and of Evolutionary Hedonism generally.

The Equivalence of Expectation and Excitement

Consider next when the opportunity to play the color guessing game and get “a chance” to win V=$2700 is made for the player. Prior to getting this opportunity, the player’s expectation of winning the V=$2700 is E₁=ZV=0. The player has no chance because the game is not offered. Once the game is offered, the expectation of winning the V=$2700 increases to E₂=ZV=$100 from Eq9. Now from Eq45, T=ΔE=E₂−E₁, a transition emotion of excitement we shall label T₀ arises

51a.)              T₀=ΔE=E₂−E₁=ZV−0=$100    

According to everything we have discussed, the T₀ transition emotion is one of excitement, T₀=ΔE=$100, on the one hand, and T₉=E₂=ZV=$100 expectation or hopes, on the other. Here we see expectation being equal to or synonymous with excitement. And, indeed, when a person gets a chance to play for $2700, the do simultaneously excitement about the possibility of winning V= −$2700 on the order of T₀=$100 and hopes of winning T₀=E₂=ZV=$100. This excitement is excitement of expectation rather than excitement from realization, projective excitement, a totally common and universal feeling.

Now let’s look at what happens when the person guesses the 1^st or A color. He feels from Eq31 partial success excitement of T_A=$200 and an increased expectation from Eq28 of E_A=$300. While these two emotions generated from guessing the 1^st or A color are not equal, we do see that there is an equivalence between excitement and expectation as             

51b.)              T₀+T_A=$100+$200=E_A=$300

This fits human feelings if we understand the excitement to be cumulative or “building up” as it is colloquially described. This continues on after the second color is guessed with the excitement building up from T_B=$600 of Eq35, which further builds excitement from previous T₀ and T_A to be equivalent to the E_B new expectation of Eq34 as

51c.)              T₀ +T_A + T_B =$100+$200+$600=E_B=$900                  

In this way we understand our hopes of gain to be exciting, which fits the notion of excitement as motivating action, here towards a goal, of getting the V=$2700 prize, the cumulative or built up excitement of T₀ +T_A + T_B = $900= E_B.  If we add to the above the final “installment” of T_C=$1800 excitement from Eq36 that comes from finally guessing the 3^rd or C color, which confers the V=$2700 prize, we see that the excitement in getting V builds up from start to finish, from before the game was even available to play to the guessing of the triplet color sequence to

51d.)              T₀ +T_A + T_B + T_C =$100+$200+$600 + $1800 =V=R=$2700                      

Understanding the U uncertainty from the very start when the game is absolutely unavailable to play to be U=1=100% as the probability of failing to get the V=$2700 prize generates renders the E=ZV=V−UV expectation of Eq21 with Z=(1−U)=(1−1)=0 as

51e.)              E=ZV=0=V−UV=V−V

This very much fits common experience, there being no expectation of getting the V prize when there is absolutely no opportunity to play the game, with the V−V=0 rightmost term specifying a V wish or desire for the cash prize being balanced and eliminated by a –V maximum meaningful uncertainty or anxiety about getting the V prize. Note that the V wish or desire, a pleasant feeling, can be from Eq51d also understood as projected excitement about getting V, which is dampened by –UV anxiety generally and all the way to zero or eliminated when UV= −V when no game is available and the unpleasant feeling of doubt or anxiety matches the pleasant feeling of excitement about fulfilling one’s V desire or wish for the prize.   

In such a situation where the −UV term, though, is erroneously evaluated or supposed as U<1 rather than the correct U=1, the error arising in whatever way, the V wish overcomes the unequal, lesser −UV meaningful uncertainty and the player has an erroneous non=zero, E>0, expectation of getting the prize as the basis of wishful thinking. We consider the nature of incorrect supposition of probable success and how it is rectified by the transition emotions in the next section              

The Supposition of Expectation

In all the foregoing analyses we have assumed that the player’s sense of the probabilities and expectations accurately fit the mathematical properties of the game played. But that does not have to be the case. We want to show next how incorrect suppositions affect all emotions that arise and how The Law of Emotion expressed as T=ΔE provides correction for such errors.  

To illustrate we consider a game where the player needs to guess only one color from (■■, ■■, ■■) to win the V=$2700 prize. With the probability of winning being Z=1/3 the uncertainty, U=1−Z=2/3, and the expectation of winning, E=ZV=(1/3)($2700)=$900. With this Z=1/3 probability of winning, no matter how the player guesses the color, he or she will win on average one time in three and lose two times in three.

Now assume the player incorrectly supposes the bag of blocks picked from is (■■■■, ■, ■). It has with rational guessing a probability of success of Z=1/2=.5 supposed, an uncertainty of U=1−Z=.5 and an expectation we specify as E₁=ZV=.5($2700)=$1350, the player’s initially supposed expectation. Because the bag of blocks picked from is in actual fact (■■, ■■, ■■), the player will win, on average, one time in three with excitement T=UV=.5($2700)=$1350 and fail to win two times in three with disappointment each time of T= −ZV= −.5($2700)= −$1350. Note that the intensities of the transition emotions of excitement and disappointment depend on the player’s incorrect supposed expectation.            

As we saw in and following Eq33, the emotions add and subtract in a linear way. Hence we sum the T transition emotions experienced on average from three plays to 

52.)                ∑ T = $1350 − $1350 − $1350 = −$1350          

And from this we obtain the player’s average T transition emotion felt by dividing the sum of the three by 3.

53.)                     

This average actual transition emotion then changes the initial E₁ expectation according to the T=ΔE=E₂−E₁ Law of Emotion expressed from Eq46 as

54.)                E₂ = E₁ + T = $1350 −$450 = $900

This says that the original incorrect expectation of E₁=$1350 is reduced or dampened to the correct expectation of E₂=$900 that arises from the bag of blocks being (■■, ■■, ■■) rather than the erroneous (■■■■, ■, ■) from the average transition emotion felt of T= −$450 disappointment. This quite exactly fits the universal emotional dynamic of a person’s expectations from a behavior being reduced by disappointment.

Parallel analyses that we will not give the computational details of here says that an E₁ underestimations of expectation will lead to an average T transition emotion of excitement that from the Law of Emotion as E₂=E₁+T raises the E₁ underestimation of expectation to the E₂ correct estimation. Similarly, incorrect suppositions of fearful expectation are corrected by the Law of Emotion with average dismay from experience raising initial underestimations of fearful expectation and average relief lowering initial overestimations. Universal emotional experience fits this mathematical analysis well to powerful validate the Law of Emotion that occupies a central place in Evolutionary Hedonism.   

The sources of erroneous suppositions of expectation are many. Certainly when the player’s supposition of the probabilities in the guessing game are based on  a true knowledge of the factors that determine them along with enough mathematical sense to properly interpret them, his or her emotions are correctly fit the reality of the situation. In situations where the probabilities of success are less salient and/or the player lacks the mathematical sense to properly translate observable factors into exact probabilities and expectations as in casino gambling, players’ suppositions don’t match reality. This can affect whether a game is favorable or not to making money for the player and should be engaged in or avoided as we shall consider shortly in the next two sections.

Often it is in the interest of an outside agent to cause error in the player’s supposition of the Z and U probabilities of success and failure. This is obviously the case in casino gambling where the casino provides various inputs that instinctively affect the level of excitement in a player, which, as we have shown, affects players’ expectations of winning money and/or avoiding its loss. Such inputs of excitement include music, especially played loud along with bright lights and excitement inducing video effects as is common in modern slot machines. And without getting into the details of how they operate, the ingestion of alcohol, which is distributed at no cost to patrons in casinos, and the ubiquitous sexual display, also common in casinos, increase excitement to increase confident expectation as brings about erroneous suppositions of the probability of winning.

Such jiggling of the emotions by instinctive excitement inducing inputs such as having misinformation transmitted via song and dance and disingenuous voice tone and gestures also takes place in media broadcasts directed to having the audience develop suppositions on probabilities of success and failure as are propitious to the welfare of the privileged class and deleterious to the exploited class. This sense of the supposition of expectation controlling our emotions rather than the actual mathematical expectation is very important in determining our behavioral choices, which will be considered in depth in the next section.

Before getting into that we want to elaborate on the nature of misinformation as propaganda that intentionally propagates The Big Lie that society is essentially an extension of the family with family values that have positive or pleasant expectation for people instead of what should be the fearful expectations of flipside of The Big Lie, which is The Horrible Truth of the unhappiness of life that awaits people in a society that is best described and shown to be mathematically in a later section correctly a highly evolved slave colony.

The Big Lie does not come about entirely from direct misinformation. Some of it arises from instinctive expectations that are not fulfilled in our modern wage slave society. Children have a natural sense of wishes for things that are fulfilled by their parents. To illustrate in terms of the color guessing game, the E=ZV expectation expressed as E=V−UV that highlights the wish for the V prize diluted by the –UV term for anxiety about realizing the wish translates in a general sense to a child’s wish for something of V value, any −UV anxiety about getting it taken care of by the parents who provide the V valued item wished for.

In primitive pre-civilized non-exploitive societies the −UV anxiety over obtaining items desired as with survival needs in difficult times is reduced by expectation that the group cooperatively will help out as reduces –UV meaningful uncertainty of the individual. This expectation that lingers instinctively as reinforced by propaganda into early adulthood is basically a delusion shattered by the reality of midlife, which is what brings about the classic midlife crisis.

The delusion extends to belief that a never seen magical creature is there like a parent to fulfill wishes and desires as dilutes people’s −UV anxiety and anxieties especially when one’s asks the god as one does a parent through prayer to grant the wishes of the religious believer thoroughly caught up in the god delusion. It should be clear, the more –UV meaningful uncertainties a person has whose displeasure needs to be resolved via the prayed for and promised intervention of a god, the more the person accepts or believes in the god because the reduction in unpleasant –UV uncertainty is quite pleasant by comparison.

Note that a person not a believer in the magical god who retains his or her painful –UV meaningful uncertainties and understands their cause to be the wage slave society he or she is forced to live in is a much more troublesome individual for the privileged class who live off the labor and delusions of the working class. It is for that reason that most of the various kinds of servile societies in the civilized world - past and present - sponsor and support religious beliefs that essentially keep the underclass of workers from revolting against the tyranny imposed on them.                

All of this is getting quite ahead of ourselves with the crisp mathematical analysis and proof of these sociopolitical assertions to be given a few sections down in the section on the mathematics of propaganda and after the mathematical section on Darwinian natural selection. For now we proceed with a section on how our emotions determine what we select to do from a menu of possibilities.             

The Law of Emotion and Behavioral Selection

The basic mechanism for selecting which behavior to do from a menu of available behaviors depends on the E expectations associated with them. Consider that a player has a choice of two V prize, triplet sequence guessing games to play, one from (■■, ■■, ■■) and the other from (■■■, ■■, ■). The expectation of winning from (■■, ■■, ■■) is from Eq98, E=$100 specified as E₁=$100 for reasons that will become clear in a moment.

And assuming he will play by rational guessing with (■■■, ■■, ■), from Eq6a, Z_A=Z_B=Z_C=(7/18) and with Z=Z_AZ_BZ_C=(7/18)³=.0558, we see that the expectation for this game is E₂=$159. The difference between the two expectations can be calculated from the T=ΔE Law of Emotion written in a different way as 

55.)      τ=ΔE;                  τ₁ = ΔE = E₁ – E₂;        τ₂=ΔE= E₂ – E₁

From the practical perspective of maximizing the cash payoff the player would choose the E₂=$159 game with (■■■, ■■, ■) because its average payoff per game is greater than that with (■■, ■■, ■■) of E₁=$100. This is also concluded from the τ=ΔE form of the Law of Emotion as follows. What we call the selection emotion as τ (the Greek letter, τ) is positive for the E₂=$159 game.

 

56.)                τ₂ = ΔE=E₂−E₁= $159−$100 = $59

 

We understand τ₂= $59 to be a pleasant emotion from its positive sign and it is its pleasant feeling that determines the player’s choice of it from the purely hedonistic principle of people seeking pleasure. This is in contrast to the τ selection emotion being negative or unpleasant for the E₁=$100 choice as τ₁=E₁−E₂=$100−$159= −$159, which prompts to avoidance.    

 

There are many ramifications to this selection mechanism, not the least important of which is the player having correct suppositions about the expectations. If the player had erroneously thought the (■■, ■■, ■■) game to be a (■■■■, ■, ■) game whose triplet sequence probability of success is Z=.5³=.125 and expectation, E₁=$338, he would have erroneously chosen the E₁=$100 game and lost money in doing so. While an error in this case is possibly minor and quickly rectifiable as experience corrects the error, incorrect suppositions of expectation can be very costly and irreversible in some financial decisions and even more so in long term life decisions whose erroneous payoffs are not detectible for many years and are irreversible as such. The source of a person’s expectations in modern life as from commercial advertisements, religious notions and other aspects of tradition in a culture is a very important topic we will discuss in depth in a later section.        

 

The most elemental principle of choice is for a player to choose a behavior that has a positive or pleasant outcome such as playing a V prize game and to avoid playing a game that has a negative or unpleasant outcome like the v penalty incurring game. That is, indeed, why we stated that the player must be forced to play the E= −Uv unpleasant penalty game because otherwise he would avoid it because the negative economic consequence of potentially losing money as neurologically signaled by its unpleasant expectation.

 

Note also that the essential controlling function for selection is the distinction between expectations as it was for the generation of transition emotions, both of which are embodied in the Law of Emotion expressed as τ=ΔE and T=ΔE. This points to a great simplicity of the mind in its central functions being controlled by one simple principle, that of our intuitive or instinctive ability to distinguish between expectations on the basis of whether they are pleasant or unpleasant and on the intensity of those pleasures and displeasures.               

 

In Eq56, we considered the choice between two positive expectations. Now we want to consider the choice made when one is forced to choose between two negative expectations, E= −Uv. In that case one chooses from τ=ΔE the game with the less fearful expectation or the “lesser of two evils” known as a Hobson’s choice. If one must choose between playing the v=$2700 penalty imposing game from (■■, ■■, ■■) with U=(26/27)=.963 and E₁= −Uv= −$2600 or from (■■■■, ■, ■) with uncertainty of U=.875 and an expectation of E₂= − U= −$2362.50, it is clear from the Law of Emotion, τ=ΔE that the latter is preferred from

 

57.)       τ₂ = E₂−E₁ = −$2362.50 –(−2600)=$337.50

 

This makes it clear from the positive sign of τ₂>0 that the (■■■■, ■, ■) game with E₂= −$2362.50 is selected because of the pleasant feeling one gets from choosing it. The pleasant emotion one feels in a Hobson’s choice is a kind of relief, relief in avoiding the greater penalty and displeasure of the choice with greater fearful expectation. Indeed, the Hobson’s choice of the unpleasant E₂ fearful negative expectation is taken despite the fact that it is unpleasant as would cause the player to avoid it if he were not forced to choose between one game or the other.

Many choices in modern society are Hobson’s choices for one obeys rules even if unpleasant the alternative to the worse displeasure of the punishment imposed for disobeying the rules. Most people in today’s highly evolved slave colonies are Hobson’s choosers whose primary pleasure in life is relief other than the incorrect supposition of a positive expectation awaiting them after they die for eternity with a God in Heaven whom we show later with firm mathematical proof cannot possibly exist. Such suppositions of pie in the sky expectations inculcated in childhood are difficult to shake especially when reinforced as the person gets older by the culture, which has much to gain in fostering religious delusions that propitiate obedience to the authorities and rules of the culture, as all religions do. 

Games with Mixed Emotion

 

Next we will look at behaviors with mixed expectations illustrated using a guessing game that has both a Z probability of winning a V prize and a U=1−Z risk of a v penalty if one guesses incorrectly. This mixed emotion game is recognized as a gamble in its having the compound expectation of

 

58.)    E = ZV − Uv  

 

For the (■■, ■■, ■■) game with a prize of V=$2700 and a penalty of v=$90, ZV=$100, Uv=$87 and E=$13 and in being positive and pleasant shows this to be a good gamble, one worth playing. If the penalty is instead v=$125, though, with Uv=$120 and ZV=$100, E= −$20 worth of displeasure in anticipation of the outcome and a bad gamble that shouldn’t be played. The compound mathematical expectations in both cases are average outcomes, the pleasant one of E=$13 representing an average monetary gain per game and the unpleasant E= −$20, an average monetary loss per game.

 

Another mixed emotion scenario is when two separate games are played, a pleasant one for gain and an unpleasant one for loss, and not necessarily played at the same time. You might play the game with a v=$90 penalty and Uv=$87 average cost per game 100 times on Monday as the price for getting to play the V=$2700 game with a ZV=$100 average prize per game 100 times on Tuesday, taking the immediate loss to obtain an overall gain or profit of E=$13 with your initial losses understood as the sacrifice or investment you have to make today for the gain you get tomorrow.

 

Or you may be offered 100 plays of the V=$2700 game with a ZV=$100 average payoff per game on Monday but be required then to also play 100 games with a Uv=$120 penalty on Tuesday for an overall loss of E= −$20 as constitutes an unpleasant punishment on Tuesday for the pleasure of your gain on Monday.     

 

The general rule for gambles and other mixed emotion scenarios is to play when compound E>0 and to not play when E<0. Between two E>0 mixed scenarios, τ=ΔE>0 decides the choice and similarly between two ΔE<0 scenarios, one of which one is forced to choose, the previously mentioned Hobson’s choice.       

 

The notion of “free will” as the mechanism for choosing rather than τ=ΔE is absurd, for to contradict the τ=ΔE selection mechanism is to act not only against the hedonistic pleasure-pain principle but also against economic sensibility given that mathematical expectation plays itself out not only emotionally but also as average payoffs and penalties. A free will choice contrary to τ=ΔE as choosing loss over gain, a lesser gain over a greater gain or a greater loss over a lesser loss, all of which are intuitively felt as unpleasant is simply not done if one is adult and sane enough to consider money meaningful. This is not to deny the pleasure that can accrue for some in arguing for economically foolish decisions on the basis of free will that cost the player money. But the pleasure of winning the argument in doing that must be greater than the displeasure of losing the money as proves that we are guided in all behavior to maximize pleasure and minimize displeasure whatever the source of those pleasant and unpleasant feelings may be.

 

Another scenario that has both pleasant and unpleasant emotion in it is recompense as when a situation forces you into 100 games at a E= −$20 loss per game at a total cost of $2000 made up for by your finding and playing 100 games next that profit you E=+$20 per game to make up for or recompense the loss.    

 

A Primer on Aggression    

 

We introduce the very important aggressive emotions through competitive guessing games, a full and proper characterization of them having to wait until we take up Darwinian natural selection mathematically in a later section. Consider a penalty game player is forced to play by rival with a (■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■, ■, ■)↔(20,1,1) set of blocks. With rational guessing the probability of guessing the color from one pick is from Eq6, δ=.8306, which makes for a Z=δ³=.573 probability of guessing the triplet sequence and of the player avoiding the v=$2700 penalty. The uncertainty in avoiding the penalty or probability of incurring it is U=1−Z=.427. This costs player an average loss per game, understood to be paid to the rival in a competitive game, of

 

59.)             E= −Uv= −.427($2700)= −$1153  

 

Player’s options for getting out of this unpleasant situation are limited. He could escape paying the penalty by running away from the rival and the rival’s control over him, but let’s assume that option is not possible. Player could also act with destructive violence towards the rival to kill or cripple him sufficient to shake the rival’s control. But we don’t want to get into that option until after we consider evolution in a later section.

 

What we’ll consider rather is the player retaliating on the rival by forcing the rival in this (■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■, ■, ■)↔(20, 1, 1) game to pay a γ (Gamma) penalty of γ=$2700 when he, the player, guesses correctly as is done with a probability of Z=(1−U)=.573 for an average payoff per game for the player of ZV=$1547 per game. This retaliative action by the player nets him an average profit per game of

 

60.)             E_α = Zγ − Uv = .573($2700) − .427($2700)= $1547 −$1153 = .146($2700)=$394  

 

And this costs the rival an average per game loss of E_β = Uv – Zγ = −$394. Now to make it clear that this competition is some form of retaliatory aggression by the player against the initial aggressive behavior by the rival, we will start the player and the rival with equal bankrolls of $3940, which after ten plays, on average, causes the rival to loses all his money and wind up out on the street homeless and vulnerable to some form of calamity and destruction.

 

The emotions involved are similar to what we have already considered but with the player’s Zγ pleasant hopes of winning γ=$2700 each game tinged with pleasant aggressive feelings of destroying his rival, his T=Uγ thrill from successful outcomes tinged with feelings of glory from beating the rival and with player’s T= –Zγ disappointment and T= –Zv dismay from his losing at times tinged with feelings of humiliation from being beaten on those occasions by the rival.  And, of course, the rival has the same feelings from winning or losing in each game played.

 

As to why the rival would play in this overall losing game for him, he started the fight by forcing player to play in the initial game that was losing and unpleasant for the player and now for whatever reason one might imagine rival cannot escape player’s retaliation that forces rival to now play this game that’s a loser for him. Or we can attribute the rival playing the losing game to an erroneous supposition by rival of the Z probability of winning.        

 

As stated on the marquee to this section, this is a primer on aggression that does not convey the true nature of destructive aggression. A more complete understanding of it awaits a precise mathematical explanation of natural selection, which we would take up immediately except that before getting into Darwinian evolution we need to first mathematically explain in a precise way the nature of the ideological propaganda that has caused the majority of the American public to reject or seriously question evolution even though it is accepted by 99.99% of biological scientists as one of the most beautiful and clarifying pieces of science that man has developed.  

Diversity, Significance and Propaganda

To understand propaganda in a mathematically precise way we need to start by introducing Simpson’s Reciprocal Diversity Index. As its name implies it is the reciprocal of the Simpson’s Diversity Index, δ, we first introduced back in Eq6.

61.)              

 

Recall from Eq3 that p_i is the ratio of the x_i objects in the subsets of a set to the total number of K objects in the set or p_i=x_i/K, also called the weight fractions of a number set.

This allows us to express D in a slightly more tractable way as

 

62.)            

 

 

As an example consider the (■■, ■■, ■■) set of K=6 objects that are divided into N=3 color categories as x₁=2 red objects, x₂=2 green objects and x₃=2 purple objects. This set of objects, (■■, ■■, ■■), specified in shorthand as the (2, 2, 2) number set, has a D measure of diversity from Eq62 of

63.)              

The D=3 amount of diversity in (■■, ■■, ■■) is readily understood as the N=3 color categories in the set, D=3=N. The D=N categories sense of diversity is further illustrated with the K=25 set of objects, (■■■■■, ■■■■■, ■■■■■, ■■■■■, ■■■■■), subdivided into N=5 color categories, x₁=5 red, X₂=5 green, x₃=5 purple, X₄=5 blue and x₅=5 brown objects or (5, 5, 5, 5, 5). Its diversity is from Eq63, D=5=N. We see that in balanced sets of objects like (2, 2, 2) and (5, 5, 5, 5, 5) the Reciprocal Diversity Index, D, is just the N number of diverse kinds of things in a set. This makes sense intuitively. The more different kinds of things there are in a set, the more diverse the set of things is.          

The D diversity of a set of K objects divided into N subsets is not just a function of the N number of subsets but also of the distribution of the K objects over the N subsets. When the distribution is balanced, D=N. But consider an unbalanced set of K=25 objects divided into N=5 subsets as(■■■■■■, ■■■■■■, ■■■■■■, ■■■■■■, ■), x₁=6, x₂=6, x₃=6, x₄=6 and x₅=1, the (6, 6, 6, 6, 1) set. It has diversity from Eq62 of

64.)          

 

 

This is less than the set’s N=5 number of color subsets. This D=4.31reduction in diversity of the N=5, (6,6, 6, 6, 1) set from the D=N=5 diversity of the (5, 5, 5, 5, 5) set can be understood intuitively from the single, x₅=1, brown object, ■, in the (■■■■■■, ■■■■■■, ■■■■■■, ■■■■■■, ■) set contributing only “token” diversity to the set’s diversity  from that  x₅=1, brown object, ■, being insignificant quantitatively relative to the other color subsets that each have x₁=x₂=x₃=x₄=6 objects in them. Indeed, we can say by rounding off the D=4.31 diversity to D≈4 that there are D=4 significant color subsets in (■■■■■■, ■■■■■■, ■■■■■■, ■■■■■■, ■), the blue, green, purple and blue color subsets with the purple color subset consisting of only x₅=1 purple object being insignificant.     

Now before we consider the most important topic of significance in greater detail, we want to develop the D diversity index more fully mathematically to show why it is such an important function for mathematics and for science generally for explaining nature, human, biological and physical, in a clear way. We do that by showing how the D diversity index is a function of the variance statistical error, σ², of a number set. Below is the computational definition of the variance, which is the square of the more familiar statistical error of the standard deviation, σ.      

65.)                   

The μ term in the definition of the variance is the mean or arithmetic average of a number set.   

66.)               

For the K=25, N=5, (6, 6, 6, 6, 1) number set, the mean is μ=25/5=5, the variance from Eq65 is σ²=4 and the standard deviation is σ=2. It is also helpful to define the relative error, which is just the σ standard error divided by the mean.     

67.)               

The relative error of (6, 6, 6, 6, 1) is r=σ/μ=2/5=.4=40%. Also helpful in our considerations is the square of the relative error, r², called the perfect error.   

68.)               

For the N=5, (6, 6, 6, 6, 1) number set, which has r=.4, the perfect error is r²=.16. The perfect error is referred to as such because it is an elegantly simple measure of a number set in terms of only its weight fractions.

69.)               

For the K=25, (6, 6, 6, 6, 1) set, which has weight fractions, p₁=6/25,  p₂=6/25, p₃=6/25, p₄=6/25, p₁=1/25,

70.)             

The r² perfect error obtains Simpson’s Reciprocal Diversity Index, D, as a statistical function from Eqs63&65 as

71.)                  

 

 

This obtains the D=4.31 diversity of (6, 6, 6, 6, 1) calculated in Eq64 as

72.)              

In measure statistics the r relative error is given along with the μ mean as an independent function used to gauge the accuracy of the μ mean as a data measure. The importance of the D diversity is that it incorporates the r relative error as the r² perfect error into the number set to give a sense of a number set not just in terms of its N subsets but also in terms of the distribution of the K objects in the number set over the subsets.        

This renders the D diversity as an extremely useful function for science in its having broad application to everything in nature that can be represented as a set of numbers. As we shall develop, D is not only the basis for the probabilities of the human emotions as its δ=1/D inverse but also provides for mathematically precise and intuitively clear measures of significance, of cultural propaganda, of a person’s sense of identity, of thermodynamic entropy and of information. Indeed so much so does the D diversity provide a window into nature for a clear understanding of it far beyond Edward Simpson’s original sense of it that we could have presented this work primarily as a new and illuminating unification of science under Simpson’s Diversity Indices, preferring though to focus it on the human emotions and how they control behavior through pleasure and displeasure because that is the facet of it most meaningful in this troubled era for mankind.     

That said, our concern for the moment is how the D diversity index maps the mind’s sense of significance and insignificance and how propaganda techniques take advantage of it to peddle misinformation to people as truth. Consider the D diversity of the three sets of K=21 objects in N=3 colors in the table below.  

Table 73. Sets of K=21 Objects in N=3 Colors and Their D Diversity Indices

The balanced (■■■■■■■, ■■■■■■■, ■■■■■■■)↔(7, 7, 7) set has a D=3 diversity equal to its N=3 number of subsets as D=N. But the unbalanced N=3 set of (■■■■■■■■■■, ■■■■■■■■■■, ■)↔(10, 10, 1) has a D=2.19 diversity index less than D=N=3 because of its imbalance. Rounding off D=2.19 to D≈2 has us interpret the diversity index as specifying 2 significant subsets, an intuitively reasonable specification of the set from the x₃=1 purple object in the (10, 10, 1) set being insignificant in its providing only token diversity in the set.  

This has us understand the (7, 7, 7)↔(■■■■■■■, ■■■■■■■, ■■■■■■■) set with a D=3 diversity as having D=3 significant subsets, red, green and purple, along with the (6, 6, 9)↔(■■■■■■, ■■■■■■, ■■■■■■■■■) set whose D=2.88 diversity rounded off to D≈3 is also interpreted as having 3 significant subsets, the red, the green and the purple. One can get a better feel for how these significance and insignificance measures are intuitively sensed by the human mind visually and specified by it verbally by representing the K=21 colored objects in the sets of Table 73 as K=21 colored threads in the patches of plaid cloth displayed below.  

 
A woman with a plaid skirt with the (10, 10, 1), D≈2, pattern on the left would describe it as a red and green plaid omitting reference to the one thread of purple. She would do this intuitively, automatically, subconsciously without any calculation as to its reasonableness because that is how the mind operates in registering what is significant and what is insignificant. The D≈2 specification of the plaid mathematically tells us there are these 2 significant colors, red and green, with the single purple thread considered insignificant as quite dramatically describes the way the human mind operates. Note how the insignificance of the purple thread indicated by the D≈2 measure of the (10, 10, 1) plaid manifests itself linguistically in its being disregarded in the description of the patch as a red and green plaid.

This should not be surprising given that the word “significance” has as its primary root “sign” meaning “word”, which suggests that what is significant for the human mind is signified or verbalized or mentioned while what is insignificant isn’t signified, verbalized or mentioned, isn’t given a word. This mechanism of the mind is further demonstrated in the two plaids on the right in Figure 74, which have D=3 and D≈3, being intuitively sensed and described by the mind as red, green and purple plaids.  

That mind automatically differentiates the significant from the insignificant by not verbalizing and barely noticing the insignificant is an important factor in human behavior because we tend strongly to think, talk about, pay attention to and act on what we sense to be significant while automatically disregarding the insignificant in thought, talk and behavior.

Politicians and journalists with an ideological crusade to sell to their audience make the realistically significant seem insignificant and the realistically insignificant seem significant by taking advantage of the diversity underpinned operating principles the minds of their audience naturally work on. A very illuminating example is of the Bush administration and its media supporters referring to the invading force in the Iraq War in 2003 as a coalition.

In reality that armed force consisted of N=32 nations’ soldiers approximately distributed as (145,000, 5000, 2000, 2000, 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000, 500, 500, 500, 500, 500, 500, 500, 200, 200, 200, 200, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50). This set’s D number of significant contributors as calculated from Eq62 is D=1.26, which rounds off to D≈1 significant nation in the so-called coalition, the United States, which is at odds with the generally sense of the word coalition as a plural entity.

The political deceit in calling it a coalition as a rationalization for the public of going to war given that N=32 nations were in agreement sufficient to join the so-called coalition is obvious enough to be recognized as deceit by the astute via common sense without the need for this Simpson’s Diversity Index analysis that points to the contributions of N−1=31 of the nation’s contributions to the effort being insignificant or token, though using the D diversity measure allows us to call the Bush administration and supporting media chorus down as liars with mathematical precision.

Also affecting the public’s acceptance of this bloody garbage heap of misinformation beyond the twisting of the meaning of the word coalition is how often the misinformation was repeated again and again by the politicians and our go along corporate owned media as in the phrase “our coalition forces” being blabbered repeatedly for the last decade until the unreality of it is drowned in the bogus significance it is given by its high frequency of repeat.

To understand this analytically let us look at the K=21, (10, 10, 1)↔(■■■■■■■■■■, ■■■■■■■■■■, ■) set in Figure 73 as representing N=3 possible kinds of interpretations of a situation broadcast on TV with the number of blocks for each specifying the frequency of broadcast of each interpretation. This has the red interpretation broadcast with a relative frequency of x₁/K=p₁=10/21=.476, the green interpretation with a frequency of x₂/K=p₂=10/21=.476 and the purple interpretation with a frequency of x₃/K=p₃=1/21=.048.

Much as the purple object in (10, 10, 1)↔(■■■■■■■■■■, ■■■■■■■■■■, ■) back in Figures 73&74 was automatically considered by the mind to be insignificant on the basis of its p₃=1/21 fractional size relative to the other color subsets, so also does p₃=1/21 as a tiny relative frequency of broadcast make the interpretation represented by the purple subset seem insignificant to the viewer relative to the other interpretations, soon to not be noticed and to be ignored no matter what the reality and truth of that interpretation may have been.

While the media has deemed any reference to the Nazi regime of 1930s Germany taboo, it should be pointed out that cleverly repeating misinformation was a hallmark of Hitler’s gang of thugs, the “Big Lie” we called it when they were doing it. Now however much the Fox News crew and their clubhouse of Republican ideologues should never, ever, please, be thought of Nazi types, God-forbid, their strategy of endlessly chorused repetition of nonsense like the denial of Darwin and global warming to drive the significance of these utterly insignificant perspectives is mathematically identical to what that other totalitarian regime did.

And, my how the rest of media, corporate owned and paid for with advertising from capitalist outlets near exclusively, go along with the mass deceptions either by positive reinforcement as with Fox News or in great restraint in pointing out the ludicrousness of the absurd black-is-white positions taken. A laugh was difficult to hold back whenever the Soviet propaganda outlet, Pravda, was mentioned given its translation as Truth. But nobody on the other TV networks shares a good belly laugh about the Fox News masthead marquee of Fear and Balanced, the only fellow who came close to calling their ever full diaper a crock of shit, Keith Olbermann, dropped from sight for stated reasons of disrespecting the mother of one of the LGBT vice presidents of NBC.                     

One could go on and on about the insignificance of workplace interactions, bullying police, intrusive landlords, the unhappiness of the vast majority of Americans and so on, but that would be jumping the gun, for countering the fantasy lie in America pumped into the emotionally vulnerable audience 24/7 requires mathematical analysis firm enough to evict the propaganda from the thinking part of the brain as the statement 2+3=5 kicks out 2+3=7 even when the latter is repeated by politicians, journalists, singing dancers, dancing singers, clerics, admen and sitcom and movie screen writers ad infinitum.         

The empty reasons given in the media why the Tsarnaev brothers bombed the Boston Marathon, reasons that obviate their unhappiness living in America, come to be accepted as reasonable from endless repetition in contrast to the brothers’ little talked about unhappiness, which while it is absolutely no excuse for their horrible deed, is the central reason for what they did, and not just for their violent deed but for the random violence seen in America in general. This is easy to show from the evolutionary analysis of unhappiness and violence in the next section.         

The most obvious piece of sheer nonsense made to seem significant and reasonable by sheer repetition is creationism, observational and logical proof for which is non-existent in contrast to that for evolution, which 99.99% of biological scientists accept. It is the endless repeat of the creationism garbage and downgrading of evolution as if they were two sides of a reasonable disagreement that lends significance to this gross misinformation. To resolve the problem requires the precision of mathematical argument used in the following section. The confluence of the mathematical functions for human emotion and for natural selection to be shown makes human evolution an inescapable conclusion. And down near the end of Evolutionary Hedonism we will give mathematical proof as certain as that for the Pythagorean Theorem that God the Father and Jesus God and Allah and Krishna and the rest of the magical gods born from fertile imaginations do not and cannot possibly exist.

The Mathematics of Natural Selection

We mathematically derive the natural selection component of evolution in a way that the Republican nutjobs can’t dismiss it with their typical smirking arrogance by basing natural selection on the textbook formula for the exponential growth of money in a savings account compounded daily, a piece of banking reality that even the most ardent conservative birdbrains cannot argue about. Money grows in a savings account compounded daily as   

75.)                  

In the above, dx/dt is the rate of growth of that money, t is the time in years the money is kept in the account and g is the annual interest rate. To calculate the amount of money, x, in an account with a g=1%=.01 annual interest rate after leaving an initial deposit of x₀=$1000 in it for t=4 years, we solve the differential equation of Eq75 to its time dependent function of   

 

76.)               

 

In the above e is the base of the natural logarithm equal to 2.718. This equation tells us that x₀=$1000 held in the account for t=4 years with the g=1% interest compounded daily will yield

77.)               

 

This figure is not a matter of political ideology or religious dogma. It is hard banking fact.

 

Money in a savings account is not the only thing that grows exponentially over time. The mineral crystals that make up the earth’s mountains and mature vertebrate bones and teeth grow exponentially as do ideal biological populations that are not limited by environmental constraints or competition. In such ideal biological growth, the growth rate, g, in Eqs75&76 includes not only the production of new organisms specified by the annual birth rate, b, but the death of existing organisms as the population’s annual death rate, d. 

 

78.)                        

 

The growth of money from its g interest rate and the growth of biological organisms from its g growth rate are the same mathematically except that the g biological growth rate includes the d death rate as might be mimicked in a savings account were the bank to levy a cost to store money in an account proportional to the amount of money in the account, something the ever greedy banks might do if they thought they could get away with it.

Exponential growth assumes that what is growing - be it dollars or organisms - must be able to reproduce the day it is born. For money that means that interest money that arrives on a particular day in a daily compounded account generates interest money itself. For biological organisms including humans that means that an organism that is born on a particular day must be able to replicate on the day it is born. That is not possible for infants, of course, but it is for adolescents, the coming to be of which at puberty is considered to be the birth event in this mathematical derivation of natural selection rather than the birth of an infant.        

A clear difference between the two kinds of growth, of money and of biological organisms, is while the g interest rate of money is generally constant, in biological growth, the g growth rate, the b birth rate and the d death rate are averages of observed variable values or are idealized constants used to keep the mathematical analysis of the process simple.

As an example of biological exponential growth consider a population that starts out with x₀=2 individuals and has an annual growth rate of g = b – d = 5 – 3 = 2 organisms. It grows over time as graphed below.

 

Figure 79. Biological Exponential Growth

 

In idealized circumstances of unlimited space and resources to grow on and no competition from rivals, a biological population grows without limit over time as seen in the graph. Natural selection in evolution, though, comes about from competition between rival populations, most simply in this analysis between N=2 populations.

To understand how first consider the exponential growth of the N=2 populations in a non-competitive way apart from each other and with both having unlimited resources and space to grow in. The exponential increase in the sizes of the N=2 populations, one with growth, birth and death rates of g₁, b₁ and d₁ and the other, g₂, b₂ and d₂, is specified from Eqs75&78 as  

80.)               

 

81.)               

 

Their time dependent equations are provide the population sizes over time are

82.)                 

83.)                 

 

The x₁₀ and x₂₀ terms in the above are the initial sizes of the #1 and #2 populations respectively. We can also track the sum of the x₁ and x₂ population sizes, even though the populations are growing separately, just by adding the above two equations together. 

84.)               

 

And nothing prevents us from dividing Eq82 by Eq84 to specify the x₁ size of the #1 population relative to the x₁+x₂ sum of the population sizes.

85.)                  

And we can do the same for the x₂ size of the #2 population.

86.)                  

 

Real populations do not grow without limit in exponential fashion, though, because the biosphere has limited territory and resources available for growth. And a real population for the most part doesn’t grow without one or more rival populations competing with them for the territory and resources available. To represent the reality of limited, competitive growth mathematically, we take these two non-competing populations that have been growing apart in unlimited fashion and put them together in a common niche able to support only a limited number of organisms with its territory and resources and have them compete for the limited territory and resources.

Following the clarification of that modern master of evolution, Richard Dawkins, we will understand competing populations to be lineages consisting of genetically related individuals rather than species.   

The limit on combined growth for the two of them is called the carrying capacity of the niche, K. That is, the x₁+x₂ sum of the competing populations must be equal to or less than the K carrying capacity.

87.)        

 

Of interest to us is the mathematically simple case of the sum of the x₁ and x₂ sizes of the populations being equal to the K carrying capacity, not less than it.   

88.)          

This condition we have imposed called a boundary condition of the growth equations limits the growth of the two populations in Eqs85&86, by substituting K for x₁+x₂ and transposing, to    

89.)         

 

90.)      

 

The x₁+x₂=K boundary condition also applies to the initial population sizes, x₁₀ and x₂₀.   

91.)     

 

This expresses Eq64 as

92.)   

This expression simplifies by dividing all the terms in the numerator and denominator by  
 

92.)     

 

And developing the x₂ size of population #2 with similar algebraic operations obtains it as  

93.)     

 

A graph of the above for the two populations competition in a niche with a carrying capacity of K=100 organisms and with population parameters of x₁₀=1, x₂₀=99, g₁=2 and g₂=1 produces the plot below with the x₁ population size in blue and x₂ in red.

Figure 94. Competitive Population Growth or Natural Selection

 

The #1 population in blue, which has the higher growth rate, g₁ =2, flourishes over time from generation to generation while the #2 population in red, which has the smaller growth rate, g₂ =1, dies out or goes extinct in the niche. We can simplify the functions on which the graph is based on by specifying the growth rate difference with respect to population #1, g₁−g₂, as the fitness of the #1 population, F₁. 

95.)     

This F₁ evolutionary fitness function expresses Eq92 succinctly as

96.)                              

The form of this time dependent equation is the same as the time dependent equation of the well-known logistic or Verhulst equation for population growth. Hence the differential equation for Eq96 has the same form as the well known differential equation form of the logistic equation as 

97.)                

 

We can also define an F₂ fitness function for population #2 as

98.)        

 

This obtains the differential equation for the growth of population #2 as 

99.)       

 

Expressing competitive growth or natural selection in the form of the differential forms of Eqs97&99 makes it instantly that if the fitness of a population, F, is positive, its rate of growth, dx/dt will be positive and the population will grow and flourish while if its fitness F is negative, its rate of growth, dx/dt, will be negative and the population will decay and eventually die out or become extinct in the niche where N=2 populations compete.    

 

The same conclusions of Eqs97&99 can also be reached from the long accepted work of the post-WWI classical population biologists, R.A. Fisher and J.B.S. Haldane, our derivation of it, though, being simpler and more direct. With respect to our two populations the mathematics makes clear that a positive fitness for the #1 population, F₁>0, from its having the higher growth rate, g₁ >g₂, destines it to be the “fit” population selected for that flourishes in the niche over time, while the #2 population with negative fitness, F₂<0, from its smaller growth rate, g₂<g₁, is the “unfit” population selected against that dies out or goes extinct in the niche over time.

 

Eqs97&99 are a mathematical description of how natural selection determines which of competing populations flourish from having a combination of superior survival ability as results in a lower d death rate and superior reproductive ability as results in a higher b birth rate. This mathematical description is a perfect fit to Darwinian selection described in non-mathematical language as by the Harvard grandmaster evolutionist, Ernst Mayr.

“.....it must be pointed out that two kinds of qualities are at a premium in selection. What Darwin called natural selection refers to any attribute that favors survival, such as better use of resources, a better adaptation to weather and climate, superior resistance to diseases, and a greater ability to escape enemies. However, an individual may make a higher genetic contribution to the next generation not by having superior survival attributes but merely by being more successful in reproduction.” Mayr, Ernst, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and Modern Evolutionary Thought, Harvard Univ. Press, 1991, p.88).

The advantage of having a mathematical formulation for natural selection is in its filling in through the fitness function of Eq95 an understanding of how pleasant and unpleasant emotions control behavior.

 

95a.)              F₁=b₁−d₁−b₂+d₂     

 

The fitness of population #1, F₁, has the greatest chance of being positive, F₁ >0, if the behaviors of its members maximize the value of F₁. This is a central strategy in evolution for out-competing a rival population from survival behaviors like eating and staying warm that evolved to maximize the life span of the members of population #1 and minimize the d₁ death rate in F₁=b₁−d₁−b₂+d₂; from reproductive behaviors that evolved to maximize the b₁ birth rate in F₁=b₁−d₁−b₂+d₂; and from aggressive combat behaviors to kill rivals that evolved to maximize the d₂ death rate of a rival population in F₁=b₁−d₁−b₂+d₂  with the minimization of the b₂ birth rate of rivals in F₁=b₁−d₁−b₂+d₂ being insignificant enough to ignore in this analysis.     

 

Survival

 

Emotions that affect survival behavior include the pleasures of eating and of warmth on a cold day and the displeasures of hunger and of freezing outside on a cold day. To explain these and other survival related emotions, we specify the primitive Law of Supply and Demand of the v dollar penalty game in Eq42, W_A=T_A= U_AZ_BCv, to apply not to avoiding the loss of v dollars by successfully guessing colors but to avoiding the loss of v=1 life, one’s own life, by a successful survival behavior. To make clear the difference in goals we mark the v term in the latter with an asterisk as v* along with the other terms in the primitive Law of Supply and Demand.

 

100.)                  W_A* =T_A* = U_A*Z_BC*v*

 

Though there is no crisp dollar value for avoiding the loss of one’s v=1 life as there is for the v=$2700 penalty in the color guessing game, preserving or avoiding the loss of one’s v*=1 life does have a cash value even if unspecified as what a person would be willing to pay to preserve their life in a situation that threatens survival. This makes all the terms in the Law of Supply and Demand of Eq100 equally valid in their stemming from this presumed cash value for v*=1 life, much as their counterparts stemmed from the v=$2700 cash penalty in Eq42, even though asterisked terms in Eq100 as with v* lack exact dollar value.     

This is readily shown in the survival behavior of breathing air when the difficulty or uncertainty of getting air to breathe is significant, U_A*>>0, as when a person is drowning or being water boarded or having an asthmatic attack. To keep things simple we assume that the person having difficulty breathing has no other threats to his survival, hence, Z_BC*=1 to mark that the person is sure to survive or avoid the loss of his V*=1 life if he is successful in his efforts to get air. This simplifies our analysis by simplifying Eq100 as

101.)              W_A* =T_A* = U_A*v*

The parallel to the color guessing game would be to guessing the 1^st or A color correctly being sufficient to avoid the v=$2700 penalty. The emotions generated from a having a lack of air at first and then recovering from it are most seen when we doctor the above equation just a bit more as

102.)           W_A* =T_A* = U_A*v*= −(−U_A*v*)

The –U_A*v* emotion term in the parenthesis is (in parallel to the −U_Av fearful expectation of incurring the v=$2700 penalty prior to guessing the 1^st or A color) the fear felt when one has trouble or great uncertainty breathing, U_A*>>0. For those who have never been in such a situation, it should be taken on faith from the testimony of somebody who has that the feeling of not being able to breathe or suffocating is, indeed, one of intense panic fear. The feeling is completely instinctive, no conscious thought or realization of one’s difficulties needed to feel this terrifying emotion.  

Then much as successfully guessing the 1st color alleviates or negates the –U_Av fear of incurring the V=$2700 penalty to T_A= –(−Uv)=Uv relief in the color guessing game, so does successfully finding a way to breathe alleviate or negate the –U_A*v* fear felt to the T_A*= −(−U_A*v*)= U_A*v* emotion of relief felt instinctively, which for those who have never experienced it, is an intensely pleasant feeling.

Eq102 also fits reality well in the W_A* =T_A* = U_A*v* price one would be willing to pay to secure air when one cannot breathe if it were possible to buy one’s way out of a suffocating situation. Indeed if the suffocation or uncertainty in getting air is near complete, U_A*≈1, then the W_A*= U_A*v* price one would be willing to pay to breathe is W_A*≈v*, equal to the price one would be willing to pay to avoid the loss of their v*=1 life, which is tautologically consistent with near complete suffocation being a maximum threat to the loss of one’s v*=1 life. 

The W_A* = U_A*v* price formula is also seen to be valid in a situation where the air intake is in short supply though not so much as to suffocate the person, U_A*>0, as in COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the –U_A* scarcity of air or uncertainty is intermediate as is the  –U_A*v* fearful distress felt, as is the T_A*=−(−U_A*v*)=U_A*v* relief felt when air is supplied medically as bottled oxygen, as is the W_A*=U_A*v* price a person pays for the bottled oxygen.                

The Eq102 Law of supply and Demand also perfectly characterizes normal breathing when there is no scarcity or uncertainty in obtaining air, U_A*=0. It tells us in that case from W_A*=T_A*=U_A*v*= −(−U_A*v*)=0 that in normal breathing there are no emotions associated with breathing, neither fear, −U_A*v*=0, nor relief, T_A*=U_A*v*=0, nor does a person pay for air to breathe, W_A*=0, all of which characteristics perfectly fit universal experience.  

 

Eqs100-102 explain how it is that instinctive, inborn, feelings, pleasant and unpleasant motivate all of our survival behaviors. We will consider that next for temperature regulating behaviors, which are very important for survival because our body chemistry is dangerously impaired if the body’s operating temperature is too low or too high.   Temperature roughly in the range of 70^o-80^o Fahrenheit is optimal for man. If the temperature in a person’s surroundings falls below 70^o, the heat needed for the body is considered scarce and getting it, uncertain, U_A* >0, with U_A* greater the colder the temperature. From W_A*=T_A*=U_A*v*= −(−U_A*v*) of Eq102 with U_A*>0, we see –U_A*v*>0 in Eq102 as an unpleasant feeling, not quite of fear but of the discomfort of cold, which can be considerable and even painful for very cold, life threatening, temperatures, U_A*≈1.

Alleviating or negating the displeasure of cold, –U_A*v*, by obtaining optimal temperature provides the T_A*= −(–U_A*v*)=U_A*v* pleasant relief of warmth. As Eq102 specifies and is universally experienced, the pleasure of warmth as U_A*v* is greater, the greater the displeasure of the antecedent cold, −U_A*v*. And as further validates this Evolutionary Hedonism understanding of temperature regulating behavior, a person is quite willing to pay a W_A*=U_A*v* price to obtain warmth and relieve the discomfort of cold.  And understanding W_A* money spent directly proportional to time spent, Eq102 also tells us as fits experience that a person is also willing to spend time to cut wood to burn in a fireplace in order to obtain warming relief from the cold. Motivation to do the warming behavior comes about simultaneously from directing oneself to avoid the displeasure of the cold feeling and attaining the pleasure of the warmth.  

Note further that the pleasant feeling of warmth is not felt at all when a person is continuously at optimal temperature and there is no antecedent scarcity of heat, U_A*=0, which makes for neither the discomfort of cold being felt, –U_A*v* =0, nor warmth, T_A*= U_A*v*=0, being in a room with an optimal temperature causing no notice of the temperature in the room.  

Temperature regulation also works according to Eq102 when the temperature of the surroundings goes above the 70^o-80^o optimal temperature. Then the −U_A*v*>0 displeasure is of feeling “too hot” with the pleasurable alleviation or negation of sweltering by appropriate behavior being one of pleasant cool relief, T_A*=U_A*v*=(−U_A*v*)>0. Note that a person is also quite willing to pay for air conditioning, W_A*= U_A*v*>0.     

The survival behavior of eating also follows the Law of Supply and Demand of Eq102, but not as straightforwardly as breathing and temperature regulation because of the short term storage of food in the stomach. In the simplest take on it, when one hasn’t eaten for a while, the blood sugar molecules in the blood stream become in short supply or scarce for the body’s cells, U_A*>0. Then unpleasant emotion of hunger or in low intensity, appetite, arises from −U_A*v*>0. This −U_A*v* is alleviated or negated as T_A*=−(−U_A*v*)= U_A*v* pleasure providing food taste and the overall pleasant feeling of eating.    

The T_A= −(−U_A*v*)= U_A*v* equivalence tells us that the intensity of the pleasure of eating, T_A*=U_A*v* is greater, the greater is the antecedent −U_A*v* hunger or appetite. This is validated by those who have had great hunger and experienced significantly marked pleasure in eating even a piece of stale bread to break the fast. And generally having a hearty or significantly intense appetite always makes the food taste better. Eq102 also makes clear that people are willing to spend W_A* dollars for food or more directly spend time, as our primitive hunter-gatherer ancestors did, via the time measure of W_A*, searching for food by gathering plants or hunting animals.

When the blood sugar levels are normally high and the stomach full with, hence, the food chemicals in the blood stream in plentiful supply and not scarce, U_A*=0, there is no or little appetite or hunger displeasure, − U_A*v*=0, and eating food lacks the T_A*=U_A*v*>0 pleasure produced when one does have a − U_A*v*>0 appetite. In such a state, the abnormality of constant hunger responsible for millennial man’s epidemic obesity notwithstanding, there is neither pleasure nor displeasure motivation to eat.

That survival behavior is controlled by the Law of Supply and Demand should hardly be surprising given that the law controls the money spent on commodities and the time spent getting the commodities and/or the money needed to buy them, for what controls the time we spend doing and getting things, controls our behavior by definition. That intuitive understanding is just spelled out in a firm and clear mathematical way in Evolutionary Hedonism.    

And there are two interpretations of the Law of Supply and Demand controlling behavior that have presence in the rubric of well accepted science. One is that the scarcity or uncertainty driven behavior specified in this Law of Supply and Demand, W_A*=T_A*=U_A*Z_BC*v*, of Eq100 is synonymous in mechanism with the thoroughly accepted principal of homeostasis or negative feedback control in biological systems.  

And the other comes from interpreting the W_A*=T_A*=U_A*Z_BC*v* Law of Supply and Demand as what we might call the Law of Necessity and Utility. In this take on Eq100 the Utility of a commodity is understood to be the Z_BC*v* probability of it preventing the loss of one’s v*=1 life or its survival usefulness and the Necessity of having the survival commodity understood to be measured by its scarcity or uncertainty in obtaining it, U_A*. This understands the Utility of a commodity and the Necessity of getting it from its scarcity both as requisite factors for behaving to acquire it, which quite perfectly fits universal human experience. Utility Theory, which focuses on the Z_ABv usefulness of a commodity for survival leaves out the all important Necessity or scarcity factor represented by U_A* shown here to be indispensible for understanding behavior correctly in terms of hedonic pleasure and displeasure motivation.

While the above well explains the origin of the inborn unpleasant and pleasant emotions that motivate survival behavior, it does not consider the emotions associated with the particular behaviors that obtain the survival commodities, like the food we eat. To do that we must return to the E=ZV mathematical expectation of Eq8 for obtaining a V prize and its R=V pleasure and modify E=ZV for obtaining a T_A* amount of survival pleasure measured in terms of its W_A*=T_A* dollar cost measure. This represents the expectation of getting T_A* survival pleasure measured by W_A*= T_A*=U_A*Z_BC*v* dollars, in parallel to E=ZV, as

103.)              E=Z_aW_A*

In the above, Z_a is the probability of obtaining a survival commodity that alleviates a U_A* scarcity through a behavior the probability of whose success, Z_a­, is independent of the situation that generated the U_A* scarcity. For example, the U_A* scarcity of heat outside in –U_A*v* cold in Vermont in wintertime may be resolved by your dashing into a building that has a Z_a=.25 probability of being heated. The lower case “a” subscript is used for Z_a rather than the capital “A” subscript tagged onto U_A* to indicate that the behavior potentially attempted to remedy the –U_A*v* displeasure of the cold is in response to, a change from and quite different than the situation that caused the U_A* scarcity of heat and –U_A*v* cold to begin with. 

The expectation of finding T_A*=W_A*=U_A*v* warmth in the building is given as E=Z_aW_A* of Eq103 rather than E=Z_aT_A* to keep it in parallel with mathematical expectation, E=ZV, for obtaining V dollars that was the basis of all the emotion functions developed in Eqs1-60 with the color guessing game. For example, failure to obtain T_A*=W_A* warmth generates − Z_aW_A* disappointment also representable as –Z_aT_A* disappointment while success in finding heat in the building results in a U_aW_A* thrill or excitement, U_a=1−Z_a=.75, that depends both on the warmth obtained and the U_a=.75 antecedent unexpectedness of it. Also consider the expression of the E=Z_aW_A* expectation from Z_a=1−U_a as

104.)              E=Z_aW_A*=(1−U_a)W_A*= W_A*−U_aW_A*= T_A*−U_aT_A*

This makes one’s −U_aT_A*anxiety about finding heat in the building a function of U_a uncertainty and the hoped for T_A* pleasure of warmth as relief from the cold. This −U_aT_A*anxiety component of expectation, the –Z_aT_A* disappointment from failure and U_aT_A* thrill of success in finding heat are somewhat different than their counterparts in the color guessing game because they specify the value of the goal sought directly in terms of the T_A* pleasurable emotion desired rather than the V dollar goal of the color guessing game. 

The problem with this specification of the survival emotions is that there is no exact dollar measure for W_A*=T_A* pleasure because W_A* is pegged quantitatively to the v* cash value of preserving one’s v*=1 life, which unlike the v=$2700 penalty in the guessing game, is inexact. But much is clarified, though, from the use of semi-quantitative T_A*=W_A* to represent the goal of behavior as an emotional feeling sought, which very much fits in with how people’s minds actually work, people desiring this or that particular pleasure in life by this or that path which has this or that likelihood or probability of being attained.

This representation is very useful in a situation where two buildings with probable heat can be chosen from to go to in order to find T_A* warmth, one with Z_a1 probability and the other, Z_a2. If with Z_a1 > Z_a2, and, hence, E_A1=Z_a1T_A* > E_A2=Z_a2T_A*, then one selects E_A1 via Eq55

105.)              τ= E_A1 − E_A2 >0

This is clearly on the basis of the relative intensity of the expectation pleasures in a quite subconscious way independent of any hard quantitative calculation, which is just the way the human mind works.  Also note that if the choice lies between two different survival needs, eating food to alleviate hunger and getting warm to alleviate cold, the τ selection goes to the activity that provides the highest E=Z_aW_A*= Z_aT_A* pleasurable expectation or hopes, but with that τ selection determining priority of action, not which activity will be done to the exclusion of the other but rather which activity will be done first - assuming they can’t be multitasked and done simultaneously.           

Reproduction

Now let’s move on to reproductive behavior. The primitive Law of Supply and Demand the reproductive emotions of sex and romantic and family love and their displeasures when frustrated are based on is Eq40 with the V dollars obtained replaced by V* offspring generated and the other terms in Eq40 also asterisked as

106.)              W_A* = T_A* = U_A* Z_BC*V*

Most simply what is obtained is not a V dollar prize but V*=1 sexually mature offspring or adolescent. This understands a sexually mature human being reproducing by producing another sexually mature human being. It understands birth as the coming to be not of an adolescent physiologically able to reproduce itself. This makes the b₁ term in the fitness function of Eq95a, F₁=b₁−d₁−b₂+d₂, not the birth rate of newborns but of adolescents. This is not an arbitrary assignment of what is meant by birth but rather arises logically from the exponential growth function of Eq75 that is used to develop natural selection in Eqs75-99.    

107.)                

    

This exponential growth equation is valid only for things able to reproduce themselves on the day they come into existence like the money in a savings account generated by interest compounded daily able to produce more interest money starting immediately the day it is generated. This immediate reproduction that money earning daily compounded interest can do is not something a newborn can do, but is something that an adolescent can do starting at puberty.  

 

It should be made clear that reproduction at adolescence was the norm for mankind for tens of thousands of years in pre-modern times and still is in Muslim and Hindu cultures and also not infrequent in Western cultures from teenage pregnancy whatever the cultural mores against it. The point being made here, though, is not about the morality of adolescent reproduction but rather that the natural selection specified by Eqs97&99 and its F fitness function of Eq95 are derived mathematically for one sexually mature organism reproducing another sexually mature organism.

 

This has the parents of the children, then, not just engaging in the sexual act that produces a newborn but also staying together to raise that newborn to adolescence. Evidence that there is a dollar value for the production of V*=1 sexually mature offspring as is needed to validate use of the Law of Supply and Demand of Eq106 to explain our reproductive emotions is the amount of money parents are willing to spend to have and raise kids.   

 

Reproduction up to and including raising a family consists of different activities for males and females. Most obviously the female becomes pregnant for nine months and nurses the baby for the following two years in primitive natural cultures and the male doesn’t. And in the primitive natural cultures for which even today’s reproductively related emotions evolved, the male attended more to protection and provisioning of the mother and children and the female to the immediate responsibilities of moment to mothering of the child. However much the non-physiological duties have merged culturally in modern times, because the instinctive reproductive emotions arose adaptively to the primitive natural circumstances, we’ll consider them separately for the two sexes as they derive from Eq106.

106.)              W_A* = T_A* = U_A* Z_BC*V*=−(− U_A* Z_BC*V*)

We’ll start with the male. A few paragraphs back we said that the F₁ fitness of a population has the greatest chance of being positive, F₁>0, and of the #1 population flourishing when the F₁=b₁−d₁−b₂+d₂ fitness and, hence, the b₁ birth rate in it is maximized. Since the number of children that a woman can bear is limited by the gestation period of nine months and in nursing mothers like all pre-moderns were for another couple of years from the natural birth control that breast feeding brings about, most pre-modern women bore a dozen or so children as the norm, which more or less maximized the females’ individual birth rates. The instinctive inborn reproductive emotions of women including modern women are geared to this however much the norm has changed culturally in modern times.   

For males, whose initial investment of donating sperm to the female is brief, there is no upper limit theoretically to the number of children that can be produced. Genghis Khan, the medieval warrior, and Ibn Saud, the founder of modern Saudi Arabia, are both said to have fathered near a thousand children and the ancient emperors of China mated with and impregnated so many women systematically that they had a reproductive minister in the royal palace to schedule their manifold dalliances.         

On the other hand, while high testosterone males with significant social power have the potential to produce a lot of offspring, other males, the ones with less testosterone and vigor who are less attractive to females, produce none. This is very clear generally in almost all mammalian species where males battle for females and about half the males fail to produce any offspring at all, clearly quite different than for mammalian females, almost all of whom reproduce continuously throughout their adult lives other than those who are physiologically impaired in some way.

The point of this general male competition for females is that there is undeniably a not insignificant U_A*>>0 uncertainty and −U_A* Z_BC*V* anxiety or anxiousness for male reproduction as regards the male getting a female to mate or have sex with which shows up as part of the reproductive emotions of the male other than in the most confident and capable of males whose U_A* uncertainty of accessing a female is very small. This is in contrast to the very small uncertainty or scarcity of sperm available to impregnate females, a range from U_A*>0 to U_A*≈0. Hence even taking into account from Eq106 that having the female to mate with makes possible a not totally sure, Z_BC* compound probability of producing an offspring that develops to V*=1 adolescent, the pleasurable excitement or thrill of sex that motivates the sex act is significantly greater than that for the female.

However much it may be argued otherwise by ideologically corrupt clinical psychology (for reasons to be explained), externally observable proof is logically available for the conclusion and reality of a stronger sex drive for healthy vigorous makes than for females, the premise that 

108.)                T_A* (males) > T_A* (females)

The first, of course, is that males have to ejaculate with an orgasm to start a pregnancy while females don’t. While various arguments can be presented against that as evidence that the sex drive and pleasure and thrill of it is greater in males than in females, the equivalence of T_A*=W_A*, the money willing to be spent on obtaining a mate, dismisses all such facetious rebuttals in the logical implication form the above of  

109.)              W_A* (males for sex with females) > W_A* (females for sex with makes)

Men spend money voluminously on females in many and various ways for mating, but distinctly not the case vice-versa. Also observed universally is that men spend money for sex by hiring prostitutes for sex while women spending money for male prostitutes is limited to post-menopausal older women retirees in Florida.  

Moreover the implication from W_A* being a measure of not just money spent but time spent is that men spend more time trying to get sex with a female than vice-versa including the time that men think about it. This is borne out at least anecdotally in incessant locker room talk and such by men about having sex with women and in the autobiography of one of the smarter and more honest males the world has seen recently, James D. Watson, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, arguably the most fundamental scientific finds of the 20^th Century.

Dr. Watson tells us: some males think about women 99% of the time and the rest 50% of the time with him, presumably because he had other things on his mind sometimes like high level scientific research, thinking about women 90% of the time. Though Watson is roundly criticized as [politically incorrect for having such thoughts, they certainly fit the principal of the maximization of F₁ fitness by maximizing the b₁ birth rate in Eq95a. But as we said evolution is also touted to be incorrect by majority opinion in America as it is in the Islamic Republic of Turkey, so the condemnation of this folkloric fact that healthy, normal testosterone males would all agree on should not be taken too seriously as we will argue more analytically once we make clear mathematically the reasons for the psychological castration of males in modern servile societies like America.

The above argument from Eq106 for the normalcy of girl craziness in males does not at all dismiss the great desire for love by healthy normal females. That is because of a phenomenon that greatly boosts the Z_BC* probability of success in Eq106 of raising the child to adolescence once it is born, the formation of a strong pair bond or love bond between male parent and female parent so they can raise the child together. That two can raise a child better than one is just simple mathematics that applies to any goal directed behavior, two people generally having a greater chance of success than in achieving any goal. This is especially so in raising a child to maturity, very clear at least in the primitive circumstances that human romantic and family love emotions evolved for where a child needs two things to develop to maturity, direct care from a parent for its daily needs and protection from threats of all other kinds from the outside world.

The scarcity of love or uncertainty in getting it for both male and female parent is considerable as expressed as a U_A*>>0. And that makes for a considerable pleasure of T_A*=U_A*Z_BC*V*>>0 love for both the male and female for there is no positive fitness for the parents without success in raising children with reproductive vigor themselves to adolescence, which has a much higher Z_BC* probability when there are two parents who stay together via mutual love to make that happen.    

The love of parents for children is extremely important because with it the Z_BC* probability of raising a child as a healthy capable adolescent is very great and because life is harder than the Pollyanna crap peddled culturally, and success in raising a family, whether for primitives or moderns, significantly uncertain, U_A*>>0. Hence the love pleasure in seeing happy healthy children as a result of parental effort is considerable as T_A*=U_A*Z_BC*V*>>0.

Note that frustration in achieving reproductive ends of sex and romantic and family love as specified by − T_A*= −U_A*Z_BC*V* is very unpleasant. So much as success in these reproductive behaviors of sexual congress, having the love of a mate and raising a family is a major part of happiness in life, so too is failure as − T_A*= −U_A*Z_BC*V* the major part of unhappiness. The reason there is so much of this sort of failure in modern existence and so much unhappiness from it and, indeed, so much violent behavior that arises from that unhappiness must wait until we explain abusive exploitive relationships, which we will do after we explain next the aggressive emotions of combat behavior.

Aggression

Aggression is destructive action that breaks things apart including people to render them inoperable as in aggression that kills or cripples a rival. Aggression evolved as did instinctive survival and reproductive behavior to maximize F₁ evolutionary fitness by increasing the d₂ death rate in the fitness function of Eq95a, F₁=b₁−d₁−b₂+d₂ from player killing his rivals. The easiest way to introduce the aggressive emotions is by understanding the rival in population #2 to threaten the v*=1 life of player in population #1 as specified from the Law of Supply and Demand of Eq100 for player seeking to avoid losing his v*=1 life by aggression on the rival.     

100.)              W_A* =T_A* = U_A*Z_BC*v*               

Aggression on the rival avoids the loss of the v*=1 player’s life. Assuming a U_A*>>0 uncertainty in achieving success in the aggression and a Z_BC*=1 probability of saving his life when the aggression is successful simplifies Eq100 to Eq102.

102.)            W_A* =T_A* = U_A*v*= −(−U_A*v*)

This form specifies player’s fearful expectation of loss of life by the rival as −U_A*v*. This unpleasant emotion of fear is eliminated or negated with a T_A*= −(−U_A*v*)=U_A*v* pleasure of relief from saving his life by violent action on the rival. The pleasure of successful defensive aggression has overtones peculiar to violence better understood from Eq60 in the earlier Primer on Aggression where we expressed player’s expectation in financial competition to not lose his v dollars while taking rival’s γ dollars.

109.)              E=Zγ−Uv            

In that equation γ was the amount of dollars taken from the rival. In our description of aggression here player wants to avoid loss of his v*=1 life rather than v dollars and at the same time wants to take not γ dollars from rival but rival’s γ*=1 life or as discussed back in the Primer on Aggression to drive the rival out of the niche or put him in prison or beat him into submission and a ceasing of his aggression on player. We write a simplified Law of Supply and Demand for player’s goal of taking rival’s γ*=1 life in parallel to Eq102 as

110.)              W_A* =T_A* = U_A*γ*= −(−U_A*γ*)

Now Eqs102&110 develop the full set of aggressive emotions, defensive and offensive, for the player. He has not only −U_A*v* fear over losing his own life but also −U_A*γ* anxiety over not being able to kill the rival. In gaining success he feels relief in saving his own life, T_A*= U_A*v*, and the thrill or excitement of glory in killing his opponent, T_A*=U_A*γ*. All these unpleasant and pleasant emotions have the special tone of violence.

And when player is not successful in his aggression, assuming he is not killed but suffers one of the other fates of defeat - eviction, submission or incarceration - he feels −Z_A*v* dismay with strong overtones of humiliation for the loss to another individual and –Zγ disappointment, these two unpleasant feelings components of the feeling of depression that comes from meaningful loss. Note that −Z_A*v* can also be understood as a loss of security and −Z_A*γ* as a loss of hope from failure to win.  

There is a variety of outcomes to aggression for the loser - death, eviction, submission, incarceration and even suicide when the displeasure of depression from losing is so great as to be alleviated only by rendering the emotional machinery of the mind inoperable by suicide. And there is also a variety of motives for aggression, not just a threatened attack on player by the rival that produces −U_A*v* fear of losing his v*=1 life indeed of any action by rival including rival reducing player’s food supply as to indirectly threaten player’s v*=1 life. Indeed any displeasure caused by rival is a possible occasion of aggressive action by player on rival given that displeasure is the neural signal of the central nervous system for F₁ fitness reduction taking place.

 

Or the rival could reduce the probability of player achieving reproductive success in some way as reduces player’s F₁ fitness and causes player displeasure or unhappiness. Indeed, the phenomenon of male aggression as fighting over female mates is near universal in the animal kingdom. And as 1973 Nobel Laureate, Konrad Lorenz, makes clear in his masterwork, On Aggression, the most violent aggression in animals is reproductive aggression. Indeed F₁ fitness frustration is a common potential motive for aggression in humans, one third of the approximately million murders committed annually in the world are motivated by frustrations of sex and love.

 

Looking back at Eq106 we see −U_A* Z_BC*V* anxiety in the male in his efforts to access a female, which when it is caused by a male rival can be alleviated by aggression on the rival as specified in Eq110. For that matter resistance by a female to male reproductive approach as threatens reduction in his evolutionary fitness and causes −U_A* Z_BC*V* anxiety or distress can be resolved by aggression on the female, murders by males of females accounting for a significant part of the third of a million reproductive murders cited above.

In primitive pre-civilized cultures where a formal police force does not exist to intervene in courtship, female resistance and male aggression to stimulate submission as also seen in lions, bears and great apes, is mild and part of courtship as a stimulant to sexual arousal. Indeed, as in most animals and certainly for mammals, females test males with some minimal resistance, which if it cannot be overcome by male aggression, generally low level because that is all that’s needed, the male is not worth having as a mate and is rejected by the female. The ugly perversion and dangerous intensification of courtship aggression in exploitive civilized societies including the modern wage slave colonies is common and has terrible consequences for both sexes. Interference in courtship by all manner of rules and policing is desirable for the privileged class to control the worker class because males psychologically castrated by inability to achieve healthy sex and love relationships, which failures come in a variety of forms, are more docile workers and more unlikely to rebel against the servile obedient lifestyle imposed on them as will be discussed in greater depth in the following section. Much unhappiness in both males and females results from such failure that ultimately arises from interference in one form or another with the courtship ritual.       

 

The psycho-physiological role of male testosterone in all of this should not be overlooked. Testosterone enhances aggressiveness and the probability of winning in a fight between males and testosterone also increases sexual vigor and as a result the attractiveness of a male for females, the hard fact of this for ovulating females recorded in a recent (2013) study. This is to say that winning in aggressive battles is highly optimizing for evolutionary fitness not just as regards raw survival but also as consequent for reproductive success, for females who enjoy rather than reject the sexual approach of a vigorous sexually competent male are much more likely to form a love bond with them.

 

We also should mention that Eqs103&110 make clear that W_A*=T_A* money is spent in order to insure success in aggressive competition along with time spent. And both certainly are on weapons, which greatly increase the Z_BC* probability of success in combat. That is money and time are spent acquiring weapons and on developing weapons for having them defensively increase one’s Z_A*v* security and one’s Z_A*V* hopes of winning and confidence in battle. Or put another way the possession of weapons strongly motivated both by the above pleasurable feelings of security and confidence and from the mirror image perspective of alleviating –U_A*v* fear and  –U_A*V*anxiety or anxiety. There is a large hedonistic, displeasure/pleasure motivation, for owning a potent weapon.    

 

Slavery

This was also great motivation for developing and inventing new kinds of weapons over the centuries of human existence. Note that we essentially use the same form of the Law of Supply and Demand for mortal combat of Eq100 that we did for general survival behavior. Hence the same argument for inventing weapons to keep from being killed by enemies can be made for inventing a more reliable, less uncertain, food supply to insure against being killed off by starvation in times of famine.

Hence along with the invention of potent weapons as protection from rivals came the invention of agriculture as protection against starvation in hard times. These two great inventions of mankind over the years, agriculture and weapons, came about because they maximized fitness in the fitness function of Eq95a.    

95a.)              F₁=b₁−d₁−b₂+d₂      

Clearly a secure food supply reduces the d₁ death rate of the #1 population and relatively advanced weapons reduce the d₁ death rate of one’s own population when used defensively and increase the d₂ death rate of a rival population when used offensively, both of which actions maximize the F₁ fitness and destine a population to flourish and avoid extinction.

Prior to the invention of agriculture the only ways our ancestors could get food was, like other animals, to gather wild vegetation and to hunt wild animals, both chancy enterprises. Agriculture introduced two new ways to get food. The first was to plant seeds, tend the field and harvest the produce, much less uncertain means to obtain food. And the other way was to get somebody else to plant seeds, tend the field and harvest the produce, to use slaves to do the work. And for slavery to come about also required that other important invention of man, weaponry advanced enough to vanquish rival populations and retain them as captive slaves.

For the slave, slavery is horribly unpleasant as the recent Quentin Tarantino plantation slave movie, Django Unchained, made graphically clear without any need for mathematics to spell its miseries out. But for the master who owns the slaves, as with all fitness optimizing commodities that are owned, slavery is a pleasant thing because of the economic profit in it that optimizes fitness.

That is readily seen in the fitness function of Eq95a, F₁=b₁−d₁−b₂+d₂. While killing off rivals over contested territory and resources increases the d₂ death rate in F₁ and maximizes F₁ in that way, once slavery came into existence via agriculture and the weapons and other instruments needed to capture and retain slaves, conquered people became a vast source of labor energy for survival that greatly decreased the d₁ death rate in F₁, increasing F₁ much more than killing off of the conquered, which is what was done to vanquished males, as made clear even in the Bible, before slavery become a familiar institutional cornerstone of civilized societies          

What keeps a slave submissive and obedient to his master is the use of punishment or −U_A*v* threat of it from superior weapons. Such weapons may be used directly by a master on his slave, but more often by police types who controlled the slaves with weapons for the master as portrayed classically as the slave driver holding a whip over the slaves. While the master feels pleasure in owning slaves, the slave feels the unpleasant side in being on the losing end of aggression. The slave constantly lives with the very unpleasant emotion of humiliation from the sure expectation of losing in any confrontation with master and with constant fear of the master. There is no disagreement by anybody that the life of a slave is a painful thing guaranteed to give the slave an unhappy life.

We are told that Abraham Lincoln ended slavery in America back in the middle of the 19 Century. But at this very same time Karl Marx wrote extensively that the working class in industrialized countries consisted of nothing more than slaves controlled not by the whip but by the –U­_A*v_­ threat of starvation, what he called wage slaves. Was Marx correct in that assessment and in his condemnation of capitalism as a horrid social institution made of slave masters who routinely exploited and abused the working class?  

The existence of slavery in the early stages of human civilization is not a matter of debate, certainly not in the Mesopotamian empires of Egypt, Babylon and Persia or in the ancient Western empires of Greece and Rome. Slavery took on a slightly different character in the middle Ages as serfdom. In the ancient empires, the primary source of slaves was from capture, but in serfdom more attention was paid to raising the children of slaves to be slaves in their adult life. And with this level of mind control over slaves and their children from a very early age on, much of it through religious indoctrination via Christianity in the West, more “freedom” as a relaxation of control by physical coercion was allowed.

But nobody debates that serfdom was anything other than a more highly evolved form of slavery because the element of submission to the master and working in the master’s interest rather than one’s own interest was undeniably present in serfdom. What also differentiated serfdom from the old ball and chain plantation slavery was through mild control through religious indoctrination that promised the serf recompense for his life of pain in the form of a Heavenly reward for all eternity in the arms of a loving God, a fairy tale so outrageous that it speaks to the extreme unhappiness of the serfs who were beaten down so low as to believe such hogwash.

The modern era ushered in the rise of manufacturing in industrial countries which took the serfs who were previous bound to the land as farm laborers to the cities as factory workers and such. Was Karl Marx correct in calling the industrial worker just another form of slave, a wage slave? Whatever the differences between the plantation slave, the serf and today’s worker, the latter as an adult submits to his or her boss with great fear of unpleasant consequences in a way that is little different than a medieval serf or ancient slave submitting to his slave driver.

Submission to a superior from lacking the power to stand up to him or her is the key element in slavery whatever the difference between today’s wage slaves and the ball and chain slaves of long ago. And no worker in America over the age of 35 denies the hard fact of having to submit to the boss and his humiliations notwithstanding the greater freedom given today’s wage slaves because like the medieval serfs much of their control is via ideological and religious indoctrination inculcated starting at a young age and continuously reinforced by entertaining media propaganda.

What results is a very unhappy people whatever the airbrushing of that fact by the endless media airbrushing of reality. In truth the worker always loses in confrontations with the boss which causes unhappiness unable to be assuaged by retaliation against his boss for fear of greater punishment yet. But there are ways the slave can at least partially release the pent up feelings of retaliatory aggression by redirecting that aggression to somebody other than the slave master, as to another slave lower on the totem pole as depicted in Django Unchained by the craven viscous boss slave who licks the master’s shoes while meting out major control and sadism to the other slaves, something that is historically documented as a fairly general thing.

Redirected aggression is one kind of very general phenomenon in man called misdirected behavior that we want to discuss in greater detail because redirected aggression is responsible for a very large part of the cruelty, violence and unhappiness in the world. There are myriad forms of –U_A*v* and –U_A*V* meaningful uncertainties, fears and anxieties and related displeasures that arise in people. All of them are resolved by this or that fitness optimizing commodity found in a person’s environment. There is no way that evolution could have anticipated the availability of a needed fitness optimizing commodity for the environments that man lives in are many and sometimes very different than each other in both the –U_A*v* and –U_A*V* threats they challenge people with and the U_A*v* and U_A*V* resolution of those threats that are possible in a given environment. So the emotional coding based coding that has evolved is quite broad in a species of generalists like homo-sapiens that have the capacity to live in just about every environment on the planet.         

Consider, for example, that you are hungry but that there’s no food to eat as is the case for people starving in a famine or the soldiers of the Revolutionary War at Valley Forge who had barely any food that critical winter of 1777.  In such situations starving people turn to leather boots, tree bark and grass for something to put in their stomach even though such items provide minimal nutrition or none at all. Starving people eat items with even zero food value, though, because they yet provides some relief from the pains of hunger even though they’ll die on such a diet because there’s really no nutrition in them.

Misdirected behavior is taken up when the proper object of a functionally useful behavior is not available. Then the emotions involved directed the individual to an inferior, substitute object. This is a very general phenomenon. The emotions for reproductive activity, for example, can also have redirected outlets as in homosexual activity when normal sexuality is U_A*>>0 uncertain because the males in modern societies have been systematically psychologically castrated and fail as inadequate husbands and lovers.  While the politically correct myth says otherwise, the genetic etiology is very weak from experimental proof and downright facetious from the perspective of such a complex behavioral trait having a purely genetic origin as opposed to a developmental etiology.

Redirected aggression is the underlying basis of random mass murder. The perpetrator feels unhappy from his situation of control in one way or another. And he as a victim releases it on victims below him. This chain of redirected aggression is very common in hierarchical institutions where high bosses pass their pains of life from submission to a top boss to their lower workers on the totem pole all the way down to those on the very bottom who have nobody to pass the pain on to and are generally the ones who show clear signs of paranoid fears and all of the unsettling characteristics and odd behaviors that arise from excess –U_A*v* and –U_A*V* fear and anxiety that has no way of being alleviated and the excess −Z_A*v* dismay and humiliation and −Z_A*γ* and −Z_A*V* hopelessness of a slave that drives people to suicide, drugs and the psychotropic medications that 45 million women in America depend on to get through the day with. 

 

For the most part redirected aggression is an integral part of American society that plays itself out in a hierarchical way. At the top is the oligarchy of wealthy and powerful men that controls America in reality and below them in successive layers various level of the hierarchy. Those at the very top of our three layer hierachy should be understood as the masters of our modern slave society with those in the bottom layer, the abject slaves and those in the middle, master slaves who are controlled from and take abuse from their superiors and pass on their pain to the extent allowed to those under them.

 

The net affect over time of this food chain of pain passed down the line in the hierarchy is that people become non-social or inhuman over time. That is, after some point of giving pain to those under you and getting it from the bosses over you, people lose their trust for other people in a final way. This produces a different kind of person that mankind as it first evolved where every person is considered a tentative rival and no person is a trusted intimate, neither mate or child or parent. This is the crux of conservatives. It is not that they don’t form alliances with others against a perceived common enemy, but they lack the instinctive trust in other people that makes people human. It is within the context of this hierarchy of power and control that people pass their emotional pain in life on to others below them in the hierarchy with those on the bottom who have no such relief from the unhappiness that is brought about from this exhibiting the more openly bizarre symptoms of mental illness, obesity, suicide and the like.              

 

This need of near everybody under the thumb of a boss or master to redirect aggression is a real danger for women as they grow up for the nature of natural love makes them particularly susceptible to insults that destroy self-respect and any chance of happiness in life. Forget about the psychobabble that has taken over from quoting chapter and verse to keep people in line for a large percent of the population. The element of male protection and superiority in that regard, whatever its perceived need in the airbrushed sense of reality imprinted in their minds by cultural propaganda, is utterly real in making for good sex and the love that flows from that inborn criterion for relationship suitability for the female.  As anybody who has had experience and real success in sex and love, women turn on to being dominated in a loving way sufficient to display the vigor needed for protection and suitable caring for the female.   

The big problem is when the male suitor uses the female for redirecting his emotional pain aggressively towards the female, which makes the trusting by the female of the male tenuous and in the end, very dangerous to her self-love, the loss of which is a true and usually irreversible tragedy. That is the nature of rape for a female, not just the aggressive penetration, whose very aggressiveness can be very sexually exciting, but the rejection and total lack of caring, indeed enjoyment of the abuse by the male rapist, that follows hard core physical rape abruptly and also soft core relationship rape by jerk males whose instincts as to protecting and valuing the female are lacking and who use and confuse the love and submission of a female a license to abuse and pass on their pain as redirected aggression on her.

Others pass their bottled up pains in a more random way as with the Tsarnaev brothers Boston bombers. While there can be no excusing the evil in what they did as measured by the horror they laid on innocent others, the only logical understanding of where their murder causing unhappiness came from, theirs and millions of others who feel their pain but did not take that path to release of it, is from the top of the food chain of pain that is America. They are innocent victims themselves in being part of that chain of unhappiness in America. It is those at the top of the chain, the privileged class in America who are the controllers and effective owners of the wage slaves who are to be blamed only changing this social structure as we suggest doing in the section following the mathematics can eliminate the unhappiness and related horrors it causes in everybody’s life. 

 

Cultural Evolution

To properly understand the development of slavery we want to consider in a more thorough way how the slave culture mankind found itself saddled with evolved to begin with. Primitive tribes compete for land and resources according to the F₁ fitness function of Eq95a. It shows that those populations with a higher birth rate and lower death rate survive in evolutionary time while their less capable rivals die out or go extinct.

 

Important for evolutionary success is the development of efficient ways to survive and minimize the d₁ death rate in the most elementary ways by procuring food efficiently, which is also helpful to maximizing the b₁ birth rate in the F₁ fitness function of Eq95a, F_!=b₁–d₁–b₂+d₂ by efficiently providing food for the children of the group. Tribes with superior traditions and crafts in those regards win out over inferior ones.        

 

Beyond the non-violent competition between survival traditions the F₁ fitness also shows as we have discussed the evolution of behaviors that maximize the d₂ death rate of one’s rivals in a niche by killing them or driving them out of the contested territory, a phenomenon so apparent for American Indians, for example. What enable one tribe to beat another in such a battle are, on the one hand, superior weapons. But equally as important for winning critical battles for territory is the size of the tribe reflected in the size of the tribe’s army of warriors in a battle. Much as the possession of superior weapons increases the Z_BC* probability of success in battle given aggressive behavior, so also does group size. If one group has weapons of the same caliber as the other, what makes the difference in who wins the battle is who has the most fighting men.

 

But increasing group size is not that simple a dynamic for there is propensity for groups to break up or split apart when group size gets too big. A typical primitive group is the clan of genetically related individuals stretching out to brothers and cousins, whose interests are coincident in the common survival of the lineage and of its genetic information, (see Richard Dawkins: The Selfish Gene.)  Past some point of size, reproductive and survival resource competitions particularly between grown males and to make for fighting that breaks the group apart into two subset groups. This reduction in size would via simple mathematics not be propitious for winning against a rival tribe.

 

This is less of a problem in environments like the rainforest jungle habitat of the Yanomami tribe in South America, where hard times survival wise keep population size low generally. But it is a great problem generally, small group size that engenders low group strength losing out to larger groups with similar weapons capabilities. This is why we see in human history the progressive development of larger and larger groups. Note that having a large group not only makes for having a larger fighting force but also a more complex society capable of the invention of fitness optimizing crafts and tools including weapons.

 

Enter for this reason moral codes for groups that lessen all of the behaviors that would split a group apart and make its size smaller. This includes restrictions against killing and aggressive behaviors generally and laws concerning reproduction that tamp down aggressive competition between males for mates. These moral restrictions limit in various ways the capacity for individually superior males to win out over less capable rivals. All civilized cultures have such moral regulations which include the West’s Ten Commandments.

 

The moral regulations are enforced by sanctions that range from unpleasant social disapproval to even more unpleasant economic and physical punishments. Two important questions are how the fruit of common labor and sacrifice is divided amongst the people and who has the power to interpret and enforce the moral regulations. In the evolution of group size, the society that is one level above the simple tribe is the kingdom like the Zulu tribe of South Africa. While in the simplest tribes are generally egalitarian once the size of a society gets sufficiently large, it tends to break into two subsets, a ruling class which includes predominantly the warriors headed by a king and the workers who provide the food and other survival commodities.

 

When we spoke of slavery in the previous section, the sense of it was of one group of people conquering a distinctly different group of people and subjugating them for economic exploitation. But imbalances in power and the distribution of the produce of common labor also come about between subgroups that belong to the same group. Indeed it is very common. The Mayan civilization of Mexico is marked by one set of habitation for its privileged class as seen in the coastal ruins of Tulum, Mexico, and another for its underclass who lived more in the jungle in a catch as catch can manner.

 

This development of class inequality dovetailed with out and out slavery in human history to produce the gulf between the workers and the privileged class now in every nation of the modern world including America whatever its doubletalk slogans of democratic freedom within the capitalist economic control of every individual in the United States. All are subjected to the powerful control of a boss who has the power mostly outside of law to fire the worker and refuse references as can destroy the worker’s life and any chance the worker has for happiness for himself and his family. Power reigns supreme and all those in the hierarchical chain of redirected aggression suffer grievously from it, including the children who are subject to abuse and neglect from parents who are slaves to the system we are all forced to live in and pass their pain onto their offspring by excessive control that is often sadistic whether intended to be or as rationalized by the moral code as with fundamentalists who beat their children corporally into respect that a child would otherwise never give to such harsh parents.

 

Indeed the full gamut of mental illness outside of the few flavors of it that are directly caused by genetic disease come about from the servile nature of modern existence for the common element in all mental illness is excessive fear caused by the transition emotions of disappointment and dismay caused by various significant failures that may be lumped together as depression. In the end the synonymy of depression with unhappiness plus the fearful expectation that depression causes as spelled out in the section on the transition emotion function as the other factor in unhappiness arise from the imbalance of power that cause just about everybody other than the ruling oligarchy at the top of the hierarchy to be under somebody’s thumb and abused.

 

And most deleterious for those under those thumbs is the hard fact that particularly in modern society those at the top got their position at the top to a great extent by submitting to the abuse of their bosses on the way up and have a very strong tendency to redirect the unhappiness built up in them from their significant submission to authority towards the hapless victims below them in the chain of redirected aggression. This is significant for, truth be told nothing erases the depression caused by a boss’s humiliations than punching the boss in the nose hard enough to make it bleed a bit. Unfortunately nothing can destroy a person’s economic security in life and put him in jail faster than retribution on a sadistic boss.

 

To those who would rebut the above condemnation of modern societies by saying that America is a free and fair society whose injustices are protected by law, this analysis makes it clear that is no justice but only order, order as to whom in the hierarchy has control over whom. Whatever the endless publicizing in the media of the evils that criminals do to hurt people, in raw and hard fact many more people’s lives have been ruined by bosses and others in authority who touch on vast numbers on people than by criminals, who touch on few. This is obvious if the facts be revealed by plain and understandable statistics. The power of a boss to control an underling’s life is extreme and is used frequently as redirected aggression, which not only has the potential to ruin a worker’s economic security but also his family and personal in making a constant fool out the worker who complies with his abuse because of fear of worse. And the economic power of bosses in the hierarchy of rule of everyday life is backed up by police who enforce laws made by legislators who dance to the step of their campaign financers made up of the wealthy privileged class who are the effective slave owners in our capitalist wage slave society.

 

We include an interesting personal example of this in the non-mathematical sections after Eq188 in the form of my lawyer brother, Don Graf of Lubbock, a typical right wing asshole sadist withholding my mother’s $30,000 inheritance from me for the last seven years and able to do it, flaunting any sense of real justice because of his position in the legal hierarchy in Lubbock. There is also there the story of my husband, Peter, who was put in prison by a millionaire from Albany who fleeced us out of $70,000 in a stock derivative scam. My husband got angry at him for doing so and spent three years in federal prison on a first time conviction at age 56. That the millionaire was in fault was made clear by our winning a suit by settlement for return of the $70,000. There was no justice, only order with the millionaire at the top of the pecking order. In both cases we have paper documents that absolutely prove there was no justice. Stating this is not a personal complaint for such injustices are repeated thousands of times from the 25,000 women sexually assaulted in the military, only 341 cases of which were done anything about and so on. Unhappiness caused by redirected aggression in  the chain of hierarchical control is the primary reason for human unhappiness, which is endemic and an intrinsic near unavoidable phenomenon in slave systems including the wage slave system of capitalism.                         

 

We should add to the plethora of displeasures in a person’s life that arise from reproductive and combat failures and make for a state of inescapable unhappiness outside the delusions and distractions manufactured for today’s wage slaves to keep them moderately stable and efficient that lack of significant pleasure that comes about from an absence of survival challenges. Our emotions arose for adaptation to the circumstances of our primitive hunter gatherer ancestors.

 

In modern civilized times, once we obey the rules to get money, we need but ask like children to parents at the supermarket and other stores and we receive with no uncertainty our survival commodities. Hence there is little challenge after the fact of successfully working and keeping a job the greater part of which for most is obedience to the boss. And there is little excitement or real satisfaction in life.

 

And this lack of challenge for people is a hallmark of a child’s existence and hard evidence of immaturity in civilized people. Indeed our modern societies are very much like insect societies where the supplicants to the queen bee or ant are all sexually immature non-reproductive females. Of course, that is not physiologically the case in humans. But it is the case psychologically, most obviously if one considers the development of modern humans relative to that of hunter gatherer primitives.

 

The primitive children like modern children had their uncertainties resolved by their parents, especially for their protection from adult rivals and from nature, their survival and combat challenges in the context of the F₁=b₁−d₁−b₂+d₂ fitness function, the b₁ reproductive needs of a child not coming into play physiologically until adolescence. Upon reaching adolescence the former child person has the same major meaningful uncertainties as the adults in a lineal group. Will I find enough vegetative food on bushes and trees to gather? Will I find enough game in the forest to hunt and kill?

 

A touch of real hunger brings these challenges to the fore and provides for great excitement and a thrill every day. Reaching that stage of adolescent independence as regards survival and for the males in particular, combat, responsibility. Not hard to understand and as can only be understood by somebody who has gone through it as the authors of this work have, being challenged as to survival and combat from living on the street definitely makes for a different personality that also turns on the instinctive reproductive program in a person, particularly a male, the females who get protective males remaining to a great degree as children survival and combat wise, though certainly not reproductively given the sharp changes that occur in the female psycho-physiologically. Of course with immature males who remain in a relative childhood stage abounding in modern society, the trigger to adulthood in the female is also retarded, not very good for her dealing with children that will be born to her either.

                    

The effects of this psychological immaturity in our vast hive like societies of toady that mirrors the physiological immaturity of the social insects are far ranging. When children need something to resolve their immediate meaningful uncertainties, they ask their parents. This is mirrored in delusional immature adults in modern times asking God for what they need, ridiculous from any perspective of a sensible view of how life works, but yet still propitiated by the immature instincts of a child that are retained in the unchallenged modern adult.

 

This immaturity is also displayed in many ways from modern people getting a large part of their emotional stimulation from watching adults behave in sports and entertainment, that is, in movies and the fare they watch day and night on  TV, having no real challenges in life of their own to occupy their time and focus. This not only adds to their unhappiness by depriving them of the real emotions of visceral pleasure and satisfaction, but also makes them emotionally as susceptible to control by authority, often exploitive and malevolent, as inherently naïve, vulnerable, children.           

 

The resolution of these vast endemic problem of civilization properly understood as an unfortunate accident of evolution for mankind lies in developing an entirely new kind of human society based on the abolition of all weapons as would eliminate the power imbalances that make slavery and its epidemic unhappiness in today’s world the norm. That section entitled A WORLD WITHOUT WEAPONS will consider the plague on mankind of redirected aggression in a much more thorough way including how group redirected evolution is the primary factor in today’s wars that will ultimately lead to a nuclear Apocalypse for mankind as the end product of the pent up unhappy emotions caused man by his enslavement in modern civilization.

 

We will take that up in through detail at the end of the mathematics that follows needed to develop Evolutionary Hedonism in a complete way. We begin that effort next by developing the functions for best bet and random selection most efficiently as the end product of a major revision of thermodynamic entropy based up the Simpson’s Diversity Index.  The equation numbers that follow have a short term overlap with those in the preceding sections but that is not a problem because the subjects taken up next are quite different and not intertwined with those in the last few sections.

 

Diversity Based Entropy

That entropy has been an intuitively confusing concept for the last hundred years is made clear in the article on it in Wikipedia called Entropy (energy dispersal). Made clear in the article is that entropy is made intuitively more digestible when it is described qualitatively in terms of the dispersal or spreading out of energy over a thermodynamic system. The actual mathematical formulations of entropy like Boltzmann’s S entropy specified below, though, bear no resemblance in any way to energy dispersal. We show that this is the case because Boltzmann’s famous entropy equation is incorrect and must be replaced with a diversity index that is a clear measure of energy dispersal, the notions of diversity and dispersal being unarguably synonymous for thermodynamic systems. Developing the proper diversity index for entropy also provides for a mathematics of emotion for the general case of selections from unbalanced menus like (■■■, ■■, ■) rather the simple balanced menu of (■■, ■■, ■■) we have used up until now.

The Austrian physicist, Ludwig Boltzmann, simultaneously enlightened and mystified the scientific world near the turn of the 20^th Century by providing it with the mathematical expression for entropy, S=klogW, inscribed on his tombstone.

Ludwig Boltzmann, 1844-1906

So hard to understand intuitively was Boltzmann’s S=klogW function for entropy that it was initially rejected by his scientific peers, causing him to commit suicide in his depression over it. But so mathematically firm was the fit of Boltzmann’s entropy equation to the empirical thermodynamic data that whatever its confusions it was hailed shortly after Boltzmann hung himself as a major scientific breakthrough and honored as such by inscription on his tombstone.

We will show in the following paragraphs in a very clear way that Boltzmann’s entropy equation is dead wrong and in providing its correction develop a function that totally generalizes in a mathematically precise way how the human mind works. In modern notation Boltzmann’s entropy is

89.)   

 

We will explain the terms in Boltzmann’s entropy as we prove it to be incorrect and replace it with a function for energy diversity, which is what entropy in energy processes actually is. Bypassing the gibble gabble of the popinjays who currently rule in the academic kingdom of confused Boltzmann statistical mechanics, a thermodynamic system is simply a random, equiprobable, distribution of K discrete (whole numbered) energy units over N molecules. It is no different in essence than the more comprehensible system we shall examine first of the random, equiprobable, distribution by grandfather of K candy bars to his N grandchildren. Specifically we will consider the distribution of K=4 candy bars to N=2 grandchildren by the name of Jack and Jill. This random distribution is done by grandfather tossing the candy bars blindly over his shoulder to them. Such a distribution is equiprobable because the probability of each of the N=2 children getting a candy bar blindly tossed are equal, P=1/N=1/2.   

 

The K=4 candy bars we have grandfather toss will be different, distinguishable, brands, one a Snickers, S, one a Hershey’s, H, one a Butterfinger, B, and one a Tootsie Roll, T. We could use the same brand for all K=4 of the candy bars and still get the same mathematical results, but using different brands most clearly distinguishes the Ω=N^K=2⁴=16 permutations of candy bar allocations marked out in {braces} below where the candy bars Jack gets in the random tossing are listed to the left of the comma in the {braces} and those that Jill gets, to the right of the comma.

Table 90.The Ω=16 Permutations and W=5 States of the Random Distribution of K=4 Candy Bars to N=2 Children

The Ω=N^K=16 permutations are grouped into W=5 states that specify in [brackets] how many candy bars Jack and Jill receive followed under that by the number of permutations in each state. And from the understanding that all Ω=16 permutations in a random distribution are equiprobable as 1/Ω=1/16, the probabilities of the states are then listed below the permutations per state. And beneath that is the number set notation of each state, with x₁ being the number of candy bars Jack gets in a given state and x₂, the number that Jill gets.

If grandfather does this random tossing of the K=4 candy bars repeatedly 16 times, on average each of the Ω=16 permutations will come about once. The W count of the number of states for this random candy bar distribution, here W=5, is the W term in Boltzmann’s S=k_BlnW entropy of Eq89 were the random distribution for K=4 energy units over N=2 molecules. And S is the entropy of S=k_BlnW with k_B, a constant called Boltzmann’s constant. 

It should be obvious that some states in the K=4 over N=2 candy bars are more diverse than others, the [2, 2] state that has both kids getting the same number of candy bars in a K=4 toss having less diversity than the [4, 0] and [0, 4] states in which one kid gets all the candy bars tossed and the other gets none. The diversity of a state can be calculated from the σ² variances of the states via Eqs44&45.  

Table 91. Variance, σ², of the States of the K=4 over N=2 Distribution

One can form an average of the σ² variances of all W=5 states in the K=4 over N=2 distribution as a probability weighted average, one that weights the contribution of the variances of each state by the probability of the state as given in Table 90 . 

Table 92.The Average σ² Variance of the States of the K=4 over N=2 Distribution

The average of the state variances is written as σ²_RC so for this K=4, N=2 equiprobable distribution, σ²_RC=1. We’ll explain the RC subscript later. Now to understand better what this σ²_RC average variance of an equiprobable distribution is and how to find a shortcut function for it, we look up the textbook formula for the variance of a multinomial distribution in Wikipedia to see it expressed in our notation as

93.)   

The P_i term is the probability that any one of K objects distributed over N containers will be allocated to the i^th container. For an equiprobable distribution, this probability is P_i= 1/N, every one of the N containers having an equal 1/N chance of getting the object in a random or equiprobable distribution. We saw this earlier for the K=4 candy bar over N=2 kids equiprobable distribution where the probability for each child getting any candy bar tossed was P=1/N=1/2. This P_i =1/N probability for the equiprobable case simplifies the variance expression in Eq93 to 

94.)       

For the K=4 over N=2 equiprobable distribution, this computes as 

95.)       

Hence we see that the σ²_RC probability weighted average of the state variances of an equiprobable distribution as calculated for the K=4 over N=2 equiprobable distribution from Table 92 is the distribution variance. This also gives a fast and simple way of calculating it in Eq94, which we will now rewrite as 

94a.)             

We can now rapidly calculate the D diversities of the states from the σ² variances and the K and N of the states and of the distribution. Now we can calculate the D diversity of the states of the K=4 over N=2 distribution via their σ² from Eq47

47.)                       

 

And we can calculate the D_RC diversity of the distribution from Eq47 via its σ²_RC.

96.)                     

Table97. Diversity, D, of the States and D_RC of the K=4 over N=2 Distribution

We can also generalize a formula for D_RC from Eqs96&94a as a function of the K and N parameters of a random distribution.

98.)     

We can test the correctness of this formula by using it to obtain the D_RC=1.6 distribution diversity of the K=4 over N=2 distribution. 

99.)     

Now we want to test the hypothesis that entropy of a random distribution should be properly understood as the D_RC diversity of a distribution. To do that we must compare D_RC to the lnW number of states of a K over n random distribution that specify entropy in Boltzmann’s S=k_BlnW entropy formula. The W number of states of a K over N random distribution is readily obtained from a shortcut formula known to mathematical physics.

100.) 

This formula calculates the W=5 states of the K=4 over N =2 random distribution as

101.)     

And the lnW we need to compare D_RC to in order to see if the diversity is what entropy really is derives simply from Eq100 as

102.)    

 

 

And we can also compute lnW from Stirling’s Approximation. For any whole number, n,

102a)            

This evaluates lnW in Eq102 as  

102a.)           

The Stirling’s Approximation of lnW for the K=145, N=30 distribution of Figure 115 is lnW≈75.71. This compares to the exact lnW=75.88 for this distribution from Eq102, hence an excellent approximation and one that becomes all the better the larger are the K and N of a distribution. Now let’s compare the D_RC and lnW of a selection of equiprobable distributions of relatively small K and N we will examine closely shortly.  
 

 

Table 103. Various K over N Distributions and their lnW and D_RC

There is a high .996 Pierson’s correlation between their D_RC and lnW. And now let’s compare larger K over N distributions that are more representative of realistic thermodynamic systems that have many K energy units and many N molecules in them.

 

Table 103a. Various K over N Distributions and their lnW and D_RC

The Pierson’s correlation coefficient between these higher N and K distribution D_RC and lnW is .9995, nearly a perfect, 100% correlation, as illustrated with the straight line scatter plot of their D_RC versus lnW below.

Figure 104. A plot of the D_RC versus lnW Data in Table 103

This .9995 correlation is the more important correlation coefficient given that it is for large K over N random distributions that are more representative of realistic thermodynamic systems with their large K energy unit and N molecule parameters. Note that any way one might chose to compare lnW and D_RC including random computer generated distributions of K and N with K>N, consistently produces a very high correlation, always greater than .99 in our testing. This tell us that Boltzmann’s S=k_BlnW entropy can be replaced by D_RC for whatever fit the lnW based Boltzmann S=k_BlnW entropy has to empirical thermodynamic data, so also must the D_RC diversity have that same fit with an extremely small, negligible. And this tells, particularly given the near perfect 100% correlation for large K over N random distributions,  us that the entropy of a realistic thermodynamic system can be specified as the amount of energy diversity in a distribution or its spread of K energy units over the N molecules, which is much more intuitively sensible physical quantity than Boltzmann’s lnW based S=k_BlnW entropy given that the logarithm of the W number of states of a distribution having no meaning as a variable of a physical quantity.      

Beyond diversity being superior to lnW based entropy in making better intuitive sense, Boltzmann’s lnW entropy is patently incorrect mathematically when looked at carefully as we shall show shortly. As to why Boltzmann choose the lnW based entropy formulation, it must be understood that it was the only mathematical function available in his time that did fit the thermodynamic data because Simpson’s D diversity was not developed and available to science until 1949, 46 years after Boltzmann’s death, and even then as a measure of biodiversity for ecologists and sociologists that lacked ready dissemination to the physical science community whose discipline was entropy and thermodynamics.

Later we shall show how Boltzmann was unarguably wrong. But for now we want to bolster the argument that supports diversity as the correct representation of entropy. This requires the introduction of a mathematical property of multinomial distributions called a configuration, which is simply the collection of all states that have the same number set representation. For example, the states of [0, 4] and [4, 0] of the K=4 over N=2 random distribution have the same number set, (4, 0), called a configuration of the distribution. Note that we write a configuration in parenthesis, (4, 0), rather than in the bracket form we used for the [4, 0] and [0, 4] states of the (4, 0) configuration. The K=4 over N=2 random distribution has three configurations, (4, 0), (3, 1) and (2, 2), which the W=5 states of the distribution belong to as  

Table105.The Configurations of the K=4 over N=2 Distribution and Their States

A quick look back to Table 97 makes it clear that a configuration has the same σ² variance and same D diversity as the states that comprise it.

Table 106.Variance, σ², and Diversity, D, of the Configurations of the K=4 over N=2 Distribution

Now see that the distribution variance of σ²_RC=1 and distribution diversity of D_RC=1.6 of the K=4 over N=2 distribution are the same respectively as the σ²=1 and D=1.6 of the (3, 1) configuration. On that basis the (3, 1) configuration is taken to represent the entire K=4 over N=2 distribution in a succinct way as the Representative Configuration of the distribution. It is for that reason that we mark the distribution variance and diversity with the RC subscript as σ²_RC and D_RC.

The Representative Configuration of a random distribution represents the entire distribution comprised of many configurations with a single configuration much like the mean of a number set, μ=K/N, represents the entire number set of many numbers with a single number. Consider the K=24, N=6, (6, 4, 2, 1, 5, 6), number set. It has a mean of μ=K/N=4 that represents the many numbers in the set with one number, 4, in a succinctly and simple way. In parallel, the (3, 1) representative configuration of the K=4 over N=2 distribution represents the many configurations of the distribution, (4, 0), (3, 1) and (2, 2), with one configuration, (3, 1) in a succinct and simple way.

If the Representative Configuration is truly representative of the distribution as a whole, it should exhibit the salient properties of the distribution, which are not only its σ²_RC variance and its D_RC diversity but also the Maxwell-Boltzmann energy distribution shown below that is an empirical property of every realistic thermodynamic system. 

Figure 107. The Classic Maxwell-Boltzmann Energy Distribution

If the Representative Configuration of a K over N distribution can be shown to exhibit the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, it will go a long way to supporting diversity as the correct formulation and understanding of entropy rather than the Boltzmann’s lnW based entropy. While we developed the representative configuration for the random distributions of K candy bars over N children, it is also valid for thermodynamic random distributions of K discrete energy units over N molecules. The equiprobable distribution of K candy bars over N children comes about from grandfather tossing the candy bars to the children blindly over his shoulder, which when done repeatedly perfectly mathematically models the equiprobable distribution of K energy units over N molecules that comes about from repeated collisions and energy transfers between molecules for the simplest thermodynamic system of gas molecules moving about and repetitively colliding in a container of fixed volume.

A K=4 energy unit over N=2 molecule system has too few K energy units and N molecules for its Representative Configuration, (3, 1), to show any semblance of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of Figure 107. We need to use distributions with higher K and N values to show that, starting with the K=12 energy units over N=6 molecule distribution. To find its Representative Configuration we first calculate its σ²_RC distribution variance from Eq94a.

108.) 

The Representative Configuration of the K=12 over n=6 distribution will have a variance with the same value as this distribution variance of σ²_RC=1.67. An easy way to locate the Representative Configuration is with a Microsoft Excel program that runs through all configurations of this distribution to find one whose variance has the same value as σ²_AC=1.67. It is the (4, 3, 2, 2, 1, 0) configuration, which is the Representative Configuration on that basis. A plot the (4, 3, 2, 2, 1, 0) Representative Configuration’s number of energy units on a molecule versus the number of molecules that have that energy is shown below.

 

Figure 109. Number of Energy Units per Molecule vs. the Number of Molecules
Which Have That Energy for the RC of the K=12 over N=6 Distribution

Seeing this distribution as the Maxwell-Boltzmann energy distribution of Figure 107 is a bit of a stretch, though it might be characterized as a very simple, choppy one. Next let’s consider a larger K over N distribution, one of K=36 energy unit over N=10 molecules. Its σ²_RC distribution variance is from Eq94a.

110.)               

Our Microsoft Excel program runs through the configurations of this distribution to find one that has the σ²_RC =3.24 variance, namely, (1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). A plot of the energy distribution of this RC is

 

Figure 111. Number of Energy Units per Molecule vs. the Number of Molecules
Which Have That Energy for the RC of the K=36 over N=10 Distribution

This curve was greeted without prompting by Dr. John Hudson, Professor Emeritus of Materials Engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and author of the graduate text, Thermodynamics of Surfaces, with, “It’s an obvious proto-Maxwell-Boltzmann!” And next we look at the K=40 energy unit over N=15 molecule distribution, whose σ²_AC distribution variance is from Eq94a

112.)             

Our Microsoft Excel program finds four configurations that have this variance including (0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6), which is an RC of the distribution on the basis of its σ²=2.489 number set variance. A plot of its energy distribution is

 

Figure 113. Number of Energy Units per Molecule vs. the Number of Molecules
Which Have That Energy for the RC of the K=40 over N=15 Distribution

 

And next we will look at the K=145 energy unit over n=30 molecule distribution whose variance is from Eq94a.

114.) 

There are nine configurations with this σ²_RC =4.672 variance including (0, 0, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10), which is the RC on that basis. A plot of its energy distribution is

 

Figure 115. Number of Energy Units per Molecule vs. the Number of Molecules
Which Have That Energy for the RC of the K=145 over N=30 Distribution

 

As we increase the K and N of the equiprobable distributions, the plot of their energy per molecule versus the number of molecules with that energy progressively takes on the shape of the realistic Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of Figure 107, higher K and N distribution calculations left to the reader.

This development of the empirical Maxwell-Boltzmann energy distribution from the Representative Configuration not only supports diversity based entropy as the proper formulation of entropy but also provides an intuitively sensible microstate picture of a thermodynamic system. Specifically it depicts a K energy unit over N molecule system as consisting of Ω=n^K molecular energy permutations that develop over Ω=n^K time durations through Ω=n^K repetitive collisions between molecules, each time duration between collisions assumed to take the same amount of time. The random energy transfers in the collisions produce all Ω=n^K permutations and their configurations in numbers on average equal to the number of permutations per configuration. And the distribution over time is represented by the Representative Configuration in its having the average properties of the system including variance, diversity and the Maxwell-Boltzmann energy distribution.

This picture fits the thermodynamic data sufficient to be understood either as a companion explication of a thermodynamic system that improves Boltzmann’s statistical mechanics by making it more intuitively digestible or as a total revision of Boltzmann to show his ideas and formulations to be patently incorrect. The simplest and most obvious proof that Boltzmann’s S entropy and its accompanying ideas are wrong concerns how we make distinctions between things. Distinction is a subtle concept that requires focused consideration, something Boltzmann did not do.

We saw that the W number of states is directly from Eq100 

100.)             

In Eq101 we saw this formula calculate the W=5 states of the K=4 over N=2 random distribution of Table 90 illustrated with M=4 candy bars that were of different or distinguishable brands: S, Snickers, B, Butterfinger, H, Hershey and T, Tootsie Roll. Another way of understanding W=5 for this distribution, indeed the way Boltzmann saw it, was as the number of ways that K indistinguishable objects can be arranged in N containers. To illustrate this sense of W, let’s make all N=4 candy bars be Snickers, S.

Then we see that the W=5 ways of arranging these now indistinguishable candy bars over N-2 kids is: (0, SSSS), (S, SSS), (SS, SS), (SSS, S) and (SSSS, 0).          

But the big question now is whether candy bars of the same brand are distinguishable or indistinguishable. If I hold two Snickers bars, S and S, one in my right hand and one in my left hand, are they distinguishable or indistinguishable? Let’s bring Boltzmann back into the argument by making it clear that he considered molecules of the very same kind, like a thermodynamic system all of Hydrogen molecules, to be distinguishable. This is a foundation axiom in Boltzmann’s statistical mechanics. And it is important because it makes it clear that there are two elementary kinds of distinction, one is the kind between a hydrogen molecule, H₂, and an oxygen molecule, O₂, called categorical distinction or distinction or kind, H₂ and O₂ being two different kinds or categories of molecules.

And the other distinction, as between one hydrogen molecule and other hydrogen molecule, is called fundamental distinction. To repeat and emphasize, Boltzmann considered all N molecules in a thermodynamic system to be distinguishable or distinct from each other, fundamentally distinct, even if they were all the same kind of molecule. A simple way of understanding that is objects that occupy different places are different or distinguishable objects even if they are the same kind of object.              

Now in regard to distinction we see that you can have categorical distinctions, whether between two different kinds of molecules or two different kinds of candy bars. And you can also have fundamental distinctions, whether between two of the same kind of molecule or between two of the same kind or brand of candy bar. And we see that you can have categorical sameness pr lack of categorical distinction, as between two molecules of the same kind or between two candy bars of the same kind or brand.

But you can’t have a fundamental sameness or lack of distinction between two objects for two objects that are fundamentally the same occupy the same place and are, thus, the same object.

When Boltzmann asked the question as to whether the N molecules in a thermodynamic system were distinct or indistinct, he said they were distinct and by that he meant and states in his statistical mechanics, fundamentally distinct. The question we must next ask is when he considered the distinction or lack of distinction between energy units, did he mean their fundamental distinction or their categorical distinction?

It makes no sense to consider the molecules of a thermodynamic system in a fundamental way and then to consider the energy units of the system in a categorical way. It is obvious that energy units are fundamentally distinct because they are in different places in residing or being contained in molecules that are in different places. And the notion that energy units as physical entities judged to be categorically indistinct when the physical entities of the molecules of the system were judged by Boltzmann to be fundamentally distinct regardless of whether they were the same or different kind of molecule is farfetched and inherently contradictory.

Hence describing the energy units as indistinguishable is absurd, categorical indistinction being absurd for the reasons given directly above and fundamental indistinction being absurd because there is no such thing as it.

Rather the basic K and N quantitative characteristics of thermodynamic systems functionally manipulated to obtain lnW of Eq102 happen to correlate very closely to the D_RC Simpson’s diversity of the energy units over the molecules, pure mathematical serendipity, a chance correlation that has confused science for the last hundred years.     

This clarifies that what happened was Boltzmann using a formula that fit the data, but only because of its high correlation to mathematical diversity that Boltzmann couldn’t have used because it wasn’t invented until 1948 by Simpson, long after Boltzmann committed suicide in despair over having his W based formula rejected because it confused his scientific peers back then, as well it might have as the lnW has no reference to any real physical quantity and not even any tangible meaning mathematically for equiprobable multinomial distributions. This is not to cast Boltzmann’s genius into hell, of course, for were it not for his efforts and his S equation, clarifying entropy as diversity a century later would likely have proven to be been utterly impossible. Still his S equation for entropy is flat out incorrect, which explains why nobody has ever made clear sense of it for the last hundred years.

Now we need to take up other technical topic that will not only more completely solve the problem of entropy but also will lay the groundwork for a general Law of Emotion. There is yet another diversity function besides D_RC that has a very high correlation with Boltzmann S=k_BlnW entropy and must also be considered as a candidate for replacing Boltzmann’s entropy along with D_RC. As it will be shown to be based on the temperature of a thermodynamic system, it turns out to be the correct form of diversity for entropy. To develop it we need to express the μ=K/n mean of a number set in a way that requires us to first define the K variable of a number set we have been using repeatedly all along in a formal way as

120.)     

For the (6, 6, 6, 6, 1) number set, for example, which has x₁=6, x₂=6 and x₃=6, x₄=6 and x₁=1, K= x₁+x₂+x₃+x₄+x₅=25. Eq120 allows us to define the μ mean or arithmetic average of Eq45 as

121.)     

And we are also going to define a set of simple properties of a number set that we haven’t used yet, the weight fractions of a number set, p_i.          

122.)              

For the K=11 number set, (7, 3, 2), which has x₁=7, x₂=3 and x₃=2, the weight fractions are p₁=1/2, p₂=5/12 and p₃=1/12, also written in a set as (1/2, 5/12, 1/12). The weight fractions of a number set most obviously sum to unity. 

123.)     

The (1/N) term in the summation of Eq121 is now seen to be the average weight fraction of a number set. We take the average of a number set’s weight fractions by adding the p_i up and dividing by the number of them, which is N. The average of the p_i weight fractions of the (7, 3, 2) number set is their sum, which is 1, divided by their number of p_i weight fractions, which is N=3. So the average weight fraction, which can be given the symbol,, is for the N=3 set, (7, 3, 2), =1/N=1/3. Or generally for any number set, the average weight fraction is

124.)             

This has us write the μ mean of Eq121 as

125.)          

This can be interpreted as saying that the μ mean of a number set is the sum of “slices” of its x_i of “thickness”, the average weight fraction. This form of μ computes the μ=K/N=12/3=4 mean of the K=12, N=3, (7, 3, 2), number set as

126.)         

All of this is preface to our defining a new average of a number set called the biased average, φ, (phi). (For those who wonder where this tediousness is taking us, this exercise is quite important for science in general.) In parallel to the μ arithmetic average that is the ratio of K to N as μ=K/N, the ratio of K to the D diversity of a number set is φ, the biased average.  

127.)           

For the K=12, (7, 3, 2), set, which has D=2.323 from Eq41, φ=K/D=5.167. Now let’s specify φ=K/D in a way parallel to μ in Eq125 as a function of p_i weight fractions via Eq122 as

128.)            

 

 

This has us interpret the φ biased average as the sum of “slices” of x_i of “thickness” p_i, that is, of thickness of the actual weight fractions of each x_i rather than of the  average weight fraction as was the case with μ in Eq125. The above form for φ obtains the φ=5.167 biased average of (7, 3, 2) as

129.)           

This makes it clear what a φ biased average is in its exaggerating the contribution of the larger members of a set to the average size of a member. This is much how the human mind intuitively generalizes the average size of something as by noticing less the smaller or insignificant members, much as we discussed in terms of the D diversity index back at Eq48. A common example is the size we intuitively think a rock is, our generalization of it as an object that would fill our hand being the rule in neglecting the pebbles and tiny rocks that abound that we take as relatively insignificant.

With regard to thermodynamics, the φ biased average is just an introduction to another unusual diversity based average, the square root biased average, ψ, (psi), which is important for correctly formulating temperature and entropy. The ψ average has the form of the sum of slices of the x_i of a set of thickness, p_i^1/2, the square root of the weight fractions of a number set.

130.)              

We write a question mark into this introductory definition of the ψ square root biased average to indicate that there is something not quite right with it as it stands. What isn’t right is that the p_i^1/2 weightings don’t add up to 1 as they must to form any kind of an average of the x_i of a set, that just being in the nature of an average. This problem can be illustrated with the (6, 5, 1) set, which while its p_i weight fractions of (1/2, 5/12, 1/12) do add up to 1, the p_i^1/2 square roots of these weight fractions, (.7071, .6454, .2887), don’t add up to 1. Rather their sum is .7071+.6454+.2887=1.6412. Because they don’t add to 1 they can’t be used to weight the x_i in forming an average of them.

This problem is readily resolved by normalizing the p_i^1/2 to get them to add up to 1, which is done by dividing each of them, (.7071, .6454, .2887), by their 1.6412 sum. This obtains normalized p_i^1/2 of (.4308, .3933, .1759), which do add up to 1 and, hence, can properly weight the x_i of the (6, 5, 1) set to form its ψ square root biased average as

131.)            ψ = (.4308)(6) +(.3933)(5) + (.1759)(1)= 4.727

The sum of p_i^1/2 function that divides the p_i^1/2 to normalize them is expressed in a general way as

132.)         

It corrects the ψ{?} questionable function of Eq130 by dividing the p_i in its numerator to normalize them as obtains the ψ square root biased average properly as

133.)        

 

And we express ψ in an alternative way via the p_i=x_i/K weight fraction relationship of Eq122 as 

134.)            

 

Now much as the φ=K/D biased average was the ratio of the K number of objects in a set divided by a diversity index, D, so also we can understand a diversity index that is the ratio of K to the ψ square root biased average.

135.)       

 

 

Next we want to show that the G diversity of a thermodynamic distribution, G_RC, also has a high correlation to the lnW term in Boltzmann’s S=k_BlnW along with D_RC and as such is also a diversity index candidate to replace Boltzmann’s S function as the proper diversity expression for entropy. This is a tricky computation because the unusual form of G above makes it not amenable to developing a general function for it for the distribution or Representative Configuration as we did for D_RC in Eq98, D_RC=KN/(K+N−1). This causes us to be able to use only K over N distributions for which we know the exact Representative Configuration, the distributions that showed the proto-Maxwell-Boltzmann shape in Table 103 and Figures 109-115. Below we list their lnW from Eq102, their D_RC from Eq98 and their G_RC from Eq135 as computed from the (p_i) of those Representative Configurations.            

Table 136. The lnW, D_RC and G­_RC of the Figures between Eq108 and Eq114.

 

The high correlation of .996 between lnW and D_RC is repeated between lnW and G_RC as .994 as is show by the confluent near straight line scatter plots of the two diversity indices below with G_RC as the brown squares and D_RC as the blue diamond figures.     

Figure 137. A Scatter Plot of D_RC and G_RC versus lnW for the Figures between Eq108 and Eq114

And as the correlation of D_RC with lnW went from .996 with these low N and K distributions to .9995 (near 100%) for the high K and N distributions back in Table 103a, so we assume from the closeness in the correlation values for D_RC and G_­RC of .996 to .994 that at high K and N the correlation of G_RC to lnW would also be near 100%, in the range of .999.

Hence either diversity index can replace Boltzmann’s S=k_BlnW entropy from their very high, nearly 100% correlation to lnW. What has us choose the G=K/ψ diversity over the D=K/φ diversity ψ properly specifies the microstate absolute temperature of a thermodynamic system and thus has a very direct quantitative connection with the entropy of a thermodynamic system. In standard physico-chemical theory temperature is taken to be the average kinetic energy, which is directly proportional to the μ=K/N average energy per molecule in our model. But a μ=K/N temperature measure must be seriously questioned from the perspective of the physical reality of how temperature is actually physically measured with a thermometer.

Let us understand the K energy units of a thermodynamic system of N gas molecules to be distributed as x_i energy units for each of the molecules that move in a container of fixed volume. Because the molecular energy units are divided equally from the equipartition theorem  over kinetic, rotational and vibrational energy, the velocity of the molecules as a function of the kinetic energy must be proportional to the square root of the x­_i number of energy units on each molecule. This has each molecules necessarily collide with the thermometer that measures the temperature of the system at a frequency equal to the molecular velocities that are proportional to the square root of the x_i number of energy units on the molecule. Hence the smaller energies of the slower moving molecules in the Maxwell-Boltzmann energy distribution of Figure 107 that collide with the thermometer less frequently are recorded less frequently than the higher energies of the faster moving molecules that collide with the thermometer to be recorded more frequently.

This necessarily records a temperature as an average of molecular energies weighted toward the higher energies of the faster moving molecules because of their greater velocities that cause them to have a higher frequency of collision with the thermometer. As the velocities of the molecules are directly proportional to the square root of the x_i energy of the molecules, the average molecular energy, which is temperature, is a square root of x_i energy weighted average, which is the ψ square root average energy per molecule of the representative configuration of the thermodynamic distribution, labeled ψ_RC, which we have shown is the temperature of the thermodynamic distribution as a whole.

138.)    

Now we want to ask what function would represent the energy diversity of a thermodynamic system given that its temperature is proportional to or is a normalized ψ_RC square root average energy? The D_RC diversity is from Eq127,   

139.)               

And the G_RC diversity is from Eq135, 

140.)                

Now let’s consider a particular thermochemical process that will show G_RC to be the proper diversity function for entropy. It is a simple heat transfer process described in an Encyclopedia Britannica 2009 article on thermodynamics. Assume two enormous heat reservoirs at absolute temperatures T₁ and T₂ with T₁>T₂. The fact of the T₁ reservoir being hotter than the T₂ reservoir will cause heat, Q, to flow from the T₁ hotter reservoir to the T₂ colder reservoir.

Figure 141. Heat Flow from a T₁ Hotter to a T₂ Cooler Reservoir

The definition of the differential change in macroscopic entropy, dS, given below applies to this problem in a direct way.

142.)               

The net entropy change for the two reservoirs is obtained by integrating the above differential form of dS to ΔS as 

143.)        

We can rewrite this expression in terms of microstate variables on the right side of the equation with the Q heat transferred from the hotter to the colder reservoir denoted as K energy units transferred and the T temperatures denoted as microstate temperatures, ψ_RC.  

144.)           

And from Eq143 we see that 

145.)            

This shows the microstate entropy for this process to be the G_RC square root diversity of the Representative Configuration and of the thermodynamic distribution as a whole.

146.)                

Now that we know G_RC to be the correct form of diversity based entropy on the basis of the above analysis, let’s use G_RC to illustrate entropy as energy diversity in a simple thermal equilibration thought experiment. If you bring a hot subsystem into contact with a colder subsystem, the composite system that results comes to equilibrium at an intermediate temperature. This process follows the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics that stipulates an increase in entropy for all spontaneous processes of an isolated system. The 2^nd Law is generally expressed as

147.)                

Rendering entropy as the square root diversity of the system, G_RC, specifies the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics as  

148.)                 

For those who yet doubt that entropy is properly represented by a diversity function rather than Boltzmann’s S=k_BlnW formula, let us give a brief lesson in chemical kinetics. Chemical reaction mechanisms are determined and corroborated by chemical kinetics experiment from changes in the concentrations of reactants and products over time. The concentration versus time data is then fitted into a differential equation, a straightforward interpretation of which reveals the underlying mechanism of the reaction. In some cases, though, the data perfectly fit two distinctly different differential equations that imply two distinctly different reaction mechanisms, only one of which can be correct. To determine which of the two is correct in such a case requires further investigation.

The main point is that the quantitative data in these cases can be represented by two different mathematical formulas, only one of which is correct. So it is with our entropy puzzle where the thermodynamic data can be represented by two distinctly different formulas that have a near 100% numerical correlation, G_RC diversity and Boltzmann’s S equation. Both fit the data but only one can be correct. Further investigation had us understand that it can’t be Boltzmann’s lnW based formulation of entropy because the W in lnW makes no tangible sense mathematically as a measure of indistinguishable energy units in the context of fundamental indistinguishability as we earlier discussed. So entropy must be G_RC diversity, which makes great sense out of entropy as the physical quantity of energy diversity and other physico-chemical diversities that classical entropy measures.                   

The sense of entropy as energy diversity is very general in physico-chemical nature. All thermochemical processes that have a classical thermodynamics ΔS increase in entropy exhibit ΔG increases in energy diversity. Temperature equilibration between say two pennies one initially at a hotter temperature than the other as dictated by the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics produces greater energy diversity as the energy is spread out more balanced or evenly between the two pennies at equilibrium.

The greater entropy of a system at a hotter temperature within a given phase - crystalline, liquid or gaseous - is readily understood as the greater energy diversity that exists when more energy units are dispersed over the system’s same number of molecules at a higher temperature. And a change in entropy that results from a change in phase is readily understood as the change in energy diversity that results from the phase change. For example, when a system changes from crystalline to liquid, the entropy change, as measured in classical thermodynamics, is an increase and easy to explain as an increase in energy diversity from the reduced constraint on molecular motion in a liquid relative to the ordered molecular motions of a crystal.

And the same interpretation of increased energy diversity as increased entropy is clear in a liquid to gas phase change where the molecular motion is less constrained and more diverse in the gas phase relative to the liquid phase. Entropy change as energy diversity change is obvious in all chemical reactions, which is what representing the entropy change as ΔG_RC denotes. The further detailed work of specifying entropy as energy diversity in all thermochemical reactions is left to the specialists in the physical science community.

Back to the Law of Emotion

We said earlier that we wanted to make the Law of Emotion, T=R−E, of Eq15 and the equations for all the emotions general, something we need to do to have them apply to commonplace behaviors besides guessing where the probabilities involved aren’t equal. To illustrate the problem, what would the emotion equations be when the color guessing game is from an unbalanced bag of colored blocks like (■■■, ■■, ■). To answer that question we must delve into a bit of pure mathematics based on the D and G diversity indices. From Eq41,122&123, let’s write the D diversity index as   

149.)             

And let’s write the G diversity index from Eq135 as

150.)             

 

These give rise to a general function, 

151.)               

 

When β=1, D_β=D₁=D of Eq149. And when β=1/2, D_β=D_1/2=G. This is to say that there is a general diversity function, D_β defined as above, which takes different forms depending on the value of the β index. We can make this diversity measure all the more general by extending the range of the index from 0 to ∞.

152.)               

 

This D_β expresses D as D₁ and G as D_1/2. There are two other important D_β forms for us. One is D_∞.   _.

153.)               

 

We must evaluate D_∞ not with ∞ but a very large number for β like β=100 and β+1=101. And the other important form is the β=0 form

153a.)                    

 

It should be clear that D_β of Eq152 is a general family of diversity indices. For the unbalanced set, (■■■, ■■, ■)↔(3, 2, 1)↔(1/2, 1/3, 1/6), the diversities are from the above, D₁=D=2.571, D_1/2=G=2.757, D_∞=2 and D₀=N=3. In every case for this unbalanced set the D_β diversity is less than N, D_β<N, except for D₀=N. Now let’s look at a function we have come across before, Z, which is defined now in a new way from Eq149 as  

154.)                  

For a balanced set of objects like the N=3, (■■, ■■, ■■)↔(2, 2, 2)↔(1/2, 1/3, 1/3), set where D=N=3 and p_i=1/N, we see that

155.)                  

This is the Z_A=1/N=1/3 probability of correctly guessing the 1^st or A color in our color guessing game of Eq2. While p_i is used in the diversity functions of Eqs149-155 as the weight fraction of a number set, when used in our color guessing game, the p_i weight fraction of a particular color in (■■, ■■, ■■)↔(1/2, 1/3, 1/3) is also both the probability of making a guess at that particular color and the probability of that particular color being picked from (■■, ■■, ■■). This is clearer to see when we expand Eq155 as Z_A for the (■■, ■■, ■■) N=3 set with the understanding of p₁=1/3 as the weight fraction and probability associated with the red color; p₂=1/3 with the green color; and p₃=1/3 with the purple color.   

156.)               

This says that the Z_A=1/3 probability of correctly guessing the 1^st or A color derives from an equal probability of making a guess at any of the N=3 colors, p₁=p₂=p₃=1/3, combined with an equal probability of any of the N=3 colors being picked from the bag. The assumption that all three colors will be guessed at with equal probability is statistically sensible if we were to sample, say, a million people, making such guesses given that there is no reason for any person to choose one color over another given that each has the same likelihood of probability of being picked from the bag.     

But when making guesses for which color will be picked from an unbalanced bag of blocks, (■■■, ■■, ■)↔(3, 2, 1)↔(1/2, 1/3, 1/6), because a red block will be picked randomly from the bag more often than the other colors, the probability of successfully guessing the 1^st or A color will be greater if the player leans more towards making a guess at red than the other colors.

There are two ways that we human beings tend to do this. We either guess at a color with the same frequency or probability that the color is picked randomly from the bag, red more often the others. Or we would make a guess at red every time. People do both for reasons made clear as we proceed.     

Guessing the 1^st or A color with a frequency or probability of the p_i weight fraction of the color gives a higher Z_A probability of success in correctly guessing. If you make a guess at red, p_i=1/2 the time, assuming it is randomly picked from the bag as it is on average, p_i=1/2 the time; and guess at green, p₂=1/3 the time with it picked p₂=1/3 the time; and guess at purple, p₃=1/6 the time with it picked p₃=1/3 the time, your probability of guessing the color correctly is from Eq154

157.)           Z_A=(1/2)(1/2) + (1/3)(1/3) + (1/6)(1/6)=7/18=.389=1/D=1/D₁=Z_A1

This selecting which color to guess at from the p_i weight fractions, also known as the ratios of the colors that are picked from the bag is called rational selection. You could also guess from (■■■, ■■, ■) randomly or equiprobably with each color guessed 1/3 of the time. This way that does not take into consideration the imbalance in (■■■, ■■, ■) gives a probability of success of

158.)          (1/3)(1/2)+(1/3(1/3)+(1/3)(1/6)=1/3=.333=1/N=1/D₀=Z_A0  

So making a guess rationally with Z_A=Z_A1=.389 probability of guessing correctly is an improvement over guessing at random which has a success rate of only Z_A0=.333. Note that we have understood 1/D₀ to be equal to 1/D₀=Z_A0. This implicitly comes from our generalizing Z=1/D in Eq154 as 

159.)            

So far we have presented two ways of making a guess at the 1^st or A color from (■■■, ■■, ■). But what should be obvious to even a fledgling gambler and certainly to a mathematician is that your best bet (that has you be successful most often) is to always select red, in which case you win half the time. 

159.)           (1)(1/2)=1/2=.5=1/D_∞=Z_A∞

These are the three ways that people would make a guess from (■■■, ■■, ■), rationally with a success rate of Z_A=Z_A1=.389, randomly with a success rate of Z_A0=.333 and best bet with a success rate of Z_A∞=.5. Do people actually make guesses in this way? 

Animals like pigeons and rats, just about every vertebrate animal tested, are seen experimentally to select rationally all the time. Put in a box of three colored icons that release food pellets in the p_i ratio of the (■■■, ■■, ■)↔(1/2, 1/3, 1/6) set, pigeons will peck at the icons to get the food pellets at a frequency or probability of the p_i of (■■■, ■■, ■)↔(1/2, 1/3, 1/6). Of course, they would have a higher success rate if they always went for the red color, stupid pigeons, but the reason they don’t comes from their inborn genetic instinct as follows.

Assumed in our guessing game starting way back at Eq2 was that each colored bock would be replaced back in the bag after being randomly picked. Always having the same blocks in the bag, selection with replacement, is key to the mathematics we have done and to making best bet selection the superior strategy. But if the colored blocks were food selected to be eaten and not replaced, it becomes clear that always selecting red would not be an optimal strategy and that selecting in proportion to the ratio of the food stuffs or rationally would be the optimal strategy. And that is why lower animals follow that strategy.

Such a strategy would also be optimal for human beings back in our early Cro-Magnon days when man was a hunter gatherer and got his food from the land. And that is why testing shows that even present day humans tested in a variety of ways exhibit rational selection even when the optimal strategy would be best bet. One might say that the smarter or more discerning humans would always select with best bet, certainly the case and what evolved culturally over the centuries of human history and especially for the educated that operate more often with calculation rather than with raw instinct.                     

Do humans also choose randomly from an unbalanced menu of choice like (■■■, ■■, ■)↔(1/2, 1/3, 1/6)? Certainly young children are prone to do so to some extent. But whatever the factors of a situation and the chooser that make people select either rationally, randomly or best bet, these three ways are the ones that humans use. And they also affect their emotions according to the functions for the emotions we have developed to the extent that their surmise of the likelihood or probability of an outcome fits the reality of the situation. Hence we need but go back and understand the Z variables in the emotion functions to be generalized as Z_β to understand all of them including the Law of Emotion to be completely general with the β index value depending on the selection strategy of the player as to whether it is β=0 random, β=1 rational or β=∞ best bet.       

The Law of Social Relationship

Much of behavioral selection and the most important part for humans, as social animal, is social selection. Whom we choose to keep company with and who to stay away from are very important choices people make. In one way it is very simple. What is there to gain, V, in the relationship and to what Z probability? And what is there to lose, −v, and to what probability, U or u?

A subset of this, subtle but very meaningful, is who in the relationship gets to do what they, themselves, want to do and who has to follow the desires of the other person? Generally speaking every human prefers to do what they, themselves, want to do. The reason that this option of freedom of choice is the most pleasant is obvious in that each of our instinctive selection drives is most generally suited and shaped to optimizing our individual fitness function. It is each of our emotional minds telling us what we should do by what feels pleasant and unpleasant.

This instinct is so powerfully strong that it is obvious even in infant babies. What counteracts it in a great many instances is the benefit of taking direction from benevolent others who are more capable of making choices than we might be. Assuming benevolence by the dominant in the relationship to the subordinate, parents have this value for their children, teachers for their students and leaders to their willing followers. But independent of the specific plusses and minuses from a relationship, the core factor of dominance versus subordinance is centrally important in the relationship for the above reason of fitness maximization especially taking into consideration that the dominant may not have an entirely benevolent attitude toward the subordinate or in the worst case of patent exploitive enslavement, not at all.

The dominance-subordinance relationship in a social relationship is also difficult to discern because exploitive dominance tends to be hidden by the dominant. This is particularly the case when it is widespread as in a generally exploitive culture that prefers to hide its negative aspects in Machiavellian fashion by proclaiming itself a free and fair society. This problem, as we shall see next, is resolved mathematically with the Simpson’s Diversity Index. We will look at the simplest case next of the relationship being between N=2 individuals. 

Key to understanding it is the relative power of the N=2 individuals in a cooperative, mutually beneficial, relationship to best each other in a fight or competition when differences arise. A mutually beneficial relationship is assumed even if only by a Hobson’s choice of the dissolution of the relationship being worse. Also understood is that the relative power to prevail in a fight over a disagreement takes the form of the p₁+p₂=1 probabilities of the two individuals to win a fight when it comes to it. This is not to say that every disagreement leads to a battle. Some are settled immediately via the will of the dominant, a dynamic we will describe mathematically along with the other characteristics of the dominance-subordinance relationship.

If the probability of the 1^st person is p₁, then that of the other person or 2^nd person is p₂=1−p. The competitive difference between the two, p₁−p₂=Δp is a measure the edge or advantage the 1^st has over the 2^nd when p₁>p₂ and Δp>0 and of the vulnerability of the 1^st to the 2^nd when p₁<p₂ and Δp>0. 

The competitive difference can also be expressed independent of which party is superior as (p₁−p₂)²=(Δp)², which is always a positive quantity. Another advantage of it as a mathematical function is that (p₁−p₂)² is the perfect statistical error function, r²_, of Eq46 for the N=2 case. Generally speaking r² can be expressed as

160.)                                

Proving this formally, not difficult at all, takes too much time and is a distraction. So let us just illustrate it rather with the K=6, N=3, (3, 2, 1)↔(1/2, 1/3, 1/6) set. Its variance from Eq44 is σ²=2/3 and its mean from Eq45 is μ=K/N=2. Hence it has from Eq46, r²=σ²/μ²=1/6. We arrive at this same value of it as a function of its (p_i) weight fractions from Eq160 as 

161.)    

For an N=2 number set with weight fractions p₁ and p₂,

162.)             

For an N=2 set of two persons’ (p_i) probabilities of winning in competition, the diversity, D, of the set is a function of r² from Eq47 as 

163.)          

Earlier we learned in the section on insignificance starting at Eq41 that when D is less than D=1.5, it is rounded off to D≈1, which translates to the party that has the smaller p_i probability being insignificant relative to the one that has the larger probability. What we now want to ask is: What is the competitive probability difference between two individuals that makes one of them insignificant to the other in the relationship? To find out we express Eq163 for the N=2 case with D=1.5 and with (p₁−p₂) rendered as (2p₁−1) given p₁=1−p₂.

164.)            

Solving for p_i now with N=2 and D=1.5 obtains

165.)               

This says that when one party in a relationship has a 4 to 1 preponderance in the p_i probability of success in competition or a ratio in that ballpark over the other person that the weaker party is mathematically insignificant in its ability to win in such competition. Somewhat astonishing is that the mathematical insignificance of the subordinate is felt emotionally by him or her as a generally unpleasant feeling of the absence of freedom or loss of control over one’s destiny that is akin to the feeling of out and out slavery even when all the components of ball and chain plantation type slavery are not present. This point of D<1.5≈1 diversity that indicates only one significant party in a relationship is where the weaker party does not enter into active competition with the stronger and submits to the wishes of the stronger without a fight.

The nuances and ramifications of the dominance-subordinance factor inherent in every relationship are broad and very meaningful for economic, political and personal success in life when the positive and negative E expectations and R realizations of the relationship are also taken into account. For example, dominance of parents over children, who are by inborn nature quite strong willed, couples whatever loss of freedom that entails from parental dominance with the realized and expectation benefits of the relationship to keep it intact.

The relationship of males to females is also very much affected by the dominance-subordinance factor which rises to the fore in importance for females in modern times who are no longer encumbered with lots of children to be pregnant with and nurse and raise in life as makes the dominance of the male as leader and provider acceptable. This along with the ability of modern females to provide for themselves economically makes the love relationship a major problem, for as has been made clear, the dominance-subordinance factor is ever present in every relationship whatever the prattling about equality, something between people along with mutual respect that is best had between people at a distance with each on their own personal territory, something not really possible between man and woman in an intimate relationship.

This complication of modern gender dominance that deviates from the male dominance of primitive hunter-gatherers whose emotional machinery is our legacy whatever our cultural innovations of birth control and effective hierarchical enslavement is the primary cause of the near impossibility of true love between men and women in modern times and its heartache. Pleasurable sex, which is a natural cement of the love bond, is much easier when the male is dominant.

Gender role reversal is also a causal factor in homosexuality, which is considerably more developmental in origin than is implied in the soothing myth of it as primarily genetic, which is a biologically ridiculous notion as anyone who has taken a course or two in genetics and carefully read the scientific literature on it understands. Males subordinated by authorities, be they bosses in the workplace, teachers dominating students on the way to adult work relationships, clerics dominating children emotionally and even sexually, and parents especially mothers who excessive and harshly dominate their sons, certainly have a much greater frequency of turning out as hot assed homosexuals, having a hot ass being more a trait of feminine females rather than masculine males if private enough for the females and homosexuals not to be broadcast over a megaphone.              

Pedophilia also arises in epidemic fashion in modern times given that females become more resistant and inaccessible to males because of dominance-subordinance gender role reversal. And doubly distant from natural heterosexual relationships is the rampant homosexual pedophilia priests and ministers are so fond of. Substitute behaviors such as these are more thoroughly explained as misdirected behavior in the last section of this treatise a few paragraphs down.      

A most important relationship that is central to the destruction of male vigor in modern times is of the individual to institutions, that is, to groups of people that have considerably greater power than the individual as makes the individual be and feel insignificant and destroys the sense of freedom and self esteem in the individual. This very much frustrates the individual’s chances for happiness in life, the nonsense about freedom being enabled by democracy to be seriously weighed against what a person can or cannot do that is determined by wealth, the possession of which is highly dependent on the individual’s subordinate relationship to corporate entities that provide the wealth over which the individual has little power to win in any kind of competition.

The point where people are crushed into submission to those backed by the enormous power of institutions is often the point in life where people consciously submit to an imagined Almighty God felt to have almighty power over the individual as does the institutions he or she submits to. Heretics from religious dogma are generally people who manage greater freedom in their thinking and the living of their lives than believers in the Great Almighty in the sky. Or put in converse, no true believer is capable of being a rebel against a tyranny stamped by religion as morally just whatever its actual horrors, this whether the religion is Christian, Muslim, Hindu or whatever. The primary practical purpose and function of religion is to keep the slaves picking cotton with the expectation that the Almighty God or Gods will make up the pain of it to them after they’re stone cold dead. 

We’ve seen four areas now that are clarified by Simpson’s Diversity Index: emotion, significance, entropy and social relationships. What it is about diversity that enables it to explain such different topics in a unified way we’ll see in the next section.      

RELATIONAL GEOMETRY

When we look at the world around us, we see it in two broadly different ways. On the one hand we can describe it in terms of geometric figures. Things take the form of circles, ellipses, squares, rectangles and such, perfect and imperfect, big and small, that are describable mathematically in terms of Euclidian Geometry. But what we also see in a very general way are things intuitively sensed as different or the same. And these relationships of different and same can also be described mathematically so as to explain why it is that diversity is such a general concept that applies to so many things in such a basic way.

Let’s go back to the unbalanced set of colored objects in a bag, (■■■, ■■, ■), describable as the number set, (3, 2, 1) with p_i weight fractions, (1/2, 1/3, 1/6). Assume that your head is inside the bag and this is all you see in your visual field, (■■■, ■■, ■), these K=6 objects in N=3 colors, x₁=3 red objects, x₂=2 green and x₃=1 purple. To keep the math simple we will keep all the objects the same size and shape as unit objects. Another way of representing this as a set of objects in your visual field is 

Figure 166. Visual Field of (3, 2, 1) Unit Objects

All K=6 objects in (■■■, ■■, ■) and in the above visual tableau are distinct from each other fundamentally in being different objects in different places even if some have the same color and are the same in that regard. Let’s mark the fundamental distinction in the set by giving each block its own distinct symbol of a different letter: (a b c, d e, f). We also see that some of the objects are distinct from others categorically in being of different color and some of the objects are in the same category in being of the same color. We can quantify the categorical distinctions and samenesses of the objects in (a b c, d e, f) by comparing every object in the set to every other object and to itself. We do that systematically in a comparison matrix.

Figure 167. The Comparison Matrix of (a b c, d e, f)

In this matrix of the K=6 objects of (a b c, d e, f), there are K²=36 pairs that fall into various classes of comparisons.  Down the diagonal running from left to right are K=6 identities, (aa bb cc, dd ee, ff). Note that the set of identities has the same basic properties of the set of objects, (a b c, d e, f), of K=6 elements in N=3 categories with a mean of μ=K/N=2 elements in each category and a variance of σ²=2/3 and a diversity of D=18/7=2.571. In that way they are perfectly corresponding sets that can represent each other in all ways specified in terms of their identical basic properties.

The K=6 identities may also be understood to fall into a broader class of comparisons called samenesses that they share with other comparisons that also have both objects compared having the same color called likenesses like ab and de that are, unlike the identities, comparisons between fundamentally distinct objects. You can count Λ=8 likenesses in the matrix, which combined with the K=6 identities sum to ε=14 samenesses, of which x₁²=9 are red, x₂²=4 are green and x₃²=1 are purple. We see that the ε samenesses of the matrix of this number set, and, indeed, of any natural number set (one made up of whole positive numbers and 0) are 

168.)                                       

And the other broad class of comparisons are the distinctions like eb and fd made of pairs of different color objects of which we count Y=22 in the matrix. For this and any natural number set the K² comparisons in the matrix must consist of ε samenesses and Y distinctions in the matrix equation,  

169.)                                

This generates a general function for Y from Eq120, K=∑x_i, of

170.)               

Now keeping in mind that Simpson’s Reciprocal Diversity Index from Eq41 is D=K²/∑x_i², we see a simple direct relationship between the Y=22 number of distinctions in the natural number set, (■■■, ■■, ■)↔(a b c, d e, f) ↔(3, 2, 1), and the set’s D=18/7=2.571 diversity via Eq168 of

171.)              

 

This makes it clear that in contrasting natural number sets that have the same number of unit objects like the K=6 (■■, ■■, ■■), (■■■, ■■, ■) and (■■■■, ■, ■) sets that the diversity of the set, D, is an increasing function of Y distinctions in the set. Let’s put the sets and their D and Y measures in a table to see that more clearly.

Object Set	Number Set	D from Eq41	Y from Eq170
(■■, ■■, ■■)	(2, 2, 2)	D=3	Y=24
(■■■, ■■, ■)	(3, 2, 1)	D=18/7=2.571	Y=22
(■■■■, ■, ■)	(4, 1, 1)	D=2	Y=18

                                                   Table 172. The D diversity and Y distinction of Various K=6 Natural Number Sets

It is seen from Eq171 and in Table 172 that with K constant D diversity is a monotonically increasing function of Y distinction. This suggests that the D diversity of a natural number set of unit objects and the set’s Y distinction are measures of the same thing, namely the distinction we make between objects which is essential for diversity for there can be no diversity sensed in a set without your distinguishing between the objects in the set. 

Distinguishing is the basic operation of the mind in its perceptions with the comparison matrix succinctly representing the distinctions the mind intuitively makes that include the intuitive lack of distinction or sameness sensed between some of the objects seen in our visual field. We first fundamentally distinguish between all the objects in the visual field with an object well defined as having a continuous exterior border as do each of the blocks in (■■■, ■■, ■). The K=6 fundamentally distinct objects in (■■■, ■■, ■) with that fundamental distinction specified as letters in (a b c, d e, f) are represented by the K=6 identities in the matrix of Figure 167, (aa bb cc, dd ee, ff), an identity comparison of an object to itself effectively representing the object itself.   

Once we sense the K=6 fundamentally distinct objects in the visual field, more or less simultaneously we further distinguish some of the objects as being of different kinds, in our illustration, of different colors. These are the Y=22 distinctions in kind in the matrix, (ad, bd, cd, da, db, dc, ae, be, ce, ea, eb, ec, af, bf, cf, fa, fb, fc, df, ef, fd, fe). The mind, though, does not intuitively perceptually distinguish objects in its visual field in forward and reverse order. So Y=22 is a redundant set of distinctions with it being more appropriate to specify Y/2=y=11 distinctions in kind the matrix as what we see.

We also see or sense Λ=8 samenesses of kind or color in the matrix, (ab, ac, bc, ba, ca, cb, de, ed), which again are redundant, what we see in the visual field better represented as Λ/2=λ=4 sameness of kind or color. That is what we see in our visual field for (■■■, ■■, ■)↔(a b c, d e, f) with the three classes of entities seen represented in the matrix as the K=6 objects given as the K=6 identities in the matrix, the y=11 distinctions in kind and the λ=4 samenesses of kind. This classification of the comparisons in the matrix of Figure167 as it represents our perceptions allows us to rewrite the matrix equation of Eq169 as

173.)                             

The distinguishing operation of the mind is basic not only to perception but also the mind’s mental operation of judging whether a guess is correct or incorrect or a try is successful or unsuccessful by comparing guesses or goals attempted made to outcomes. Let’s run this through for the (■■, ■■, ■■) set of objects picked from that we used in the guessing game to develop our basic equations for emotion with. As we don’t fundamentally distinguish between guesses or between outcomes of which color was picked from the bag in terms of which specific block was picked, the comparison matrix of (■■, ■■, ■■) is     

Figure 174. Comparison matrix of (■■, ■■, ■■)

The vertical axis represents the (■■, ■■, ■■)↔(1/3, 1/3, 1/3) equiprobable distribution of guesses, no one color having any more reason to be guessed at than any other. And the horizontal axis represents the (■■, ■■, ■■)↔(1/3, 1/3, 1/3) equiprobable distribution of random pick outcomes. For K²=36 guesses in which every pair represents a guess compared with a pick outcome, we count Y=24 distinctions like ■■ and ■■ understood as Y=24 guesses associated with outcomes that don’t match the guesses. These are incorrect guesses. And we count ε=12 samenesses like ■■ and ■■ understood as ε=12 guesses associated with outcomes that do match the guesses. These are correct guesses.

The Z_A=Z_B=Z_C=1/3 probability of success is guessing from developed (■■, ■■, ■■) in Eq2 derives in an obvious way as the ratio of ε=12 number of correct guesses to the K²=36 total number of guesses made of ε/K²=1/3. This has us generalize the ratio of ε to K² as a matrix function, Z, 

175.)                   

And the ratio of the Y=24 number of incorrect guesses to the K²=36 guesses made is the probability of guessing incorrectly or uncertainty in guessing correctly of Y/K²=2/3, which we will generalize as a matrix function, U,

176.)                

Now we see that the probability functions, Z and U, in our emotion analysis that are part of the mind’s emotional machinery can be derived from the ε and Y distinction functions of the comparison matrix. This is what makes the diversity functions that derive from distinction and the comparison matrix so general in describing nature for much as distinction and sameness are most general concepts that apply to just about everything, so also is diversity in its deriving from distinction.

This should hardly strike us as strange because the brains of all animals had to evolve to distinguish between the different behaviors they could do in a given environment in order to select the one that would optimize their fitness and be successful in evolution rather than have their genetic lineage go extinct. And to distinguish between behaviors you have to distinguish between objects in the environment that are primary factors in the behaviors.

It is also helpful to show a purely geometric manifestation of the matrix representation of a number set like (3, 2, 1)↔(a b c, d e, f) as K=6 fundamentally distinct straight lines on a plane divided into N=3 color subsets with all of them intersecting in none of them being parallel to each other. Their intersections are an association of a pair of lines that parallels the comparison of two objects in a set in the matrix of Figure 167.

Figure 177. Straight Line Manifestation of the (■■■, ■■, ■) Set

Just as are counted in the matrix of Figure 167 there are K=6 lines that represent the K=6 identities in the matrix and λ=Λ/2=4 non-redundant samenesses as points of intersection between lines of the same color and y=Y/2=11 non-redundant distinctions as points of intersection between lines of different color.

This geometric representation of the matrix of a set is most helpful in understanding an identity as a comparison of an object with itself that is equivalent to the object. In the geometric representation the intersection of a line with another line, be the two lines of the same or different color, as can be thought of in its construction as placing one line across another in a non-parallel way, is a point. But the intersection of a line with itself, which can be thought of in its construction as placing a line over the same line in the same place perfectly creates the line itself.    

As to its presence in biological science we need but look back to the natural selection equation of Eq71,

71.)               

Now let’s express the x_i and x₂ population sizes using Eq122 as weight fractions or population densities, x­₁ =p₁K and p₂=x₂K and divide both sides of the equation by K to obtain

178.)             

179.)  ­           

Now note from Eqs122&176 that for N=2 competing populations (1−p₁)p₁=p₁p₂ is just U/2, which is easy to understand as the probability of social “intersection” or interaction of two organisms, one from each of the competing populations when their movement in a mutual niche or environment of fixed area is random. The p_ip₂=U/2 term is then understood as a precondition for their competing with each other in some way such that the organism of the #1 population has a lower d₁ death rate and/or causes the organism of the #2 population to have a higher d₂ death rate followed after the death of the #2 organism by the reproduction of the #1 organism as effectively specified by the F₁>0, positive, fitness in Eq179 that increases the p_i population density, i.e., the x₁ population size in time. Now we see the fractional measure of the Y distinction as U in Eq176 as a central factor in natural selection.

Hence we have from all of the foregoing mathematics that the concept of distinction (including sameness or the lack of distinction) as formulated in the matrix and elaborated on in Simpson’s Diversity Indices that primitively derive from the matrix functions are applicable to all of nature, physico-chemical, biological and human, and as such are able to unify science under their aegis.

Moreover the matrix functions also restructure mathematical science itself from the matrix analysis applying to every natural number set whatever it may represent and to every number set by normalized extension. Take, for example, the K=10, N=4 number set, (1, 2, 3, 4). It implicitly specifies a set of K=10 unit objects that are fundamentally distinct from each other in some manner and that are divided explicitly by the commas that separate them into N=4 distinguishable subsets. For if the N=4 subsets were not distinguishable in some way, the K=10 objects would be represented as the N=1 number set, (10). Hence the matrix distinction analysis is entirely general as pure mathematics.

In being so the matrix can also be looked on as a more proper and correct foundation structure for mathematics than the number set as is currently held with set theory being considered to provide the foundation of mathematics. That is because the matrix not only includes the number set within itself in its identity set but also includes the distinctions, fundamental and in kind, and the samenesses that are the mental basis of how the human mind sees and thinks, the set alone being understood as too restricted and incomplete a structure to base all of mathematics on.

Moreover the matrix is superior in that it can be understood as a empirical mapping of experiential reality that requires no assumptions unlike the set theory foundation of mathematics. This is centrally important in mathematical theory because a foundation of mathematics that requires axioms or assumptions violates Gödel’s unarguable incompleteness theorem while the matrix that is empirical as a representation of what we see and how we think does not violate Gödel. Now let’s use all this information for practical considerations starting with the most important real problem the human species has, that of keeping itself from going extinct. We further explain the matrix as the true foundation of all mathematics in the next section.

A MAJOR REVISION OF INFORMATION THEORY

Something has to be new for you to be information for you. If I tell you that the World Trade Center was bombed by Osama Bin Laden on 9/11, it’s not information for you because you already knew that. It’s only when you have some uncertainty about something I might tell you that it’s information for you. If you don’t know who the current president of China is or have some uncertainty about it and I tell you that it’s Xi Jinping, that’s information for you.

Going back to the (■■, ■■, ■■) bag of blocks, assume that I pick a red block, ■, from it but don’t show it to you. And then I ask you: what block did I pick? You have some uncertainty as to what the color is, more specifically as seen after Eq10, U=2/3=.667 as specified there for the three sequence guessing game as U_A=1−Z_A=1−1/3=2/3.

There are a number of telling implications from this. If I tell you it was a red block, ■, even before you guess, intuitively that is information for you. But what if you peek and see I drew a red block, ■. Then when I tell you it’s a red block, ■, that’s not information for you because you already knew it.

The next thing we want to ask is how much information you got when I told you it was a red block, ■. To determine that, let me now pick two blocks in succession (with replacement), say a red block and a green block, ■■. I ask you to guess. As the probability of your guessing correctly is Z_AZ_B=1/9, your uncertainty is U_AB=1−Z_AB=8/9=.889, a greater uncertainty than U_A=.667 for just guessing the color of one block picked.

Now if I tell you the ■■ sequence, that’s information for you. How much information? Intuitively, you would think that there’s more information in being told the two colors, ■■, than the one color, ■. One way that fits that intuitive sense of the amount of information is to say that the amount of information is equal to the amount of uncertainty that was resolved once you were told the color or colors. Since you had U_AB=.889 resolved by being told the two colors, ■■, that is more information for you than being told the one color, ■, which resolved an amount of uncertainty, U_A=.667.

This perfectly fits the classical information theory of Claude Shannon which specifically takes the amount of information in a message to be equal to the amount of uncertainty resolved, though classical information theory uses a different measure for uncertainty and information, a logarithmic measure of uncertainty called the Shannon information entropy,

180.)             

The Shannon information entropy is the wrong general measure of uncertainty and information though it has been touted to be such since 1948 when Claude Shannon, then an electrical engineer at Bell Labs introduced it to science. It is known in science that H takes the same form as a foundation function for Boltzmann’s thermodynamic entropy, S=k_BlnW. We will not examine this relationship but merely make the point that much as Boltzmann’s formula was an incorrect for entropy and should be replaced by a diversity function, so also is Shannon’s H information entropy incorrect and should be replaced by a diversity function.

That H is replaceable by a diversity function is strongly hinted at in that H in a log base e form rather than the above log base 2 form has been used for the last 60 years in the scientific literature as a measure of ecological and ethnic diversity.

181.)                                                        

A more direct piece of evidence is that the G=D_1/2 square root diversity of Eqs135&150 that we replaced Boltzmann’s S thermodynamic entropy with has in logarithmic form as log­₂G a .9999 Pierson’s correlation with H of Eq180 as evaluated for ten natural number sets whose N number of numbers and specific constituent numbers ranging from 1 to 10 were generated randomly.

182.)             

 

This is not to say that log₂G is the proper general form of information either. Rather, with due respect for the genius of Claude Shannon who made the breakthrough discovery on information, whatever its flaws, much as Boltzmann made the breakthrough discovery of microstate entropy, whatever its flaws, Shannon was off in the exact proper quantitative representation of information. To show how and why that is and what is the exact proper general function for information we must take a close look at the three Simpson’s Diversity Indices that Edward Simpson developed in the years following World War Two.

The Simpson’s index we have used primary in this treatise, D of Eqs41&149 is usually referred to in the literature as Simpson’s Reciprocal Diversity Index.

149.)                       

 

But the U function we have repeatedly referred to as uncertainty is also a Simpson’s Diversity Index. This is easy to see in its functional relationship to D from Eqs171&176.

183.)               

 

To see best that the U uncertainty is a measure of diversity, let’s solve the above for U.

184.)             

This relationship is well illustrated with the N=3, (■■, ■■, ■■)↔(2, 2, 2), set. The D diversity of this balanced set is D=N=3 and the U uncertainty of guessing the color of a block picked randomly from it is U=2/3 as fits the above equation. What we also see is that U is a monotonically increasing function of D that could be considered to be continuous for large values of D as suggests from measure theory that whatever D is a function of, U is a function of, namely, diversity, which is certainly the case in Simpson’s development of both as diversity measures. By the same reasoning looking more at Eq183, whatever U is a function of D is also a function of, namely uncertainly and, from the reasoning of a few paragraphs back that information is uncertainty resolved, information.

Now we want to introduce one more diversity index that is a simple function of D and U from Eq183 as

185.)                     

Again from measure theory, if D is a measure of diversity, L as a monotonically increasing function of it is a measure of diversity. What makes L an intuitively superior measure of diversity is illustrated with the uniform N=1 set of all red blocks, (■■■■■■). As this is certainly a balanced set, D=N=1. While there is nothing wrong with this measure of diversity as D=1, its diversity as L=D−1=0 is more intuitively sensible given that there is no diversity in a completely uniform set where all objects in the set are of the same kind.

Now as D is a measure of information as developed from Eq183, so L=D−1 is a measure of information that we will call number information. Now let’s show how this is so from the perspective of classical information theory. I should make it clear that we will not be teaching a course on information theory as the subject can be looked up on Britannica or Wikipedia but will concentrate on aspects of it of immediate interest.

Hence for our purposes consider a bag containing K=8 objects in n=4 colors, (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■), one of which is selected randomly, with the color picked sent in the parlance of information theory as a message to some destination. The message would be “I picked a red, ■, colored block out of the bag,” if that’s what was picked randomly. And the message could also be “I picked a green, ■, color block out of the bag,” and so on. 

There are n=4 messages of the color picked that can be sent:  ■, red, ■, green, ■, purple or ■, black. And each has a probability of being sent of p_i=1/n=1/4. This p_i=1/n probability of selecting a particular color from an equiprobable or balanced set of objects like the N=4 color (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) set simplifies the Shannon entropy of Eq180 to  

186.)             

The Shannon information entropy for the N=4 color, (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) is, thus, H=log₂4=2 bits. Now let’s explain what a bit is. A bit is a binary digit, 1 or 0. What H=2 bits for means for (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) is that the N=4 color messages in it are encoded in N=4 bit signals, each of which consists of H=2 bits, (00, 01, 10, 11). Each bit signal encodes a particular color message, say, 00 for ■, red; 01 for ■, green; 10 for ■, purple; and 11 for ■, black. Once the bit signal is received at the destination, it is decoded back into the color message. The amount of information sent is understood in information theory in the most simple way as number of bits used to encode each message, here H=2 bits. Note that the N=4 bit signals, (00, 01, 10, 11), are all intuitively distinguishable from each other as they must be to encode the n=4 colors in (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■), all of which are intuitively distinguishable from each other.

This makes clear what H represents as information, namely digital information, the number of digits, binary digits or bits, needed to encode a set of messages. In another example consider the random selection of a color from the N=8 color: (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■). Its Shannon entropy from Eq239 is H=log₂8=3 bits, which encodes the N=8 distinguishable colors in the N=8 distinguishable bit signals, (000, 001, 010, 100, 110, 101, 011, 111), all of which have H=3 bits in them, this H=3 understood as the amount of (digital) information in the message.

The H Shannon is not the only coding recipe possible. We can also encode the above color message sets using L as the coding scheme. Recall that the D diversity for the balanced case is D=N. Then from Eq185, L=D−1, we see for the balanced or equiprobable case

187.)           L = N − 1

Now we will use L number information as the coding scheme for the N=4 color messages in balanced (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) and the N=8 color messages in balanced (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■). This assigns L=N−1=3 bits per signal to encode the N=4 colors in (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) as (000, 001, 011, 111) and assigns L=N−1=8−1=7 bits per signal to encode the N=8 colors in (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) as (0000000, 0000001, 0000011, 0000111, 0001111, 0011111, 0111111, 1111111).  

Note carefully that the (000, 001, 011, 111) L-based bit signals for (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) are all distinguishable as is needed to encode the n=4 distinguishable colors, but that (000, 001, 011, 111) are distinguishable from each other in a very special way. They are quantitatively distinguishable, which means that all the bit signals in (000, 001, 011, 111) has a different or distinguishable number of 0s and 1s in it.

This is in contrast to the H=2 sized (00, 01, 10, 11) bit signals for (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■), not all of whose bit signals are quantitatively distinct. This is clear for the 01 and 10 bit signals, both of which have the same number of 1’s and 0’s in them and, hence, are not quantitatively distinct. Rather 01 and 10 are distinguished from each other only by position or are qualitatively distinct. Hence the (00, 01, 10, 11) bit signals are understood to be distinct from each other only by qualitatively distinction.

Similarly all L=7 bit signals for (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) of (0000000, 0000001, 0000011, 0000111, 0001111, 0011111, 0111111, 1111111) are quantitatively distinct in each having a different number of 0s and 1s in each of them in contrast to the H=3 bit signals of (000, 001, 010, 100, 110, 101, 011, 111) for (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) whose 001, 010, 100 signals are not quantitatively distinct in their each having the same number of 0s and 1s in each of them. We see the same thing with the 011, 101 and 110 signals, which are also positionally or qualitatively distinct. So the (000, 001, 010, 100, 110, 101, 011, 111) signals for (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) are distinguishable from each other only by qualitative distinction.   

Hence the difference between L bit signal encoding and H bit signal encoding is that the bit signals assigned from L are quantitatively distinct while those assigned from H are qualitatively distinct. Both H and L are measures of the amount of digital information. If the H Shannon entropy is accepted as a measure of information on that basis, so also must L number information be accepted as information on that basis with the difference between them being that the distinction in the H bit signals is qualitative and the distinction in the L bit signals quantitative.

This does not answer the question as to which of the two measures is the better function for information, which depends on other considerations. As to which, H Shannon entropy or L number information encodes the color messages most efficiently, there is no arguing that H is the better coding scheme because it obviously encodes messages with significantly fewer bit symbols per signal than L.

But what we are concerned with, though, is which function is the proper general function for information. The use of a diversity function, be it U uncertainty or L as derives from U uncertainty in Eq185 has great advantage in its making possible the notion of meaningful information when U is associated with a meaningful parameter like V, which also has direct association with the emotion functions.

A more telling argument begins by noting that there are two kinds of information. One kind is the communicated information that is transmitted from one person to another. And the other kind is information received not from another person but gotten directly from nature itself, from the world around us as scientific data or just as the information we perceive in the world around us in our moment to moment existence.

People intuitively distinguish qualitative or positional distinction, so any set of distinguishable messages one person might want to communicate to another like the n=8 color messages in (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) can be encoded in qualitatively distinct signals. To encode n messages with n qualitatively distinct bit signals you need, for the balanced case, H=log₂n bits per signal as with the H=log₂8=3 bits per signal of (000, 001, 010, 100, 110, 101, 011, 111) for (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■, ■■). 

But systems in nature that provide messages for us don’t generally operate on qualitatively distinguishable characteristics but rather on quantitatively distinguishable properties, which if they were encoded in bit signals as digital information would have to be in quantitatively distinct bit signals. This is clear in the algebra type functions science actually uses to describe physical systems with in terms of quantitatively distinct properties of those systems. 

So while there is no problem encoding communicated information of any kind with positional or qualitatively distinct signals, as standard bit signals and alphabet words are made up of, information gotten directly from nature, most of which is the quantitatively distinguishable type, would have to be specified, if in bit signals, with the L linear coding scheme rather than the logarithmic H coding scheme. That, indeed, is the basic reason why the logarithmic specification of entropy, a physical quantity that originates in physical nature, as Boltzmann’s S=k_BlnW function is fundamentally incorrect and why the linear G_AC diversity measure of entropy is correct.      

This might seem to suggest that the proper solution is to use the diversity functions for information that originates in natural systems and to use H Shannon entropy for communicated information. But we can also use diversity functions for communicated information in their logarithmic form, such as log₂G, which we saw has a .9999 correlation with H or the log₂D, which has in classical information theory functions a perfect equivalence of the quadratic Renyi entropy.

188.)   

 

This is a strong argument for the diversity measures as the proper general functions for information because in linear and logarithmic form they respectively represent information both sourced in nature and communicated from people. The deposing of H as a general information function is aided by a proper understanding that Claude Shannon originally devised his H function not as a function for information but as a coding recipe for minimizing the number of bit symbols needed to transmit messages. This intended purpose of H as an efficient coding scheme perfectly parallels the Morse code encoding of messages, which assigns to the most frequently used letters like “E” and “A” the fewest dot and dash symbols while reserving the more lengthy dot and dash signals for the less frequently used letters like “Q” and “Z”.

Table 189. The Morse code of Alphabet Letters.

The H Shannon entropy was designed to do the same thing in encoding a message with an H number of bit symbols in inverse proportion to the p_i probability of the message being sent as the log₂(1/ p_i) component of H in Eq180. That is to say that the H Shannon entropy was designed to be a coding scheme rather than a general function for information, which it can be understood as only because of its accidental closeness in value to the log based diversity functions which are in logarithmic and linear form the true general functions for information in being based on distinction, the fundamental concept that underpins information, which the H Shannon entropy is not based on.

At risk of beating the fallen horse to death, let us make clear with a last intuitive example that distinction is truly the fundamental general underpinning of information and not just the distinction between a guess of color and an outcome of color selected that measures the number of incorrect guesses and ultimately the uncertainty in guessing the color that determines the amount of information in knowing the color.

Consider, for example, 4 apples on a table, which when seen at a distance are seen to be all the same variety, but as approached more closely come to be distinguished as 2 Macintosh and 2 Delicious apples. It is hard to disagree with this distinction made between the apples upon closer approach being anything other than information for the observer. And, to repeat, at a more basic level yet, our very sense of the objects seen in our visual field depends on our distinguishing between the objects. Indeed, in the dark of a pitch black night when the absence of any light makes it impossible to distinguish between objects, which are yet materially present, this lack of distinction is perfectly equivalent and causal to our getting no information out of what we are looking at.

Hence distinction is the broadest foundation of information of which one kind derives from uncertainty experienced beforehand and other kinds in other ways as in just opening your eyes and seeing the information in your visual field. So from the principle of Occam’s razor, distinction is the proper ultimate foundation for information, not uncertainty, which tells us that a general function for information should be based not on uncertainty per se, but on distinction, which U and L and the other diventropy functions measure and the H Shannon entropy does not. Hence the diventropy functions, in linear and logarithmic form, are the proper general functions for information, not the H Shannon entropy.

This understands motivation in human behavior, what makes us tick, in a thoroughly succinct and simple way as the reduction of UV meaningful uncertainty, our anxieties and fears or worries, as the ever present drive to increase our VΔU meaningful information or equivalently the increase in our ZV expectations or hopes, VΔE. It also clearly explains why human beings are so attracted to novelty or newness or information generally, which is because it may optimize our success in terms of maximizing the V return in our behaviors and or the Z probability of getting that V return. This also explains the key to propaganda on TV and in the media generally, which is through novelty, which people find to be generally pleasant for the above reasons of human nature being that way for the maximization of Ψ evolution fitness that all of our minds are hardwired programmed to.        

Understanding the diversity functions as the proper general functions for information reinforces the idea that they and the matrix they are derived from are the proper mathematical structures to underpin a unified understanding of everything because in the end analysis everything we know is information for us, in our perceptions, in our thoughts and in our emotions. Understanding all of nature in a unified way simplifies our understanding of our lives and of the world around us and also gives such a firm sense of it in that unified form that nonsense explanations of it, religious and ideological including the ideologically tainted secular religious psychobabble notions of clinical psychology, are readily shown to be in basic error in their basic assumptions not being in conformity with the basic notions of diversity mathematics. It is very important to have things understood correctly, especially when misinformation in critical areas can lead to bad decisions that can affect mankind critically, not just in its happiness but also its very existence as threatened now by nuclear annihilation, the topic we take up next.                                                                                                                  

THE COLLAPSE OF THE WORLD ECONOMY & WWIII
 

A quick flip through the history books makes it clear that both WWI and WWII were preceded by severe economic depressions. So we need not waste time arguing over the very real possibility of the next serious worldwide financial downturn leading to the next world war, this one sure to be at least as insanely murderous as the last two that killed 5 million and 70 million respectively and a bit more given the inevitability of whoever comes to be on the losing end starting the round of nuclear exchange that is sure to Fukushima us all to Armageddon.

One path to the world falling off the cliff economically this time around is from the shortsighted ever lying Republicans doing their best to skew the distribution of wealth even further towards the privileged with the sequestration they will try their best to blame on Obama, that also done to wreck his presidency in order to maximize their chances of taking the White House in 2016. This clever right wing ploy will not only throw the American economy into a tailspin but also produce a ripple effect that will help to cause a major collapse in the world economy. That in turn is will make for sharply increased economic competition that will manifest itself also in increased military competition with the rest of what happens best viewed from another planet.      

Other factors we needed go further than the front pages of the news to see will help push this route to hell on earth along, too. The ongoing EU economic deterioration played up most recently as of my writing this (3/23/13) by the collapse of the banking industry in one of the 17 member nations, Cyprus, will synergize the economic air brushed depression about to happen in the USA. And militarism exemplified by China’s rapid buildup of their defense capabilities and their getting together with Russia for anti-American economic and military protection along with ever posturing Obama giving the green light to ever paranoid Israel to bomb Iran ties adds directly to the next and last big war starting.

Tension at this level in the rest of the world is particularly dangerous when one realistically considers the right wing in America’s thirst for war for the sheer pleasure of it. Nobody can or should miss the true horror and absurdity of the Iraq War, the one that caused four thousand murders of American soldiers by the Bush Republican administration and one or two hundred thousand murders of Iraqi peasants and upwards of three trillion dollars while the number of homeless children in America increased by 33%.

What is most important from that lesson that should be learned is that we were led into that war with a baker’s dozen of out and out fabrications by the conservatives, the lesson being that those inhuman bastards should NEVER be taken at their word about anything. And as that war was from any practical defense perspective utterly unnecessary, we learn that the Republicans pulled the country into it for perverse emotional reasons that we technically label “redirected aggression”, a true mental illness that all conserves have succinctly spelled out as the stress of hierarchical obedience that universally characterizes the conservatives being released in an emotionally perverse way by aggression on whomever they can get their hands on, internationally as seen in that idiotic war and domestically in their constant attacks on the underclass under bogus moral argument cover. 

We also note the complicity of the Democrats and the media in the Iraq War, both giving the go ahead to him to start with a big fat friendly pat on the back despite the obviousness of the lies and the chicanery. Hillary Clinton gave the green light with eyes a shining and should be kept out of the White House in 2016 at all costs, self-serving, softly devious, stupid gamester that she is.   

In summary, the ongoing craziness we see in the small will eventually be writ large in the global craziness of the next world war, the nuclear one that everybody is discouraged from reacting to other than hiding their heads in the sand about its coming. To say that nuclear war is inevitable may seem excessive but it is only a matter of history repeating itself but with true weapons of global destruction in the hands of the madmen this time around.

What can be done about it?

A WORLD WITHOUT WEAPONS

Early man, the fellow above, and folks today have the same basic emotional machinery including their capacity for anger. What make today’s folks dangerously different than our primitive ancestors, though, are the greater emotional stresses of living in societies that are hierarchical slave colonies tinseled with distraction and delusion and the dangerously lethal weapons that have been developed over the last 200 millennia since our emotional machinery first came into existence. These factors of endemic unhappiness and murderous weaponry make the outcomes of one-on-one violence and war substantially more bloody and fatal than back then.         

 Is there anything we can do about this progressively more dangerous problem? Putting aside for now how we might develop a World without Weapons, it is clear that it would be a world without wars like the Second World War that slaughtered 70 million and a world without mass murders like the child massacre at Sandy Hook. A World without Weapons would also be one without the exploitive control that comes today from large Δp imbalances in power because under a total ban on weapons - even the police would have no weapons, not even jails - the angry rebellions of enslaved exploited unhappy people could not be beat down by the police or a nation’s military as they are now around the world. And a World without Weapons would be one without that nuclear war that would make the human race extinct, the idiotic delusion of life after death no consolation for that coming catastrophe to the yet sane amongst us.  

Now let’s ask what form would a World without Weapons would take? The weapons ban would have to be firm. A central authority called the Guardians would punish the use of a weapon in a fight with death. The most violent fight that would be allowed, thus, would be at the level of an MMA martial arts bout. The Weapons Law would be the only law the Guardians would have the power to enforce within a society, the rest of its internal laws to be the prerogative of its citizens, but those enforceable only by an unarmed police force. Jails would be classified as a weapon and banned. The weapons ban eliminates tyrannical rule, which can only exist when supported by an armed group that causes a large Δp imbalance in power between citizens and police as is the case in every country of the world today whether it is a military dictatorship or a capitalist tyranny. 

Tyranny is eliminated by the weapons ban because even the best fist fighter that an unarmed police force could have cannot physically control more than a handful of citizens unlike an armed police force whose weapons bring about near total control over anybody they wish. The weapons ban makes tyrannies easy to overthrow when large numbers of citizens are fed up with the society they live in and its leaders.

For example, what would the millions of Americans foreclosed out of their homes by the bankers in the mortgage scam have done in justifiable anger if there were no armed police to protect the thieves of Wall Street? A complete ban on weapons for everybody including the police makes for the maximum Δp=(­p₁−p₂) balance of power our Founding Fathers strived for in drawing up the Constitution, not by having every person armed but by having every person disarmed and thus maximally equal in the power they have over each other.      

Societies in the World without Weapons would be city states with less than a million people, big enough to have all the economic components needed for a workable society but with not so many people in them as makes interactions totally impersonal as they tend to be today. Besides the Weapons Law the Guardians they enforce within a city state, the Guardians would also have the authority to enforce a Border Law that guarantees the integrity of a city state by putting to death any invaders of a city state from another city state. 

City states will yet compete against each other in wars that are weapons free. Specifically there will be a five year war between six city states close to each other that consists of sports and other kinds of contests for which points will be awarded. War Points will also be given for a city state’s living up to its responsibility to finance the Guardians ability to police the Weapons, Border and War Games Laws.

The No Weapons Wars will stimulate cohesion between the citizens of a city state in fostering the cooperation needed to obtain the prizes awarded to the winning city states and avoid the penalties incurred by the losing city state. Specifically at the end of a 5 year No Weapons War, the city state with the least number of War Points is the loser and incurs the penalty of all its adult men losing their territory, their wealth and their women. The adult females will be sent along with minor children to the winning city states apportioned as 40% to the top winner, 30% to second place, 20% to third place and 10% to fourth place. The fifth place city state will break even neither gaining nor losing territory or women.

The men from the losing city state, now shorn of their territory and women will be sent off to city states other than the ones they competed against to be employed by the Guardians for policing the Weapons, Border and War Games Laws.

Access to the losing city state for its resources and space to live in by immigration of those in the winning city states who wish to move to the new territory will also be apportioned according to the 40/30/20/10 rule. This and other post-war adjustments will take place during an interim 5 year period at the end of the No Weapons War and before the start of the next No Weapons Wars, for the wars are to be continuous as separated by the Five Year Peace. There will be five years of war and five years of peace continuously.  

During the Five Tear Peace, immigration will also be allowed to any city state with permission of the city state immigrated to. There will be no migrations allowed during a No Weapons War in order to keep people from switching sides in the middle of it if they see their city state is losing. No doubt this will provoke great consideration during the Five Year Peace for people to decide which city state they want to live in with differences in city state traditions and laws in all matters, including how children are educated, being a determinant of which city state an individual will want to live in. Superior individuals may be enticed to immigrate to a less winning city state by offers of special perks of territory and cash and also of women who might want to hang out with a superior individual, as is more or less the case even in these times.          

There are a number of important nuances that arise from the demands of fighting a No Weapons War successfully. As intelligence will be as important as physical prowess in obtaining War Points both through intellectual contests between city states and from the need to maintain an economy healthy enough to pay taxes to the Guardians and receive War Points through that, citizens who are intelligent will be highly valued and protected by the more physically tough. Hence the demands of war against an outside enemy will keep life within the city state from degenerating into barbarism.   

Recall that the rewards of a win in the No Weapons Wars include not only new territory and its resources but also women. On the one hand, winning states that are morally against this practice need not take any women from the losing city state. On the other hand, doing so is in keeping with mating practices in many primitive tribes that lack police authority and religion to control sexual behavior. In the Yanamono of the Amazon jungle, the Carib Indians for whom the Caribbean Sea is named and in many other primitive tribes including the Plains American Indians, additional women for the tribe are routinely obtained by warfare with other tribes. This practice is also seen in Biblical lore that speaks of the Israelites killing the vanquished males after conquering a city and taking the females off with them to be additional wives or concubines. 

This rule for the No Weapons War implies the tolerance of polygamous relationships in a World without Weapons if local city state law does not forbid it. The enforcement of local laws only by unarmed police in practical reality makes for limited control on any sexual life style the individuals of a city state may wish to take up.

A compassionate provision to the awarding of women from the losing city state is that an awarded woman not satisfied with her situation in a new city state may opt to immigrate to any one of the other winning city states during the Five Year Peace Three Year Hiatus, indeed to all of them if necessary for her and her family to find a satisfactory place to live. This very much empowers the awarded woman to have some say in her fate via her right to scoot if dissatisfied.

The downside of the termination of marriage for a woman in the losing city state and being shipped off to an unknown land will foster greater effort on the women’s part to ensure that their city state will not be the losing one.  How the awarded women are apportioned in winning city state will be a matter of local laws with mating battles at the level of MMA competition to be the rule when which man is to get which awarded female cannot be decided otherwise, this in keeping with mammalian mating battles generally that tend to weed out the males with weaker genes and personalities.     

The upside of the No Weapons War is that though the penalties seem somewhat severe, this makes for a challenging and exciting life as fits the emotional proclivities of our primitive origins. It is not a perfect Utopia, for there are some losers in this social matrix designed to imitate primitive life in a bloodless way, but a lot fewer losers than nowadays where just about everybody is seen to be an insignificant pawn of the privileged class once the delusions of the young give way to reality after the age of thirty. And in a World without Weapons it should be stressed that even the losers are a lot better off than in the current world of the bloody climax for people killed and crippled from wear and from the emotionally painful humiliations that arise from the control imposed on people in times of peace.

Overall the plan is highly desirable in granting great individual freedom from the Δp≈0 balance of power enabled by the banning of weapons and in the elimination of the bloodletting of war. The World without Weapons will also be a laboratory for experimenting with whatever practices may prove to make life a more positive experience for the maximum number of people. In that regard the No Weapons Wars will be a kind of natural selection process in the cultural evolution of the fittest city states.   

There is also compassion in the World without Weapons that takes into account the natural and very human inclination to pick up a weapon to protect oneself with when one is threatened. Hence, depending on the severity of the weapons violation and the age of a weapons violator, a number of “Resurrection Cards” will be allowed by a Guardian judge from a standard deck of playing cards, one of which will be selected blindly by the weapons violator. For example, spades may be designated as Resurrection Cards, which gives a 25% chance of the weapons violator being saved though scared the hell out of enough to never use a weapon again. A fairly strict policy, though, should be followed, for the inclination to use a weapon in a fight is instinctively great and must be deterred with maximum fear of death if the No Weapons social matrix is to survive.    And lastly the Guardians themselves must not be allowed to fall into decadence and that is avoided by having those who excel in the No Weapons Wars be inducted into the Guardians.

Now that we have done the easy part of outlining what a World without Weapons would be like, we next must ask how and if it can realistically come into existence. To go about constructing a World without Weapons out of the present very competitive and violent weapons holding world requires first making clear to all the people of the world that there is a genuine need for it as an elimination of the tyranny that kills their happiness and the elimination of the possibility of war that will reach their door step, up to and including nuclear war that will kill us all off. 

To do that you must start with the very basics by explaining violence and you do that by first answering the broad question of what makes people do what they do generally, violent and otherwise. The oft used phrase, “free will”, explains nothing. But it is easy to show mathematically as we showed in the equations section it’s the pleasure and displeasure part of your emotions that motivates you to do what you do and what not to do.

That is obvious in the case of eating food. If free will or simply wanting to not overeat was the prime determinant in whether a person ate to obesity as millions of Americans do, there would be no obesity because nobody wills or wants to be fat. Rather the pleasure of eating is the primary cause of a person eating, and in the case of obesity, eating and eating. And as is more familiar to people from the non-industrial countries, eating is also driven by the displeasure of the emotion of hunger felt when you don’t eat food. The pleasure of eating and displeasure of not eating motivate eating.

Pleasure and displeasure motivate all of our behaviors no matter moral dogmas which say otherwise for we prove it mathematically in an unarguable way in Eqs2-39. And this includes violence as we make clear mathematically starting with Eq40, the displeasure of being on the losing end of it as familiar as the pleasure in being a winner in a fight, though people are generally reluctant to speak openly about either feelings.

Few will argue against sexual pleasure motivating sexual activity, which when done normally leads to that essential of evolutionary success, replication from generation to generation. And there is also displeasure associated with sexual failure all the way down to rejection’s heartache that makes one more careful next time to avoid doing anything in a relation that would bring it about. 

There is also great pleasure and potentially great emotional pain in raising children. Why are we made like that?  It’s because a sexually mature organism doesn’t replicate itself into the next generation until it produces another sexually mature organism as is made clear in the section on the mathematics of evolution starting at Eq51. For humans this means raising infants to adolescent sexual maturity as motivated by the enormous pleasures of love of children when things go well and the substantial displeasures of guilt when things don’t, both of which are powerful motivators to raising happy vigorous children destined to be successful as adults themselves.

And as two can do a job better than one, in the case of raising children in the natural primitive way, a mother and a father, the bond between mother and father is also kept intact by the intense pleasure of conjugal love and when that’s not sufficient to do the job by the quite painful feelings of love gone sour from this or that error in treatment of a mate, which an emotional kick in the pants tends to get back on the right track. So reproductive activity, which includes sex, romantic love and family love, is like eating and other survival behaviors essential to evolutionary success and motivated by pleasure and displeasure.      

That survival and reproductive activities are essential to avoiding the extinction of one’s lineage or family line is made clear from the description below of Darwinian natural selection laid out by Harvard master evolutionist, Ernst Mayr that concludes our mathematics of evolution after Eq75. 

“.....it must be pointed out that two kinds of qualities are at a premium in selection. What Darwin called natural selection refers to any attribute that favors survival, such as better use of resources, a better adaptation to weather and climate, superior resistance to diseases, and a greater ability to escape enemies. However, an individual may make a higher genetic contribution to the next generation not by having superior survival attributes but merely by being more successful in reproduction.” Mayr, Ernst, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and Modern Evolutionary Thought, Harvard Univ. Press, 1991, p.88).

To best understand the evolutionary basis of violence as a natural functional behavior for all living organisms including humans, let’s turn Mayr’s clarification of natural selection as competitive survival and reproduction into a mathematical function, one based on the classical population biology of R.A. Fisher and J.B.S. Haldane but also derivable in the simpler way we do in the mathematics of evolution section starting at Eq51. While we would prefer to avoid mathematics in this section as earlier promised, to show clearly what the origin of violence is, we must do a little math. For only that makes it clear that violence is a completely natural behavior that can only be minimized when it is understood properly in that way.   

Consider two populations of living organisms competing for the territory and resources of the same niche that have birth and death rates of b₁ and d₁ for the #1 population versus b₂ and d₂ for the #2 population. Then the F₁ fitness of the #1 population, a measure of how well it competes with the #2 population to be evolutionarily successful and avoid extinction is

F₁ = (b₁-d₁) - (b₂-d₂)

F₁ is a positive number, F₁>0, when the #1 population’s members live longer, have a lower d₁ death rate, and replicate faster, have a higher b₁ birth rate, in sum a greater (b₁-d₁) than the other population’s (b₂-d₂). Which one has a positive fitness, that is, lives longer and breeds faster than the other, is successful in evolution while the rival population dies out or goes extinct in the niche. Now let’s algebraically expand the above F₁=(b₁-d₁)-(b₂-d₂) fitness function to

F₁ = b₁ - d₁ - b₂ + d₂

This makes it clear that the #1 population has the greatest chance to beat its rivals and have evolutionary success if its members maximize the b₁ birth rate, minimize the d₁ death rate and, most important for understanding violence, maximize the d₂ death rate of its rivals. The equation proves that killing your rivals for a contested territory and its resources is as important for evolutionary success as eating food and reproducing. This is seen in the wars of human history again and again through the centuries. The equation is also satisfied in nuanced interpretation by driving one’s rivals out of the niche in territorial battles of wars that don’t necessarily end with the slaughter of rivals.  

People minimize their population’s d₁ death rate by avoiding death every day by eating as is motivated by the inborn emotions of food taste pleasure and the displeasure of hunger. Because of more modern sexual taboos it is less obvious but yet true that primitive males, as with the Yanamono, Carib and American Plains Indians, maximize their b₁ birth rate as driven by the lustful pleasure of sex by making war on their neighbors to get all the women they can.

It should be apparent from the above equation that maximizing the d₂ death or absence of rivals on one’s territory also makes for a positive F₁ fitness and evolutionary success. So it should not be surprising that no different than for the evolutionary functional activities of eating and reproducing that the violence involved in being successful in battle is also motivated by pleasure and displeasure.               

It should be clear from the above discussion that violent combat, no different than eating and other survival behaviors and reproductive activity including parenting, has genuine evolutionary functionality. The slaughter level of violent behavior in modern times, though, gained additionally, though, from two powerfully important inventions of man, agriculture and highly lethal weapons.

Prior to the invention of agriculture the only way our ancestors could get food was like other animals, to gather wild vegetation and to hunt wild animals. Agriculture introduced two new ways to get food. The first way was to plant seeds, tend the field and harvest the produce. And the other way was to get somebody else to plant the seeds, tend the field and harvest the crops for him, namely slaves.

Slavery required another important invention of man, though, weaponry advanced enough to vanquish rival populations and retain them as slaves. For the slave slavery is horribly unpleasant as the recent Tarantino plantation slave movie, Django Unchained, makes graphically clear. For the master who owns the slaves, though, slavery is a pleasant thing because of the economic profit in it and also though to a much lesser extent for reproductive optimization via the slave masters ready access to female slaves. 

Now consider how a slave feels towards his master from being threatened with and given punishment in an ongoing way. The slave feels the unpleasant side of aggression being on the losing end, the emotions of fear and humiliation. But any instinctive feeling that arises in the slave of retaliation against his boss, the slave master, is totally bottled up by fear of greater punishment yet.

But there are ways the slave can at least partially release such feelings of retaliatory aggression by redirecting that aggression to somebody other than the slave master, as to another slave lower on the totem pole as depicted in Django Unchained by the craven viscous boss slave who licks the master’s shoes while meting out major control and sadism to the other slaves, something that is historically documented as a fairly general thing.

Redirected aggression is one kind of very general phenomenon in man called misdirected behavior that we want to discuss in greater detail because it is responsible for a very large part of the cruelty and violence in the world. Consider that you are hungry but that there’s no food to eat as is the case for people starving in a famine or the soldiers of the Revolutionary War at Valley Forge who had barely any food that critical winter of 1777.  In such situations starving people turn to leather boots, tree bark and grass for something to put in their stomach even though such items provide minimal nutrition or none at all. Starving people eat items with even zero food value, though, because they yet provides some relief from the pains of hunger even though they’ll die on such a diet because there’s really no nutrition in them.

Misdirected behavior taken up when the proper object of a functional behavior is not available and the emotions involved become directed to an inferior substitute object is a very general phenomenon. The emotions directed to reproductive activity, for example, can also have redirected outlets as in homosexual activity, most frequent in those with limited capability of finding a heterosexual mate, the genetic argument being weak from experimental proof and downright facetious from the perspective of such a complex behavioral trait having a purely genetic origin as opposed to developmental etiology.

One classifies homosexuality as misdirected or redirected sexual behavior in its providing emotional pleasure but not having evolutionary functionality in its not producing offspring as evolution developed it to do originally in primitive man, external means to replication for homosexuals in modern times notwithstanding. Having sex with sheep, cows, dogs and so on can also be understood as redirected behavior in their also not producing offspring. Emotional homosexuality also includes homophobes on the conservative end of the spectrum who are emotionally homosexual from their lack of male vigor as caused by their extreme obedience to the servile rules of authority, but who are restrained from acting on their homosexual feelings from countervailing feelings of fear of great social disapproval as the basis of moral restraint. 

In a parallel way to redirected dysfunctional eating behavior during famines and redirected reproductively dysfunctional sexual behavior is dysfunctional aggressive behavior driven by violent feelings against a victim who has done the aggressor no harm. This is called redirected aggression, which while dysfunctional in not protecting the perpetrator from his own abuser, does relieve some of his displeasure in releasing his bottled up aggressions on a vulnerable other person as his victim. 

Adam Lanza’s mass murder of two dozen first graders at Sandy Hook was such an act of redirected aggression for while the destruction of the children did Lanza no good functionally, the children neither the cause of his unhappiness nor any threat to him, it was very pleasurable for emotionally relieving the misery and unhappiness in him caused by various elements, direct and indirect, of the hierarchical slave colony of capitalism he lived in. That Lanza carried great unhappiness in him is obvious just by looking at his face.

 

Of course the above argument of redirected aggression in mass murder from unhappiness caused the mass murderer by the social system the non-privileged sector of America lives under depends on the reasonableness of the assertion that what we live in is actually a kind of slave system, an assumption that flies in the face of Lincoln ending slavery in America after the Civil War. Let’s examine this closely from the historical perspective. 

Nobody argues that there was exploitive slavery everywhere in the early Middle East empires of Egypt, Babylon and Persia or in the ancient Western empires of Greece, Rome and Byzantium or in the medieval kingdoms of Eurasia whose farm slaves had a mild upgrade to the status of serfs but were yet certainly as unhappy about their lot in life as out and out slaves as was made eminently clear in the writings of Tolstoy, for example, about Russian serfs. And nobody argues whether the black slaves of the plantation American South ruled by the whip were totally unhappy people. And further, though we tend to hide it in America because we are their English speaking kin, nobody should argue about the effective slave status of all those trapped in the quite cruel and totally exploitive British colonial empire. The early Hindu empires of India and the Chinese empires of a few thousand years were also entirely slave like in their organization.   

The big question is whether with all this slavery of various kinds all over the world for the last five thousand years that it suddenly came to an end with modern capitalism which a number of observers such as Karl Marx identified as just another form of slavery in the long evolution of various kinds of slavery. True Marx didn’t have the right solution to the problem in communism, which is just another evolved form of slavery, but it is hard to dismiss his assertion that capitalism is nothing but nine-to-five wage slavery, very exploitive of the working class, very abusive, very humiliating and very destructive of personal relationships.   

Is nine-to-five control by a boss at work, often complete control as workers understand as they age in the job, slavery? In a statistically valid recent study 60 percent of those surveyed reported their boss has damaged their self-esteem, certainly evidence for work being some form of slavery whatever alternative description the corporate slave owners and beloved small businessmen may want to give it to disguise the fact of it.

Another tack to resolving the question as to whether there is slavery in capitalist America that causes unhappiness is to ask the question backwards. Is there much unhappiness in America and then if so where might it come from? These are hard questions to answer in part because nobody likes to say they’re unhappy because admitting it tends to bring on more degradation and unhappiness especially considering that unhappiness is considered to be a trait that people bring on themselves by dint of their own failure to achieve happiness.

But there are some objective markers of unhappiness. One of them is the near hundred million obese people in America, a measure of unhappiness once you understand the pleasures of overeating as a redirected action that brings relief from the unhappiness the obese feel when they are not stuffing their faces with tasty food. And raw statistics also tell us that 40 million women in America are on regular psychotropic medication, stark evidence of a lot of unhappiness because the unpleasant feelings of depression and most other mental illness are just psychobabble synonyms for unhappiness that clinical psychology prefers to use to keep the epidemic of bad feeling out there in America from being blamed on the boss and the capitalist socioeconomic system we’re all stuck living under. And the plethora of people nowadays having so much trouble in relationships is also clear evidence of tons of unhappiness in America that result from relationship problems, again which the ideologically corrupt pseudo-science of clinical psychology does not blame on the wage slavery found in the capitalist workplace but that should be blamed on  it. 

Accepting from the above and other considerations that unhappiness is more the norm than the exception in America then gets you to ask the follow up question of where it might comes from. Once you get it that all the millions of slaves in all the various kinds of slave systems of the last ten millennia have been unhappy, it’s but a small leap of syllogistic logic to understand that unhappiness in this modern era has minimally a very high probability of coming from our modern form of slavery that Marx called wage slavery.

Of course this argument runs sharply counter to the reams of entertaining cultural propaganda shown 24/7 in the mass media that is owned and controlled by the corporations and the privileged wealthy class in America. On TV hardly anybody is ever shown to be unhappy and if they are it’s their own fault or they’re mentally ill or it’s Satan’s fault, anything but from having to lick their boss’s often unwiped ass to keep their job.

We explained mathematically how propaganda works on the mind starting back at Eq41 but if you skipped it and aren’t fond of math you can look up the political philosopher, Nicola Machiavelli. What old Mac said was that a ruler rules best who cleverly tells the big lie that the land he rules isn’t really a slave state at all but a benevolent society run for the good of the people as in the United States where the scum politicians and other TV mouthpieces are controlled by their big money paychecks from the rulers into endlessly telling us what a free and fair wonderful place the capitalist slave nation of America is. 

A good part of the cultural propaganda for the wage slaves is religion and we must talk about it at some length now to make that clear. To begin with, the reality that there is no God is clear to any sensibly thinking person and in so many ways that that point is not worth wasting words on. That said, religion when it is believed, affects so much of a wage slave’s feelings, expectations and behaviors that however one wishes to excuse it as each person’s right to believe in the magic of whatever rabbit’s foot they choose, one cannot walk past the God believers attitude that if nuclear war happens, it’s God’s will so let’s not try to do anything about it. This passive attitude is deleterious for everybody in the world in causing such a large part of the population to be inactive to the centrally important and rapidly growing issue of preventing nuclear war.

So let’s first ask: If the notion of God is not sensible, why do so many people believe in it? Belief in God is most basically an emotional compensation for the fear and disappointment slaves have in life with God being thought of as a parent figure who’s there to help the wage slave with whatever miseries he or she slave has. But there’s a cost for this delusional hope in the divine of having to accept obedience to the rules of God to gain His good will, rules of God that interestingly favor the rulers of the slave society and cause the perpetuation of the slave’s unhappiness. And this adherence to the life of a slave is exactly what produces the epidemic of redirected aggression that is ultimately the cause of the misdirected aggression that causes unnecessary wars, the next big one to be nuclear.

The very gift promised by a benevolent God to his suffering worshippers of “eternal happiness after death” is so silly that it serves as unarguable evidence of His believers being desperately unhappy in their servile state as to place hope in something so preposterously ridiculous. A true believer really has been driven mad by life.                    

It helps further to understand that religion originally functioned not just as a set of ruling class rules for slaves and peasant types to obey but also as an explanation for nature. Let’s look at the religions of the early empires as explanations of nature focusing our attention specifically on early man’s spirit type explanation of the heavenly bodies he saw in the night sky.

Humans have an inborn instinct to distinguish between movement they see that is repetitive and regular like the tides going in and out and movement that is irregular like the activity of animals and people. The movement of the stars is very regular in going round and round in the night sky. But because we observe the motion of the planets that circle our sun from planet Earth, itself a planet revolving around the sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn appear, now as they did for man thousands of years ago, to zigzag back and forth in irregular fashion suggesting to their observers some kind of human like quality.

An early form of this anthropomorphizing of the planets is found in the Zoroastrian religion of ancient Persia that is the foundation of astrology, the planets in various positions with the stars being said to affect as a super-human agency might what people do down here on Earth.

This “planet as person” sense developed into planets as gods that had tangible human traits as in the Greek, Roman and Germanic religions that endowed the planet, Venus, for example, with the reproductive attributes of a beautiful woman. This ascribing of human personality to the planet gods fit well with man’s putting his hopes in a god parent figure for magically providing good outcomes in a difficult world, the intersection of these two perspectives producing super-sized planet gods that were benevolent towards man especially if he was willing to obey the rules of the parent god, most of which patently favored submission to the rules of the rulers of the society that supported the religion.    

Religions like Judaism, Hinduism, Muslimism and Christianity evolved in time to have super powerful Gods without the planet associations. These super people Gods worked just as well to offer hope to miserable people while giving them rules of correct, authority obeying, behavior. The more people-like gods of Allah and God the Father were still understood to control nature as with creating the world and all living creatures in it out of nothing in the story of Genesis. This explanation of nature acting through unseen spirits was the norm in Christian Europe all the way through the Medieval Era with angels being understood to steer the planets around in their irregular paths.

That came to an end after Isaac Newton firmly showed that it was the Law of Gravitation rather than the law of God that controlled planetary motion. Since then science has come to explain all of nature much more sensibly than religious magic and superstition. Nonetheless fundamentalist Christianity in America still clings to Biblical causation of cosmic events, the reason being that a God that controls nature, as in creating all life forms instead of evolution, is a powerful God also able to come through on the extravagant promises of miracles here on earth and Heaven after death to compensate for the slave believer’s accepting the suffering in life that goes with being a slave.

While the short term emotional soothing belief in divine magic can be rationalized for an individual as a good thing as clinical psychology does, the harm done by such delusional thinking extends beyond religion’s absurd downgrading of science as truth as in denying global warming which is detrimental to all people affected by the horrible weather global warming causes and to the nation as a whole. In placing the future of the earth in the hands of a non-existent deity by deeming the cause of coming nuclear annihilation to be God’s will, religion is an atrociously terrible idea for all those who will suffer from this horrible end including their own children who will be tortured from nuclear war.

To counter this nonsense we propose that the World without Weapons movement should also be understood as a kind of religion, one based entirely on science both as an explanation of nature and as the basis of moral reasoning that directs us to live our life aimed at constructing the World without Weapons described earlier. And for those who insist on some super powerful God of some sort for this new religion out of habit, let it be that all-powerful heavenly body, the Sun, which sustains life on earth and can honestly said to be its creator energetically.

THE SUN, BEHOLD ITS MAGNIFICENCE

This scientific alternative to the god of Genesis as creator and sustainer of life on earth is a very sensible choice. There is no argument about the sun’s photon energy sustaining life on earth by producing earth’s vegetation and the herbivores that eat the veggies and the carnivores who eat the herbivores and the omnivores like us humans who eat everything below it in the food chain the sun is responsible for maintaining.

The complete dependence of life on earth on the sun is made patently clear in understanding that if the sun were turned off suddenly all life on earth would instantly die out. There is also no argument amongst scientists that without the sun the heat energy needed to produce the molecular variation for the creation of life from nonliving molecules would not exist as deems the sun the creator of life whatever the molecular biological details of this process. The notion of an unseen spirit God just isn’t needed to explain the creation or sustenance of life.

And as to the needing God for the creation of the universe, one need only utilize science’s E=mc² law of the conservation of matter-energy that has NEVER been observed to be violated as proof that the universe has to have always existed and, hence, of no need for a creator.      

Science should be understood as the final step in the evolution of belief systems that started with God centered religions because the correct explanations of nature by science were not available for early man. Once you understand that, it becomes obvious as the vast majority of professional scientists know that spirit religions are complete nonsense logically and comparable to child’s fairy tales in being no more sensible than stories about witches and dragons in Harry Potter fantasies. Anybody who espouses them is gullible and stupid or a conman using the expectations of people for magical help to control their behavior and steal their money. The kids murdered in Newtown didn’t go to Heaven or to anyplace. They just died and died a horrible death, one that the elimination of weapons would have prevented as will the weapons ban imposed in a World without Weapons that must be achieved if people are to survive and there be any happiness for them in life.  

Indeed, science as expanded and refined by the Simpson’s Diversity Index analyses in this treatise is the new religion, one that points to the need for and morality of the World without Weapons which all good people on earth must aim themselves to bring about, for that is the true salvation of mankind.   

The first practical step in forming a World without Weapons is to deliver the message in this work of the great need to eliminate war, tyranny and the threat of nuclear annihilation to all the people of the world. For the most part it will fall on deaf ears when heard by the current leaders of the world, almost all of whom will want to retain the power they have that is insured by the well armed police and armies that protect them. One enticement to the leaders is that those that support the movement for a World without Weapons will become part of the Guardians central authority in the World without Weapons once it arrives.

On the other hand, those nations and their leaders that resist incorporation into a World without Weapons must be subjugated by American military might. In effect, then, the effort to form a World without Weapons will be a conquest of the world by the United States through ideas and, if necessary, through force. Cooperating with our effort to form a World without Weapons for the sake of everlasting world peace will hopefully keep wars of conquest to achieve it minimal in scope and not nuclear or annihilating in themselves. But that is a chance that must be taken for otherwise, as we have hopefully made clear, there is going to be an inevitable world war coming up anyway, which devoid of the goal of taking the world to a place of No Weapons, will be much more sure to be nuclear and bring about the extinction of the human species.

The revolution first needed in America will not, it must be stressed, have anything to do with taking away the guns of citizens. Universal disarmament will only take place after America conquers the world in cooperation with its allies to form the World without Weapons. This first phase of the revolution to rid the world of weapons will be in America and hopefully not bloody. Hopefully it will arise primarily from the understanding of the great need to cleanse the world of weapons for the sake of peace and freedom and eliminating the possibility of nuclear holocaust. A great effort will be made to convince our military, who first and foremost understand the need for a World without Weapons to avoid nuclear war, to nudge our political leaders in the direction of acceptance of the revolution first here in America and then of our exporting it around the world using its powerful scientific ideas and force when necessary.

It is also important to convince people of the true horror of mass death by radiation sickness. While for some there will be a quick end at ground zero, death in a nuclear war for the vast majority would come from radiation poisoning of the atmosphere. Less than a thousand of the 26,000 nuclear weapons currently in the possession of the ten or so nuclear nations would end all human life on earth. This is how you die from it.

Nuclear radiation inhibits cell division and in the human body affects the most rapidly dividing cells: our germ cells, eggs and sperm, our blood cells, red and white, and the cells of our stomach lining. For those who survive the blast effects of nuclear attack, the radiation caused mutations that cause monstrous deformities in offspring are well documented from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. More important as the cause of death by radiation is red blood cell inhibition that causes acute anemia and extreme weariness and white blood cell inhibition whose sharp drop in concentration ceases to protect us from infections causing a kind of instantaneous super AIDS effect. 

After a few weeks of these agonies comes the ultimate in cell division impairment in the destruction of the lining of the stomach, which causes the highly acidic digestive juices of the stomach to pour out into the body cavity and digest our own organs in the most horrible death imaginable, you digesting your own body. All of this takes about 60 days and is not only atrociously painful to endure but certainly worse to watch it happen in children whether yours or your neighbors.                

The proper political target of the revolution needed in America to start the movement for a World without Weapons is the Republicans, the party of the wealthy ruling class who live a life of decadent privilege at the expense of the rest of us. Under no circumstances can they be allowed to take the White House in 2016. Their candidate is guaranteed predicted to be mega fast talking conman Chris Christie in the role of Republican nice guy. This is pure bull, for that pack of dogs runs together and sticks together whomever they put out as their front man. A Nazi disguised as a relatively affable fat man.  

Who should run against him? I hope it’s me, Ruth, and I hope I’ll be running on a Democratic Party ticket because it’s really the only way, I think, of becoming a candidate with any real chance of winning. Best would be with Andrew Cuomo as my running mate if I’m able to make it clear to him how important it is for a major change in political thinking that gets us all to think seriously about the greatest problem of our time, saving the planet from the terminal ravages of nuclear war.

Under no circumstances should Hillary Clinton be let anywhere near the White House. That woman is little more than a clever self-serving liar and one who is basically stupid. She initiated the War against Gaddafi in Libya that led to the downfall of a stable non-Islamic regime whatever its faults to give rise to one that is now actively hostile to the United States as the State Dept. murders in Benghazi show. What she did there also was a major stimulus for the bloody war in Syria that’s killed over 60,000 from her subtly promising help against Bashar al-Assad that never came.

Whatever my acceptance or lack of it by the Democrats in 2016, beware Hillary Clinton, a failure as a mother as judged by her neglect of semi-retard Chelsea who would be no less neglecting of the American people underneath the smile if they are dumb enough to vote her in as their leader. She’s as smooth in delivery as her “I never had sex with that woman” asshole husband and no more believable in anything she says no matter how equally smooth she delivers it. She destroyed the Gaddafi’s not to save the Libyan people, most of whom did not have it that bad under him, but to put herself on the front pages, where she stayed after American bombs started falling in Tripoli.               

Having such a Democratic Party ticket in 2016 with me on it assumes that the World without Weapons movement will somehow be able to get the media coverage needed for me  to be a viable candidate along with sufficient campaign funds fairly impossible to come by for a candidate whose ideas don’t meet the approved of the Wall Street privileged class. In the event that my candidacy is impossible we will seek another way to make the revolution in America and that is by calling on the military to see the great need for action not only to prevent the nuclear war they so clearly understand as a real danger but also to fix the internal disaster America is slated to become in the next four years. Hopefully there are enough people on the fringes of the power elite astute enough in their thinking to make this work through the ballot box.

If a dramatic change in control of the nation away from that of the present wealthy ruling class is not made through democratic means or direct revolution, the world is inevitably destined to a future of a true hell on earth for its seven billion people including countless children going out screaming in the worst agony of the Sandy Hook slaughter multiplied on an unimaginable grand scale.

Those who wish to rise above the masses sitting on the sidelines pacified with their delusions and junk food distractions can contribute to the World without Weapons movement and my candidacy by clicking here. And lastly I want to make it clear from my husband’s newspaper article below that we have been at this for a long time and will continue to fight to our last breath for the sake of our kids and for all the children of the world who deserve a better deal than what they’ll get if drastic change in this ever increasingly hellish world does not come about soon.   

Knickerbocker News, Albany, NY, May 1986

And now I’ll let him tell the story of how Evolutionary Hedonismfirst came about. 

A PORTRAIT OF THE SCIENTIST AS A YOUNG MAN

Whoosh!

I mix a calcium solution clear as tap water with a phosphate solution clear as tap water and, whoosh, out comes a chalky white mess that soon transforms to a crystalline material akin to what you find in bone and the enamel in your teeth. To find out how long it takes to go crystalline requires a tedious 14 hours of mixing the chemicals followed by freezing the white mess in liquid nitrogen, drawing off the ice with a freeze drying technique used to make instant coffee, running the dried mess through a monstrous X-ray diffraction machine and then carefully cutting up and weighing the graph you get.  

Then I mix a calcium solution clear as tap water… and do it all over again, and again and again, this for the first three weeks of my summer sojourn as a graduate student down to the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City. While the problem is interesting, solving the basics of how your bones and teeth form, this lab work is decidedly not exciting, especially for a 25 year old single guy whose major focus is finding a pretty girl in New York City to fall in love with.

The year is 1968, in the middle of late sixties when the Chicago riots are a month from happening. I keep mixing the calcium solution and the phosphate solution again and again.   

After looking at the chalky white material swirl around in the beaker dozens of times, it becomes clear to me that there is a slight change in the whiteness as the mess becomes crystalline. The scientist who runs the lab, Dr. Aaron Posner, has been using this technique for many years, but I start to think, maybe you can shine a light through the reaction with a spectrophotometer to follow what’s happening in a less time consuming way. Excited I walk into Aaron’s office with what I think is a genius idea on my part.

“No,” he says, “just keep running John’s experiment.” Dr. John Termine is Dr. Posner’s research associate flunky. I am dismayed because I know my experiment will take all of a half hour to see if it will work.

I recover quickly and ask: “Can I come in at night and try it?”

“Sure. Whatever you do on your own time is your business. But you still have to work with John’s experiment in the daytime,” Posner says while handing me a key to this laboratory that consists of near a dozen rooms manned by a variety of PhD’s including a couple of medical doctors and dentists with PhD’s. It is a big time place. Posner is considered the number two researcher in bone and teeth in the country. 

That night in the laboratory is out of a young scientist’s dream. I run the experiment and what comes out is a profile of the reaction that gives all the data of the 14 hour method and much, much more and in only a half hours time. The next week Posner changes all of John’s experiments to my method.

Knowing from this what a smart fellow I am Posner next asks me to do a mathematical analysis of the research of another fellow in the laboratory, Dr. Jose Granda, an MD-PhD working on arthritis in women. I have to go upstairs in this thirteen story research complex to another lab to get the gist of the analysis Posner wants done. Surprisingly this other quite big time researcher (in women’s osteoporosis) disrespects Posner to me right off the bat telling me that Posner is so bad that he would have nothing to do with him after finding out what a “bastard” he was. And would I like to work under him rather than Posner?

I am a bit shocked by the two thumbs down review of Posner but quickly dismiss it. This is partly because I had no feeling for Posner in that way from my personal experience with him. And also, unknown to this fellow, I am only in Posner’s lab for a summer visit, the university I am working to get my PhD from being Rensselaer in upstate New York. But after I master bimodal distributions with his help and report back to Posner on how it works, I am a bit shocked by Posner’s reaction.

He can’t understand it. He can’t even understand the basics of it from elementary statistics. I am in his office with Dr. Granda and Posner is sputtering and insisting I must be wrong while what I am saying to him is what I just learned from a textbook course in probability and statistics. I am smoking a cigarillo in Posner’s office and I am cocky because of my own discovery and my nailing this other analysis he asked for.

“OK, if you insist it’s wrong I’m not going to argue with you,” I concede because Posner is getting angry, “but I know that it’s right,” I end with, somewhat like Galileo arguing with the Pope. I can see Dr. Granda biting his lip to keep from laughing, for Posner I will find out later has a reputation for being less bright than an academic wheeler dealer business man type who uses underlings to do the work and make the discoveries while he takes credit for them, a not entirely rare species in the scientific community.

I return to Rensselaer at the end of the summer and being a free thinker, as every good researcher is, I get heavily into the sixties politics and lifestyle, growing a beard by Christmas and doing pot and LSD on occasion, which oddly makes me more rather than less interested in my technical research. By this time I am told from New York that Posner has written two papers on the research based on my technique and that I will have my name published on the lead paper. I am very confident both about my PhD exams that were coming up in early spring and in my social life.

It was suggested that I have somebody from Posner’s lab on my exam committee and I chose John Termine, who later became head of osteoporosis for Eli Lilly. But Posner elbowed John out and came up to Troy, New York for my doctoral exam. I was sure of myself going in because by this time using the data I had gotten with my method I was 80% on the way to solving the bone growth problem that a dozen major research labs in America were competing over.

The exam was utterly humiliating. Your back is against the wall power wise. If you pass it, you are Dr. Calabria for the rest of your life. If you don’t, and any one of your examiners can fail you, you go to work at Walmart or McDonald’s or such. I had a beard and long hair by that time and was known on campus to be politically outspoken, which might have made a difference, for such things were not just a matter of style back in those days because people in authority, most petty then as they still are now, were affected by the sixties challenge to their position and rank.

My research, which is nominally the basis for deciding whether a PhD is worthy of the title, was flawless, but the questions were steered out of my area and voiced repeatedly with a level of anger, totally surprising to me, that would have outside the context of a PhD exam incited violent retaliation. When it was over, all five committee members shook my hand and congratulated me but when my thesis advisor, a physicist by the name of Dr. Katz, asked me what I thought of the exam, I said, “It was very humiliating.”

“Doesn’t matter,” he muttered. “You passed it.”

Immediately following the exam I jumped in Aaron Posner’s car and we headed down to New York City. The plan was to co-celebrate my passing my exam and his wedding anniversary at his house in Scarsdale that evening and then go to his lab the next morning to discuss the paper my name was going to be on. On the way down, he said the same thing Katz did, that it didn’t matter if the exam was humiliating, I had passed it.

I had a girl friend in the city I was close enough to consider marrying and had planned to spend the night with her after going out with her to celebrate my passing my exams. Whether my leaving Posner’s house at about 8PM to go off to see Priscilla, he had planned for me to sleep overnight, or my making too much of a hit with his wife and sixteen year old daughter during dinner and/or my beard and long hair were the problem, the next morning at his office that I made my way to from Priscilla’s apartment, was a blindsiding of the first order.

No, my name was not going to be put on the paper said this man who looked like Posner but had a totally different tone about him, and I better talk to the head of the Biology Dept., Dr. Johnson, immediately when I got back to Rensselaer. Posner said he had just talked to Johnson over the phone before I got to his office. Johnson, a pompous asshole of the first order held the ultimate power over my academic advancement.

My mood changed abruptly. I was obviously being victimized and had no idea what to do about it. Whom did I complain to for this plagiarism of my work, God or the Supreme Court? When I mentioned it to Katz, he mumbled that he knew nothing about that and walked away, not surprisingly as his grant money from the National Institute of Health was dependent on Posner’s good graces. I shrank about two feet in stature and hid from everybody for the next two weeks until I ran into another committee member, a Dr. Landau, who grabbed me while walking down a hallway and said, “What did you do to Posner that he hates you so much?”

When I said I had no idea, he said abruptly that I had better go and see Dr. Johnson. That asshole then told me that the PhD was the highest honor that a man could receive and that exam committee’s were too hasty in deciding whether to pass or fail right after an exam and that the Biology Dept. was going to institute a new policy of waiting to give more time to making a decision. And that they were going to start with little old me, retroactively. He reassured that I had not failed the PhD exam I had taken, merely not passed it. And that I would have to take it again.

This would make a fine comedy if one were not the victim of the joke. But down I went. I like to say on one knee, not both, for I recovered, but the effect on me was marked. As to why victims of such brutalization go a bit crazy, listen up to the hard data in this tale. And learn that recovery from such effects does not take the path of counseling and analysis but of revenge, if you’re lucky enough to be able to pull it off without having your throat further slit.

My second PhD exam was delayed against my wishes for about six months, long enough for me to worry myself to death. When it came only three committee members showed up. It lasted for only a half hour. The questions were trivial. Posner did not come up from New York but sent a letter praising me to the hilt and recommending I be passed. The whole show was done only to give me a spanking to show their power. But being spanked as a grown man does have its lasting downside.

I didn’t think so going into the second exam. I thought, as many do, that short term slights go away with the last slap in the face given, but that wasn’t so. Wanting to get out of the environment of victimization, when I heard that Dr. Katz was going off to the University of Miami on sabbatical for a year, I managed to bamboozle him into taking me along. He had two cars in his family and asked me to drive one to Florida for him. I put an ad in the paper to find a rider to share expenses with that was answered by a girl in her early twenties.

I was experienced enough with women that I thought this slim if somewhat plain girl was doable. I had lived with a lingerie model right out of Penthouse my junior and senior years in college and trotted off to class everyday with the smell of her private parts on my fingers. With her and 150 or so other girls to my credit I thought the ride down would be friendly and pleasant. But that was not to be. Despite stopping off in a motel and sharing the same room for a night, I was a total loser. It was impossible for me not to see cause and effect as Posner puts his foot up my ass and I lose my mojo.

Miami was a difficult place to swim in with that kind of entry. Nonetheless I managed to get out of bed every day and go from lab to lab to use equipment to finish my doctoral research. During this time my usual fifteen minute workout of pushups became embellished with the sight of Posner’s face and my throwing punches at it. This was a new thing for me because though I was a middling enough athlete to start at defense the year I played lacrosse in college, I was not a violent person by nature. Thoughts of smashing his face in, though, did provide the beginnings of emotional recovery.

What really restored me was my doing a critical experiment two months after arriving that unarguably proved my mechanism for bone and teeth growth. That and just about the same time my running into a girl from Scotland, a world traveler hot enough to have Japanese tourists pay her $50 to take her picture on the beach and who I referred to ever after in my life as Miss Scotland. If there is any magic in life, it comes from the women, praise them, not the Lord if you’re looking for a miracle to save you at a critical time.

And critical it was. Priscilla back in New York was an inch away from my marrying her, for as a man approaches his late twenties, he becomes happy to have the one sure bird in hand rather than the two maybes in the bush. And that would have been a disaster because Priscilla’s attitude toward me was a mirror image of mine, the standard for normal folk, true love being a rarity however the mind may rationalize for the sake of squeezing all the good emotion it can get out of a Hobson’s choice bad deal.

Let me digress from the overall theme of this story of the destruction of family to provide some comic relief. I wanted to get back to New York after sealing my discovery with the critical experiment. Miss Scotland said she’d join me from Miami after a week of finishing up her business down there. Now to back track a bit two days before meeting Miss Scotland, I had called Priscilla from Florida to tell her and hear from her how much we loved each other and that I would be back to New York soon. What a difference a day makes.

Anyway I am conjugating with Priscilla on the rug in her apartment the morning I arrived and she knew. She just knew.

“Get out!” she shouted as she pushed me out, out of her and out of her apartment. Lucky me in retrospect, not because Priscilla was that bad a person, but because we didn’t love each other to begin with, terrible once you settle in and worse for any kids unfortunate enough to be born to such a relationship, quite standard, really the norm for most in America.

The big deal was with Posner when I got back. I didn’t punch him or anything like that. I just stood up to him and kept my discovery in my pocket this time around. I didn’t even have to let him know why I was doing it. He knew that I knew what an asshole jerk he was and that I had no intention of staying on my knees before him. At one point I said in complete innocence to John Termine who was witness to this all, “John, what’s with Posner? He looks twenty years older.”

Termine replied with a soft laugh, “That’s because of you.”

And what’s bad for the fox hunter is good for the fox. Beyond Miss Scotland, who was the first girl to fall in love with me with me in the dominant position, the next six months were out of the junior high fantasy come true. Waitresses in First Avenue watering holes in Manhattan generally comprised of aspiring actresses waiting for their break in an off-Broadway hit kept trying to sit on my lap while taking my order.

My best buddy at the time, Richard, who hung out with me remarked: ”Pete, what the hell’s going on?”  To be honest I didn’t know. It a long night of blowing coke with Richard to figure it out. I did it through the smiles of the Chicago Seven, the guys put on trial for treason and starting a riot. It was their smiles, Abbie Hoffman and that crew. They looked just like the ever placed grin on my own face post having smashed Posner’s face in without having lifted a finger. Much as my misery for the six months when Posner had me down on the ground came from his having me down under him like that, my ebullient joy and social success came from my doing revolution on Posner, a victim turning the tables on the tyrant.

It feels so good that I didn’t do drugs for the next twelve years, not even a joint, didn’t have to. The best way to go to Heaven is to beat your enemy’s brains in, anger management of the best sort that manages your anger by directing it properly to the assholes in the system who would victimize you by thwarting them and by paying them back in whatever way you can get away with.

This guy Dorner who killed the cops, that’s going too far, but it’s easy to see where he was coming from. I don’t believe for a moment that he wasn’t slammed when he crossed the thin blue line and ratted out a fellow cop, especially a superior. The humiliation of being overwhelmed by almighty power in an unjust way is significant. And one’s restored happiness and the thoughts and feelings that provoke retaliation are so powerful that they are hard to pass on, whatever the surety of being killed for one’s efforts. In my own lifetime I vowed liberty or death, if not violence, rather than going down on my knees to a tyrant again.   

Anyway, to keep this from turning into too cute a Hollywood fantasy, Posner got the last punch in, of sorts, by pointing to my PhD thesis after I had finished writing the rough copy and telling me, ”I’m still going to have to sign it for you to get your PhD.” This was “of sorts”, because by this time having learned the cost of submission and the benefit of resistance and rebellion, I told him to go fuck himself and went off happily for the next ten years before returning to Rensselaer in 1980 to get my PhD with him taken off the committee.

The place I went off happily to in 1970 was Europe. There’s no point in my dwelling on or preaching about my adventures there or living on the streets of Berkeley and driving a taxi in New York City when I came back to the States a couple of years later, for the only thing that’s important for a man’s happiness from an emotional evolutionary standpoint is getting a woman and having family. That’s all you got to have; that’s all you have to know.  

I lived on East 11^th St. in Manhattan at a time when the police were afraid to come down to that part of town except to collect their payoff from the heroin kingpin who lived across the street from me in my $55 a month sixth floor apartment. The top part of the chimney had blown away sometime the Spring of 1973 and despite repeated attempts to get the landlord to fix it, smoke seeped in through my windows. That along with the sulfur heavy fuel burned in the Con Edison plant just a couple of blocks away from the first oil embargo killed my lungs and got me to return to the Bay area in hopes of airing myself out with the clean air of the Pacific coast.

By this time I was a very tough fellow. East 11^th Street was half Puerto Rican and half black with the drug dealers and musicians and transvestites come down from Harlem to get their piece of cultural revolution. And me, the only white guy in the neighborhood. This place was bad.  I wasn’t stupid enough to ever hang out on the street during the year and a half I lived there. During the six weeks I was transferred to a apartment that faced the street, you saw mayhem every night like clockwork, someone stabbed, someone shot, once someone hit over the head with a lead pipe, minimally some kind of bloody fist fight. And when I walked to and fro to get to work at one of the three cab companies I worked for over that stretch, I always walked with my fists clenched tight enough to have my knuckles pop out white.

You had to say with your stance and gait, and this was from the heart and no act, fuck with me and I’ll take your eyes out. But I was in a few wall bangers in Berkeley before I got to the Lower East Side and I wasn’t really afraid, protective violence in a threatening situation feeling as good as it does scary in the undercoat. In one experience I backed down the heroin kingpin’s chief seller, a sadistic PR bastard and bully who was pissed at me after his chick left him, possibly because I couldn’t resist checking her out with the eyes when I walked back and forth to by my cans of tuna fish and beans at the local bodega. This was with ten of his friends watching.   

So when I got to sunny California, I had no fear of anybody mano a mano. Especially of Ruth’s first husband, a Texan. “A white guy” I thought when I saw him get out of his car and come over to be belligerently to tell me to stay away from Ruth, “no problem.” By the time I finished with him, I could have removed his faggot eyes from his head, but I declined so as not to be locked up for it. That’s how you get the girl. It’s no different than the male grizzly bears fighting over lady bear pussy or the male lions over lady lion pussy. Otherwise you’re stuck with the cat’s ass or some guy’s ass or nothing at all but Internet pictures or a Priscilla deal which getting just close to it once or twice tells me likely isn’t much better, or much different, than the rest.

You’re not who you want to be or who you try to be or what you’re acting to be. You are who you are, everything you did before the moment and all of the outcomes of what you did, successful and unsuccessful. That’s why you see so many assholes in America, on TV and at work and in the public places, all gone down to their Dr. Posner by the time they’re thirty and not worth a lick to a woman except for the paycheck and the thrill of the bitch having a dog on a leash to kick when her own situation as whore of her supervisor goes critical.

With me and Ruth, it was love at first sight. I thought she looked just like a model in a magazine, like out of an ad in Woman’s Day. Lucky for me, for the conditioning of woman in the British Christian sociosexual culture of America is not conducive to forming a love bond, she was a true damsel in distress. They were just returning from Japan where he was a Lutheran missionary to the Japanese. Can you think of anything more ridiculous than that? And even more ridiculous, there were but one of thirty missionary couples sent their by the LCMS, the most fundamentalist of the Lutheran sects, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. These are the kind that have mothers like Ruth’s who tell their kids that the dinosaur fossils in Dinosaur National Park in Utah are plaster fakes put there by people who hate God.

Ruth’s father was also an LCMS minister. And Ruth’s missionary minister husband was a student in the father’s seminary class whom both mother and father steered Ruth into marrying. That wasn’t too hard to do because the mother, Mildred Graf, who looked remarkably like a large lizard, was a corporal punishment enthusiast, lots of spankings for Ruth with hairbrushes and rulers to get her to obey, so much frightening her that she was almost afraid of the dark when I first met her at point Reyes National Seashore where I went to try to keep my lungs from collapsing and killing me off.

As I said, Ruth was model quality beautiful. This saved her when she was in Japan. One of the Japanese people who came to their missionary church not so much to convert but to learn English to better themselves was a television producer. He put Ruth on Japanese TV to sell the soup of some major Japanese company that was the parallel of our Campbell Soups. She was the Koiten Soup girl in Japan for six years.

She said the sex with the Rev. Len was so viscerally disgusting that she slept on the coach for the three years prior to divorcing him. She also fell in love with one of the young Japanese converts, a college age ski bum type that the Rev. Len let her go on ski trips with. When the Rev. Len found out they were sleeping together, he fell on the rug and started mumbling about having sex with cows and sheep on his parents’ farm in Harrold, TX, the pace where the school teachers carry guns in class. Ruth described it as his “writhing” on the rug. And she suspected it was more or as much his fucking his retarded cousin, Larry, that got him babbling like that considering Len’s excessive interest in the more naïve young male Japanese converts.                                      

Anyway when the news broke of the Ruth and the college kid’s tryst, the scandal was enough for the LCMS home office to bring back 29 of the 30 missionaries to the States including, of course, the Rev. Len and Ruth, whom the Rev. was trying desperately to have not leave him.

Getting rid of assholes like Len is one part of getting the beauty queen girl. And the other is sex. From my end the superb sex from the first night I was with her after she ran away from their apartment on the Presbyterian seminary in San Anselmo for the night made me see her by the dawns early light as the most beautiful thing I had ever seen, in real life, in a magazine or on TV and in the movies. It was no problem conjuring up the thought, I’ll die for you. And she’s been with me for the last 40, so whatever she thought or felt, it couldn’t have been that bad, however much I may have imposed myself on her that first night to have it my way. Guys who are fearless in combat are like that and, believe it or not, girls do kind of like it, as you might gather from the mammoth number of copies of Fifty Shades of Grey that were sold. 

Ruth says, “Can’t possibly two people stay together without good sex. They’d just kill each other.”

Getting her away from her family was not easy. I, a long haired fellow adept with his fists and one credit away from a PhD in biology, a Darwinist from their perspective, was not liked. This was especially so after Ruth wrote a masterpiece of a comic book about her life that made herself out to be very unhappy before she got away from this gaggle of what we East Coast boys would call crazy, truly abusive to their children as rationalized with morality only believable by six-year-old Sunday school worshippers. This is like the mother whipping the kid’s ass and giving her enemas to punish her into obeying them and, of course, God.

In the end I had to back down all these bastards, mother and father and Ruth’s older brother, a jerk bastard put over the sister as boss from the days when the women folk were inherently considered to be inferior to the men. When I think of the games played by the father and the brother down in Texas when we came to visit seven years later, I don’t dare write them down in their particulars for fear of being an obvious liar in them being too extreme and wicked to be believed. It wasn’t quite like they poisoned the cupcakes to drug Ruth and drag her off to a cage, but sufficiently close that spelling it out in detail wouldn’t be much more believable. Sneaky rotten is what preteens might call it.

Anyway the best way to thwart sneaky rotten is to let the would-be perpetrators know that if Ruth gets hurt in any way, I’m going to strangle somebody. And that worked. This comic book Ruth wrote, Minister’s Daughter Missionary’s Wife, was proclaimed by Robert Crumb, the best comic artist of the 20^th Century as “a masterpiece of sorts” the of sorts added because Crumb didn’t like the next to last frame where Ruth kills her mother by putting black widow spiders in her house. We sent copies around to 1000 people including 800 Lutheran ministers and Ruth’s family’s friends and relatives down in Vernon, TX. This caused Ruth’s asshole father to be instantly retired from the ministry early, losing his position as pastor in Waco, TX and thence becoming a real estate salesman, not a joke.

To top it off when Ruth was five months pregnant with our son, Bud, I marched her down the aisle into St. Paul’s Lutheran Church in Vernon where all her family’s friends and relatives did their Sunday worship, basically defying anybody to make a stink. Nobody did assuming I would guess that anybody crazy enough to do that in light of most of the congregation having read or heard about the comics shouldn’t be given a hard time, he or the wife he adored.

Anyway face to face with the father after he called the police on us, he twiddled his thumbs and backed down shaking and apologetic. And with the brother, Don Graf, senior partner of the oldest law firm in Lubbock, TX, McClesky, Harriger, Brazill and Graf, I backed him down when he had his pig farmer father-in-law and speedway owner brother-in-law by his side, pansy ass jerk unable to pull the trigger out of the fear of cowboy boot wearing pansy ass jerks who pretend to be other than the faggots they are underneath the religious dogma and conservative bullshit sheep’s clothing. Don’s wife, who witnessed his punk-out divorced him a year later and wrote us back in New York to let us know in colorful language about it all the more to stick the knife in the back of the creep lawyer (they all are) she had the misfortune to be the trophy wife of.

I don’t know where to go from here. It wasn’t that easy a life. It’s just more fun writing about the good parts. We never lost to anybody, zero. But surviving out there lacking the support that comes from social affiliation, whatever the price you have to pay for it, can be hard, and dangerous. We had so many such adventures that the temptation is to put each in its little chapter and spin it out as chronologically as possible. But I better stick to the title and focus on family.

The only problem is that when I am about to say that life was so rough that she and decided quite early on not to have any more kids, you don’t know why I’m saying that unless I tell you just how rough it was the first bunch of years. We already had one kid that came with the deal. She and her missionary husband had adopted a Japanese girl as a baby, when she was just two weeks old. Junko’s mother was a young and pretty prostitute from Yokohama and the father sperm donor was a Norwegian seaman.  She was a strikingly adorable little girl when I first saw her.

Indeed, she was how I introduced myself to Ruth the first day I saw them at the Youth Hostel at Point Reyes National Seashore where. The little tot was standing in front of a car in the Hostel parking lot that sloped down so much so that you might think that one the cars would of its own accord start moving down the incline. If I did it intentionally to say something to Ruth, I have no memory of it for I was never into ploys. I just picked her up and brought her over to Ruth who was standing on the porch in kind of a protective way.

During our courtship I fell in love with the child. She was totally controlling of Ruth who would do whatever she wanted whenever, so much so that it could drive me a bit crazy at times because she always had the mother’s attention. Ruth was like a car Junko owned that she could drive wherever she wanted.

It was an easy relationship to get into with the kid because she was so preciously cute. I’d ride her around on my shoulders for hours on end in the San Anselmo shopping area. She’d point and I’d go, sometimes reluctantly as when she’d point up some set of stairs that led for sure to the door of somebody’s apartment holding my ground only when she’d insist I knock on the door. 

When women get a divorce the kids involved do the visitation thing. After living together on the seminary grounds for a couple of months Ruth and I moved out to West Marin in an old trailer we bought for $700 out of the $10,000 she cleared in the divorce. He came to take Junko for visitation every other weekend. The comings and goings were very edgy. You have to remember that I had beat him in the fight, but he was a minister now studying to be a drug counselor at the Presbyterian seminary and I was by this time a very shaggy rough looking combination of hippie, Che Guevara and Mike Tyson. He insisted on interacting with Ruth when he came to get Junko but I always made it a point of my being the one to hand her to him late Friday and get her back from him when he returned on Sunday afternoon. You have to be careful. He had a legal right to be there and though I would have loved to have destroyed him, the courts and police were always silently there in the background and I had to be careful even though it was clear that he had zero love for children and was using this as a way to keep at Ruth and try to get her back before the divorce was final.

On one Sunday shortly before the divorce was final, what he brought back wasn’t Junko but just a dumb shell of her. Inside the trailer after he left she wouldn’t look at either of us or say a word to us. It was hard to say she looked sad or scared. Her face was just blank. Twenty or so minutes into this begging and praying she would respond, she got down on all fours and started to crawl around like a kitty cat. Ruth went nuts and ran to the pay phone in the trailer park.

“What did you do to her?” she screamed at Len.

“What did you do to her?” he said back.

That put us into the horror movie. The rest is too hard to talk about. At least for the moment in my writing this. Draw your own conclusions.

This was part of our saying we never wanted any more kids. The other part was our experience surviving in the world. My father died a year before I met Ruth and I found out not too long after we ran down the road with Junko in our arms never to go on visitation again that he’d left me $3500. We had that and about $7000 from Ruth’s divorce settlement after buying the trailer and a pick-up truck to haul it.

The place we took it to was Potter Valley, CA, basically a pair farming community, back then very rural minded. Ruth and I recently saw a clip on TV about Potter Valley that made it out to be a marijuana grower’s paradise now, but back then the crop was pears and the people very conservative. We lived in a trailer park up the side of a steep hill that needed a four wheel drive vehicle to pull it up. Unbeknownst to me ahead of time, the guy we call to pull it up was also the assistant sheriff in this locale. Ruth was super shaky after what they did to Junko and the autistic way she behaved and I being very protective kept her away from folks like this assistant sheriff who pushed his petty power on whomever he could as cops can do.

I didn’t give a shit who or what the hell he was. Without words said he understood that I was happy to go hand to hand with him and he shut up when he was around Ruth. We were there about a year and half. Like I said, coming from East 11^th St. I was afraid of nobody physically and we maintained our privacy that way. When I got there the town’s men were all clean shaven. By the time I left half of them had grown beards. That included the sheriff.

On  Christmas Day, 1975, Ruth started shaking and saying that her brother Don was coming to “get us.” I didn’t know what the hell she meant as her family had no idea where we were, but I started to pack to get us to take off in the next hour or two, to where I had no idea. The connection of her brother, Don, was general. Baby Junko was a shattered youngster. She trusted neither of us. She was still infinitely demanding. On one occasion to discipline her behavior I gave her a whap. When I did her face fell into a look that could only be described as looking as stupid and dumb as a wooden dummy.

That was terrifying. I never hit her like that again. Instead we just did what she wanted. Or better said, most of the time Ruth did what she wanted. I stopped loving Ruth as the number one thing in my life and switched to the baby as the primary object of my responsibility. If you kept her happy she looked great. We did. She was the most beautiful little girl you ever saw even though she didn’t ever speak. We used to call her the Princess Anastasia, beautiful like some kind of animal.

Ruth often went nuts when Junko got on her too much. A couple of times she lit out to San Francisco for a week or two to get away from Junko. We fought, often about little things. At some point it became apparent that they had done this to the kid to leave Ruth with a sort of incubus, somebody who surely would have broken us up, as they had wished, except for my understanding what the slimy bastards were doing and my doing everything to keep the worst from happening. Sex kept us together or if that sounds too romantic to be really true, sex certainly helped keep us together, without exaggeration three times a day on average during this period in Potter Valley, sometimes six or seven times on a particular day. Fight, make up, sex, I love you. I did, too. Like I said, Ruth was TV model beautiful and I did my best to get her to come every time and between the orgasm and the hour or so afterglow, it got us through many a rough day.

The terror, though, caused by what they did to the kid put me in a general state of terror. For one thing I knew we were violating the law by running away with Junko before the divorce was final. We keep in touch with them from the P.O. Box we had before we split to Potter Valley, far enough way that we felt they had little chance of finding us.  During this time we got letters from the district attorney of Marin County. We lived on the edge. Whenever I went into town to Ukiah to shop anytime I saw a Texas license plate, my blood froze in fear. I bought an old 12 gauge shotgun and a .38 Special snub nosed revolver and learned to use them telling myself if I ever saw that foul child murdering bastard pull up in the trailer park, I’d blow his fucking head off.

Of course Ruth’s fear that Christmas Day about her brother Don coming to get us wasn’t too off the wall given that we were less than a hundred miles from the P.O. Box and had been there for almost a year and a half. But on the way out of town, I saw it, why we were leaving. This burg had only three public buildings, a post office, a general store and a little mom and pop store that sold mostly newspapers and the ice cream I used to buy Junko almost every morning. In front of it were a picnic table and a bench to sit on for customers. Sitting on it as we went past with everything we owned in the trailer we dragged behind us was the assistant sheriff, bearded and all, with a can of beer in his hand, which he slammed hard on the picnic table when we past screaming at me two steps over violent. That is why we left or should have been why we left, because this asshole was a sheriff and one at this level can do a lot of damage to your existence.

Where we wound up after a month or so of wandering was in a cabin 7000 feet up near the Oregon border in Siskiyou National Forest. My lungs got battered on the trip and I stayed behind in a place in Oregon while Ruth looked for someplace with us driving around back in California with Junko next to her. We were just looking for a place to rent, but she found some guy who wanted to sell us a cabin for $3500 on 40 acres. Being from New York I told her over the phone to offer him $1500. He asked $1800 and we settled on $1650. Hey, a cabin on 40 acres with a gold mine on it for $1650. What a steal!

But the steal was on us. We had bought a mining claim, not real property and two days after we got on it, the Forest Service came up and told us to leave. The government owned the property not us and we had no right to stay there unless we were actively operating the gold mine, which had been dormant since 1890. The story was that this guy, last name, VanArsdale, I’ll never forget it, had this cabin for twenty years and used it as a hunting camp for his friends, all the good old boys in the town of Fort Jones CA being best of buddies with the Forest Service. Now, though, orders had come from some central headquarters to burn the cabin down. So he sold it to a mother from the city with a four year old in tow, dumped it just before they were set to burn it to the ground.

To keep a quite long story short, we stayed up there for four years, which got my lungs better enough to return to civilization without dying. But the battles were extraordinary. I’m afraid to start talking about them for fear of not stopping for the next thirty pages. I’ll try to give a brief sketch. Like I said I was never one to back down from a fight, no matter whom with, and if Ruth and the kid were involved, I went primitive berserk.

For reasons I don’t want to get into because it’s another extended digression, after we firmly planted our feet on the mining claim we had no intention of throwing away our $1650 and leaving, I was gone for a few days down towards Redding, CA. who shows up with a side kick is a major asshole named Harry Frey. He is the police officer for the Siskiyou National Forest and he comes to tell the inhabitants of this cabin marked for doom that they have to get off it ASAP. I am not there and he delivers the message to Ruth. She is very affronted by the way he talks to her. She tells me.

Officer Frey returns a few days later when I am there. I express my anger verbally and non-verbally sufficient to get his side kick to hunker down rather than get hit by some punch he imagined I might throw but didn’t. They leave but this started a four year war the likes of which are near unimaginable, like their burning down all the forest around us, great for a guy with lethal asthma, and during the hunting season sending up three Forest Service agents dressed like hunters to park themselves 200 yards from the cabin and fire off no less than 1000 rounds of high powered ammunition per day for three weeks accompanied by megawatt psych-war tapes of people screaming and whatnot 24 hours a day. This was what they used in Vietnam and not surprising the Forest Service used them because most of their rangers were former artillery officers in Vietnam, this told me by an unimpeachable local who also mined in the area. Many more such events but you don’t need a full catalog to understand that our stay was hectic though exciting and a great victory in the end because we stayed there all the way to Halloween, 1979, fuck you U.S. government.    

We left then because they started shooting close enough to us to hurt somebody. The cabin had a porch surround by evergreens 100 feet high whose lower branches made a sort of nest out of the porch. The day before Halloween one of the rangers parked himself just outside our marked boundary and started shooting close enough to knock the pine needles out of branches just a few feet over our heads while we three were sitting out there. We departed early the next morning. Ruth had a dream that the Harry Frey would be very mad at our leaving, who knows what he had in store next for unmentioned to you yet, Ruth had drawn a comic book about the Forest Service and him circulated to all small miners in California portraying Harry as Harriet in a flower print dress running around with a net chasing butterflies. This was before LGBT people had been beatified nationally and was a considerable insult on Frey especially considering that we thought him to be a faggot under his he-man bully act, apologies to all the good homosexuals out there who aren’t bullies on straight people.  

It was just as well we left then because we were just about entirely out of money. The four months before Halloween we survived on wild apples plus one egg apiece plus bottom grade biscuits made with flour, water and a bit of Crisco. Our conversations consisted of extended chit chat about McDonald’s hamburgers, which gave more pleasure to us than the dog fit food we ate day after day.

I’m stuck with telling this all chronologically now or it won’t make any sense. We had about $150 left the day we drove off the mountain in the pick-up and headed for Seattle to make it to my brother Bob. I haven’t seen him in 30 years and don’t want to say anything but nice things about him so this part of the story may be lacking the mandated rigid honesty I’ve handicapped myself with in the rest of this story. I got myself a whopping from Bob up in Seattle, one I deserved because when I was a normal person I treated him, though never in an intentional way, like normal older brothers treat unfortunate ten year younger brothers, even if unintentionally too domineering. Our mutual mother was a witch and that’s just what happens between the kids when the mother is excessively aggressive, sneaky and predatory. 

Besides the whopping Bob also gave us $200 and told me that Phillip, a friend of mine in my younger days back in Revere (Boston area), was now a millionaire down in North Hollywood and would, Bob felt sure, help me out with some money. Bon was very right on that account. The Philip story is interesting and worth telling because it tells you a lot about the underbelly of people. Phillip was my card playing buddy in high school. He didn’t talk a great deal, was very aggressive and not as good a card player as I was. He was kind of strange in a way I never thought about because when I was a kid I didn’t think very much about anything real.

I didn’t really start to become aware enough to think until I took LSD. I was no habitué of it, never taking more than one tab a month, doing it in a very intellectual way. I found it to be a miracle drug simply because it made me able to have a sense of the world out there I saw with my own eyes rather than the world you were told about by others, by TV books, and the nuns and priest teachers I had in grade and high school. Anyway, after some age Phillip started going out with my sister, Diane, and they were talking about getting married. It had to be kind of a Hobson’s choice for my sister because way later she would say when I said Phillip wasn’t such a bad guy, that she said, well, you don’t have to sleep with him.

And here’s why. When I started taking acid I became noticeably more competent and confident. Soon I turned my sister on to it and, bingo, she started shining brighter too. So Phillip, who usually kept things to himself, said he wanted to try too. Now some people are open and say what they think. And some, indeed most conservatives don’t say what they think, not ever as Ruth’s mother made clear in one conversation we had with her. Anyway I am tripping with Phillip and I see he is not saying anything. Now this isn’t what usually happens on an LSD trip. The stuff makes you speak your mind. It opens you up. It’s almost like truth serum. I had been on a trip with only one person who was closed mouthed during it and that was Priscilla’s brother. And he was an arch conservative.  

Anyway up we go on the trip and Phillip is not talking. Phillip was a big guy and quite strong physically so I didn’t usually challenge him, but I did up on acid because I could sense that he was playing games and hiding something. C’mon you mother fucker, open your fucking mouth and tell me what you’re thinking.

Well it wasn’t very nice. We are up in his parents’ house with them gone and Phillip begins pointing to a lot of things that really did seem when he pointed them out, things that strongly suggested that his mother lived in a place in her head that was more fit for an eleven year old way back in the 1920s. She made my eternally stressed out mother seem sane by comparison. And Phillip’s father is six pack every evening after work as a minor telephone company executive drunk who stops by his old mother’s house to say hello every fucking morning. They got divorced when Phillip was a baby and Phillip went to live with his uncle, then the Chief of Police of Revere, Gillis Collins. Hey, these are real fucking people with real stories. 

Anyway Phillip’s mother and father, who he always calls by the names of Sally and Sam rather than mom and dad, got back together again for the sake of little Phillip. So far so good, right? Sounds like good people trying their best to do the right thing as Dr. Phil might say, right?  As Phillip is unloading all this stuff on me about his semi-dysfunctional parents, he begins to cry. This is something I had never seen in this guy, who is quite strong, though to clarify a bit more, not very brave as I saw in his backing down from a challenge to a fight that a healthy guy would have responded to, which I did in that day in the pool room of another story yet.

Anyway the punch line in all of those tears is that Phillip tells me, and this is on acid, mind you, that he has sex with guys. I shit. At that time - I was a second year graduate student- I had no idea of what he was talking about. Anyway finally it made sense why Phillip was so secretive all the time. I should also add that after he “confessed”, he completely fell apart. He told my sister about it when they went out for New Years Eve and she hit the floor. That ended their engagement but she continued as did I to help him come back to life. He never did during the time before I took off for Europe in 1970. And now it was 1979 and my brother, Bob, is telling me that Phillip made a million dollars in the used cable and wire business and would help me out, so Bob thought, and was right.                                                                 

When I call Phillip on the phone, he has been drinking. He was a heavy drinker even way back when and he is drunk the minute I call – it was in the evening. And immediately he starts talking about how he still loves my sister and wants to get back to her. Since by this time I have about $150 left and we are stuck on a highway in Yreka, CA, I tell him, yah, I’ll do my best to get him back with my sister, just lend me $5000.

And he says yes, just like Bob thought he would. Only he wants to send me just a thousand and for the rest I have to go back to school and finish my PhD, back to Troy, NY. Now I hated those bastards back at school so much that even when I fiddled with the map at times with Ruth to think, where can we go next? British Columbia? Atlantic City? Madison, Wisconsin? The one place I never think about is returning to Troy, NY, and Rensselaer, home of the biggest rats I could ever think of. But for $4000 sure, I’ll go back to Troy, NY, and fake my returning to school to get the money.

When I get there, though, I begin to think, even though this is ten years later, maybe I will return to school. I think that in part because somewhere along the way in the previous ten years I found out that Dr. Landau, the guy who asked what did you do to Posner to make him hate you so much, has been elevated to Chairman of the Biology Dept. and that Dr. Katz has been elevated to the newly formed Dept. of Biomedical Engineering.  The first person I go to see is Landau. he was much the Pontius Pilate of my thesis committee, washing his hands of it and not an active player of hanging me by the neck.

I step into his office after telling his secretary that I am an old friend who wants to see him as a surprise.

“Ah, Dr. Landau, I see you’re doing great and looking so good, blah, blah, blah,” I say while shaking his hand. Now I should clarify that I knew Landau very well as a student taking his course in Biochemical Cytology and sitting in a front row seat eighteen inches from his desk for a whole semester besides his being on my doctoral committee. But AI had changed so much in the ten years that I last saw him, in personality and looks, that he says, “Who are you?”

“Pete Calabria,” I say, at that moment a bit surprised that he didn’t recognize me.

“Pete!!” he says, “I was just talking about you with Dr. Wilson the other day!!” Dr. Wilson is another equivocally unpleasant character in this morality play about whom with a bit of luck we will have nothing more to say. The reason people are still talking about it was because I was the quintessential sixties character in their eyes. I did that time right and was a mini-super-star because of it that everybody wanted to keep talking about and sharing information on.

“So how’re you doing!!” continues Landau, looking for that more information.

After all the “this and that” talk about nothing meaningful he comes to the punch line, “And so what are you doing back here?”

Which takes me to my punch line. “I want to finish my PhD,” I tell him.

At this Landau changes from my old friend, Joe, to the Head of the Biology Dept. “Well, Pete, that’s impossible. So much time has passed and you’d have to start all over again getting a Master’s Degree first, blah, blah, blah.”                        

When I got the gist of what he was saying firmly planted in my brain, I instinctively and without any thought made a fist and aimed it backhand at his head. This caused him to push his feet on the floor and propel himself a dozen feet on his wheeled Department Chairman office chair to the other side of the room.

And came words out of his mouth as smooth as a morning prayer at a cloistered nunnery: “Go see Larry Katz. If it’s alright by him, it’s alright by me.” Now If I had taken a course in anger management that would never have come out that way. So pay attention to the words of that famed female martyr for personal freedom, “not going to go to rehab, no, no, no.” The capacity for righteous anger you don’t manage to manage can save your life, the advice of punky psychobabblers to be considered carefully before you let them enter your soul to cut you down to just the right size for adjusting to life in this highly evolved slave colony.                       

As it turned out Katz bought onto by return because of a little miracle that happened in the intervening years since I’d done my graduate school bone research. Somebody invented the scanning electron microscope and a group of scientists in Prague looked at reaction I bored you all with at the beginning of this story and saw with their eyes through the microscope exactly what I had said had to be from mathematical analysis while citing me as the discoverer of the mechanism:

Brecivic, Lj. and Furedi-Milhofer, H.: Precipitation of Calcium Phosphates from Electrolyte Solutions, Calcified Tissue Research, 10, 82, 1972.

That’s one of the reasons Ruth and I are so sure about nuclear annihilation coming if people don’t listen to what we say has to be done to prevent it. One mathematical prediction come true by seeing it with your own eyes suggests your other mathematical prediction has a good chance of being as valid. And we don’t want to be proven correct about the nuclear prediction by seeing it happen.    

Katz’s name was also on the abstract of a talk I gave at a meeting of the International Association of Dental Research in New York in early 1970 before I took off for Europe that the Prague group cited with me as discoverer. Katz had his name on it too because though he had nothing whatever to do with the research he was my “sponsor” as thesis advisor to me as a graduate student. That made him also look very good, so I not only was given my PhD after a ten year absence in four months after they threw Posner off the thesis committee but Katz also gave me a faculty position in the Dept. of Biomedical Engineering because of this genius work I did that he wanted to have a slice of by getting his name on a polished publication of it. 

Now let me try to seam the parts of the story together for you. As I said earlier, we made up our minds not to have any kids because life was so impossible. What happened along the way was that Ruth wanted to kick her parents again, doing so making her always feel better and better as retribution for the torture they had put her through as a child and for what they had helped do to Junko. So she went off to Syracuse, NY, about 100 miles from Troy and told them that she had left me and would they send her some money. She was gone for about three weeks and when she came back I missed her so much that when I had sex with her once about twenty minutes after she walked in the door, immediately after ejaculating I proceeded to have sex with her a second time. We always practiced birth control by withdrawal but as we saw in this case, it does work if you go right back in a second time with the sperm hippity hopping about your member. So nature got the best of us and shortly after when Ruth came down with what we thought was an odd form of the flu, it turned out to be a pregnancy. 

This was around 1980 and after that the story picks up even more and I’m not sure where to go with it. I know. I’ll overcome that problem by going back in time rather than forward, back to when I felt America shortly after Posner told me I was dead in the water unless I kissed his ass. Humiliating myself by taking a dive after having come back in the rematch was impossible for me. It requires no deep thought. When I was down on one knee to Posner, I was a jerk. When I stood up to him, I was a god. It took no more than twenty seconds for my mind to tell me, easy decision, fuck you Aaron.

If that needed any reinforcement, I saw my crew at Rensselaer in Troy the day before leaving on a TWA flight to Paris and it was super clear that all the boogers, professors and fellow graduate students, wanted me to get my head broken so that I’d stop annoying the hell out of them with the superior attitude of a rebel. “Now you’re going to get yours” was written on the wall of Katz’s laboratory that May of 1970, figuratively speaking.

I drove hurriedly back to New York City in my Avis rent a car and made up my made to head to JFK Airport the next day and get on a flight to Paris. The plan from there was to buy a motorcycle and head to Africa, that idiotically stupid destination conjured up in my greatly agitated mind, for giving up your PhD, even for the sake of freedom, is no easy thing. I have always thought in retrospect that it came from the Tarzan movies I saw in grade school, very likely considering that one fantasy I had loosely connected to going there was of connecting with a white hunter off on safari with his wife and killing him and talking the wife off into the trees. As I said, agitated as the TWA lifted off the ground that day doesn’t do justice to how I felt.

Saving my ass and my soul were the women I met in Europe. As I said earlier, if there is any magic in this life, it’s not of the divine loving you but of the women. European girls liked me, thought I was “an adventurer” in the Honda motorcycle I bought in Germany, and I liked them. I had intended to scoot down the Sun Coast of Spain to Algeciras where you take the ferry to Morocco as the entry point in Africa, a few days trip. Fortunately I met four French girls near Barcelona that delayed me for two weeks and then a hoard of vacationing French young people in Malaguena that held me up for another month. All this social activity soothed my agitated brain so that my the time I got to near Gibraltar in southern Spain to take the ferry, I was ready for this powerful dream I had the night before I was off to Africa.

It was about a wrestler I knew in college, a fraternity brother, not a close friend so somebody who might be considered a competitor. We are wrestling in the dream and when he is about to overpower me, I say, that’s enough. But he keeps coming with a conquering grin on his face and I have no way to escape him. I knew from this when I woke up that there was no place to run from tyranny. I had to go back and fight it. And very quickly I made up my mind to write my thoughts down about what had made be sad and weak, submission to a tyrant, and what had made me happy and strong, fighting back against him. That would be my weapon in the fight, my ideas, you might say my political ideas, which were very simple and straightforward. Be a slave and be a fool. Be a fighter and be a man. Very simple.

Spain was the perfect place to have these ideas form because in that period, this was 1970, the murderous dictator, Francisco Franco, ran the country and the effects of tyranny at the political level were salient and impossible to miss. The Spanish people were as afraid of Franco then as Americans now are afraid of their bosses and police authority. I will tell two brief stories to give examples.

I can’t remember the names of the towns but I remember the people as if this happened yesterday. In the first I was living in a small town up maybe 50 miles inland of the Mediterranean in a hotel whose tavern/restaurant was the get together place for everybody in the town, young children included. In this place it was made clear that the young girl who was the housekeeper for the motel and made the beds was also your comfort for a price. I declined having always considered prostitutes as sugar coated poison for your manhood. Rather I lived most of my hours for a few weeks in the tavern/restaurant talking to people as well as I could sometimes in German a third language I knew from high school and a few there knew for whatever strange reason.

There I got to know a twelve year old lad right out of a movie, the young fellow who wants to hang with the American with the, to them, very expensive and flashy, motorcycle. Come give me a ride, he says, and I’ll show you around the area.

Away we go, here and there. Hey, what about this road I say. He hesitates and then, OK, let’s go. And down we go on this dirt road until we come of a sudden to a half dozen bombed out houses with old women in black clothes darting back and forth across the street with their heads bowed. The boy knows almost as little English as I know Spanish so I wait until we get back to the bar to ask, what that place was all about. I am at a table with six fellows I had gotten to know fairly well when I bring up my questions about this place. As soon as they understood where I was talking about, all six jumped up from the table and practically run out the door. Clearly this was a place that Franco had bombed and that was how scared they were to say a word about it.                                                                                    

I left the next day and headed north towards Madrid, my intended destination, but after traveling not very far I see a dirt road with a sign on it of some city’s name. Curious I travel on it until I hit a town right out of a de Chirico surrealist painting, all the buildings painted white. As I drive my motorcycle past a muscular young man about my age, he does not raise an eyebrow to look at me, very powerful as I find out later that there is only one other motorized vehicle in town. I wind up shortly playing a violent game of cards for beers with him and two of his friends, bold, good looking young men. By violent I mean with slamming of the cards on every play and great shouts when points are made.

I think they overdo it since I am not familiar with this Spanish deck of playing cards and barely make out the game as akin distantly to Spades. But they are eager to win because my motorcycle is imposing and they sense that I am willing to fight if needs be, not that they threaten me or would want to with me in any way for they were also entirely hospitable.

There is no hotel in this town and I am directed to a woman in town whose home was used as a hotel. These people had never seen an American in the flesh so the thought of my continuing my political writing in privacy is a joke. When I eat in the dining room a hoard of a dozen children stare in at me from the outside window as though I were a visitor from another planet. And as night fell and I was ready to nod off to bed, the woman who owned the house and felt honored that I was staying with her told me to come downstairs where waiting for me gathered in possibly every chair in town were 60 or so friends of hers, perhaps the top citizens of the town, all dressed up in their Sunday clothes. As I knew little Spanish and they really no English, the discourse between us showed nothing but that these were very fine, very psychologically healthy, people going out of their way to make me feel good about being in their town. As the chit chat went on I was invited to dances and other connections I could not be sure what they were. But all smiles.

At some point, though, I was asked, what about your hair, for I had long uncombed hair. When the question was asked my host passed me her comb hurriedly as though I might want to comb it, for these people were not sixties people in any way. No, I said while thinking of how to answer the question, why do I keep my hair long. Then I thought of it, a simple enough answer that they could understand. Politico, I said, politico.

And at that 60 people stood up from their chairs and walked, really ran, out the door. The next day, very early, there was a loud repeated knocking at my bedroom door. When I opened it, I was confronted by two Civil Guardia soldiers carrying machine guns and asking me for my passport. It was clear that somebody had contacted them as soon as they heard the word “political.” After they left I hastily took the political material I had been writing for the previous few weeks and went to the outhouse where I ripped the papers up and dropped them into the mass of stinking crap thinking that was one place the soldiers would not search if they came back looking for whatever. Rather they just returned my passport and off I went from that town.

This all changed dramatically north of Madrid where at a gas station in Burgos I ran into Basque people. It was a very unusual day for Franco was coming through town that day from his summer residence in San Sebastian back to Madrid. So that’s why there were soldiers lining the highway from Madrid to Burgos on both sides every 100 yards carrying machine guns! He came by in five cars with windows blackened so you couldn’t tell which he was in and with soldiers in dress uniform pointing shotguns out the windows of the cars that traveled before and after the darkened caravan.

The Basque people whom I spoke with in such an animated way about politics after this were not afraid of Franco. They hated this butcher who had hung dead 200,000 men in the first year following the Spanish Revolution. Experiences in Burgos and then in San Sebastian with them made clear that these were the finest people I would meet in Europe, that because they were active revolutionaries against tyranny. And all you here in the American press is that the Basques are terrorists. That should make you think. Franco was also a self-advertised super devout Christian. That should also make you think.  

I left Spain for obvious reasons. However fine the common people Spain was no place for a revolutionary writer. Rather I went to Amsterdam where I had waited for a week while my Honda motorcycle was being sent to Germany from Japan months earlier. There English was spoken enough around town for me to get by without having to waste my time learning a foreign language for I was interested only in writing up my political ideas on the relationship of submission to tyranny to unhappiness and revolution against tyranny to happiness.

The writing and its elaboration into science and mathematics with Ruth that came about over the years is presented in the material before this story. Perhaps what isn’t there and should be is how family fits into the sociopolitical picture, so let’s go back or rather forward in time from me in Europe in 1970 to us in 1980 with Ruth pregnant with our son, Bud. The correct fast forward is to the day he was born. 

The first time I saw him in the hospital room with Ruth, the room felt to be filled with sun shine. It is not an exaggeration to say that my instantaneous instinctive love for the baby was as great as my love for Ruth that first time I was with her if not greater. We both worshipped baby Peter or Bud as he came to be called. I suppose it helped that he was a super baby. Whether from raw genetics or the amount of attention we gave to him, Ruth nursed him on demand and was his loving slave, Bud spoke his first word when he was five months old, “burr” he said pointing to a bird flying in the sky, and walked when he was eight months old. In later years he tested out for reading when he was five at the 12^th grade level and registered an IQ of 170.

More important in a sense was his effect of Ruth and me. She nursed him until he was two and a half. During that time we had no sex. It wasn’t planned. As I made mention, our sex life was at Guinness Book of Records level, but went to zero from the day he was born to the day after Ruth stopped nursing him. Also we never fought during this period, never. Whatever our gift of 24/7 attentiveness to him, that was his gift to us, and a significant one, for both Ruth and I were stubborn individuals and when we fought, the house shook. However cockeyed this may be interpreted, for me anyway, the pleasure of having a child was greater than that of being a lover and a husband, perhaps not much but enough to say that the pleasures of Heaven, a delusion but one firmly inculcated in the mind of a person who was raised Christian, are what a happy and proud father feels, the top of the line you can feel as made clear by the evolutionary considerations discussed back in Ruth’s Eqs51-75. 

Bud was born September of 1981. Soon I started on a tax free research associate position under Larry Katz in the Dept. of Biomedical Engineering. It was different than my position of the year before teaching courses in Engineering Thermodynamics and Engineering Laboratory. Now you might wonder if I was back at my university with my PhD and making good money, indeed, easy money, if I had somehow given up my quest as a political revolutionary. No, whatever my love of teaching young people and the money necessary to provide for now two children, one a baby, the controlling relationship between bosses and workers bathed my days in enough negative feeling that work felt like a prison as I said many times to Ruth.

It didn’t help that Katz was an obvious bisexual with a few of his most ass licking underlings at the university, Marv Johnson, Richard Harper and some unfortunate Korean desperate for academic success in America,  and also so it seemed to me a pedophile in his overbearingly intrusive relationship with his own kids whom I knew well, two of whom turned out openly gay and quite unhappy with the third, Andrea, running off to Brazil at a young age to be far apart from her father for the rest of her life. 

I left Rensselaer in 1982 returning to the life of an out and out rebel and bolstered by Ruth’s near supernaturally gifted imagination and analytical insight continued with my political writings in mathematical form, the return to revolution as a pure avocation clear in the music I wrote back then posted now on YouTube as Songs from a Rebel’s Past. 

Let me now fast forward from 1982 to 2012, leaving behind thirty years of near impossible survival with independence for another story to get to our current impossible adventure that brought about the publicizing of Evolutionary Hedonism. The month before Obama was reelected in 2012 to a second term, we were in Albany, NY, me, Ruth, Junko, now fully grown and called June, June Rogovsky via her marriage to Gregory Rogovsky, and her youngest child, 15-year-old Thomas Rogovsky. June’s husband, Greg, died when Thomas, aka, Champ, was three weeks old and I had raised Champ as my own. The coming of winter in the Northeast and its health risks for an asthmatic among other things got us to head for the warmer climate of Lubbock, Texas, a week before Election Day. A letter from Ruth to her brother, Don Graf, sets the stage for what happened next.

Dear Don,

I’ll be submitting this to Judge Parker shortly. The court clerk and law librarian both said he was a very fair judge and I think I’ll win. 

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION

Plaintiff: Ruth Calabria, Driver’s License # _____, Social Security # ___.   

To the Honorable Court:

The plaintiff complains of defendant Attorney Don Lee Graf of the Lubbock law firm, McClesky, Harriger, Brazill and Graf on University Ave., my brother and trustee of a $30,000 inheritance my mother left me that was probated in Lubbock County Court in 2007 and which I have seen no more than $200 of over the last five years after repeated request. Because of malfeasance on his part in a proper disbursement of the money, I am asking for immediate possession of the $30,000 plus interest and, if it is within the law, for the distress he has put me through over it in the last five years for additional penalty damages of $15,000.       

Dear Judge Parker,

I am 71 years old without legal experience, so please excuse my straying from pro forma exposition while I try to tell the story of my complaint in what I hope is a straightforward clear way. First I would like to talk about why I am presenting this to the court pro se. My brother, Mr. Don Graf, is quite well respected in legal circles in Lubbock, so much so that twice, on two separate occasions in the last five years when I came to Lubbock and canvassed every lawyer in this city by Internet and/or by knocking on doors and talking directly to lawyers, I got zero takers with some of the refusals embellished with reasons like “Don is my mentor and my best friend” and “I love Don” (from Bob Craig).

When I contacted Texas lawyers outside of Lubbock, I got back half a dozen sympathetic responses that fell into two categories, the first that the expenses of a non-Lubbock lawyer coming into town from the outside would eat up most of the $30,000 and the second that any outsider would have a very difficult chance of winning in Lubbock in this situation. One of them expressed outrage that what Don was doing was patently illegal in the state of Texas. I have emails for these opinions of outside lawyers’ view of the situation.

In hard fact, after being turned down in a request for four thousand dollars by Don Graf to cover a down payment of a house in Lubbock I had pre-approval for from the Plains Capital Bank and for money to fix my teeth twice, which are falling out (two are missing in the front as will be seen at the hearing along with the obvious gingivitis), after five years of clever dodging by Don to release any of the inheritance, I just gave up on ever getting any of it and took what he was doing as a clever lawyer’s game I couldn’t possibly beat.

I came down to West Texas primarily this time to see somebody at Texas Tech University in Lubbock. But having nothing to lose, I strolled over to the courthouse to talk to Nan Hadley in the law library about my situation. I am filing this complaint after talking to her and getting some advice from her on how to do it. One thing she said was telling and worth repeating. When I told her about my inability to get any lawyer in Lubbock to go against Don Graf, she said: “Maybe one of the younger ones will do it, not realizing he’d be jeopardizing his career.” Better said than I could, your honor, which is why I am filing this pro se, inadequacies in my presentation apologized for.

I have supporting letters in regard to the dentists to show Don’s dodges. The trust specifically calls for medical expenses and support. The letter he wrote me after I asked for help with the down payment on the house made the excuse that “mom didn’t mean for that kind of support.” If help for a woman of my age in buying a house to live in in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and my getting my teeth fixed without the kind of hassles he put in the way that made it effectively impossible is not what my mother meant, what do the words medical expenses and support in the trust mean?     

As important to my case, I believe, is the family background, which will help explain why Don Graf has been so unusually cruel to his own sister and, from my perspective, devious in his legal tricks and maneuverings, which while surprising and even shocking are not that difficult to understand once one understands our prolonged bitter family history. It saw me divorcing my Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) minister husband, the Rev. Leonard Schoppa, back 40 years ago, (our father, my and Don’s, the Rev. Arthur E. Graf, also was an LCMS minister) and remarrying my present husband of the last 39 years, a professional, PhD level, evolutionary biologist whose views on religion did not fit with Don’s and between the two of whom there has been a great deal of discord over the years, especially after Don’s wife, Ruby, divorced him back 20 years ago following tumult between him and my husband, Pete, at a family breakfast get-together down here in Lubbock in 1981.

Sorry about the soap opera sound of everything, but I think it is relevant to understanding the source of the discord between Don and me now and why he has intentionally mismanaged the trust and should be removed as trustee. I also want to bring up the childhood relationship that existed between Don and me as older brother to younger sister that had a strong flavor of dominance and effective ownership by men of women in our fundamentalist church, which is what I got away from in my divorcing my minister husband when I was young and in my twenties.

I should stress that I am not attempting to argue my case by blackening Don Graf’s name in a general way. Whatever good he may have done in Lubbock may be wonderful and the good reputation he has with the community and his fellow lawyers deserved. I am not saying Don Graf is a Satan of some sort generally and that that is reason for the court to find in my favor. And as to how Don treats me, while some of what he does seems unarguably devious and ill intent on its face, excuse my amateur psychoanalysis but my guess is that he rationalizes it from the Christian perspective we were raised with by my father, which was that a bad Christian, a renegade as I was viewed by the family when I left my minister husband and went with Pete, deserves punishment.

As an example, Don said the first time we talked about the will back in 2007 up in his law office, and you will just have to take my word for it as I have no witness, “You won’t ever see a penny of the money unless you leave Pete.” A year or so later, when I pushed again for him to release some of the inheritance and brought up what he said about Pete and the money, he wrote me a formal letter I will show to the court saying he never said that. Now what kind of lawyer writes a letter saying he never said something other than to manufacture counterfeit evidence by putting such an absurd backwards statement into a print letter for a judge to see?

I am asking that his trusteeship of my inheritance be revoked because he is exercising it in bad faith and that the money be turned over to me in its entirely before the only thing it is good for is to buy me a fancy burial plot.   

Dear Don. I will be going into our personal relationship and the basis of your animosity in depth in a rewrite of this submitted to the court in a more polished form after a few more visits to the law library. I’ll wait for a week from now for a settlement from you before taking the next step. If we settle out of court we can forget about the penalty part and I will be out of Lubbock as soon as possible. 

Sincerely,
Ruth

Ruth had little real hope, though, of any judge in the 13^th Century bastion of Lubbock taking the complaint as most judges, particularly the conservative ones, are naught but the indentured and invisible well paid puppets of the powerful in any town, the wealthy business proprietors and the professionals like her lawyer brother in this case. This form of judicial abuse is endemic across America for in reality the election or appointment of judges is as dependent on campaign contributions and patronage as that of any politician however much that aspect of a judge’s political existence is downplayed for the public.

So Ruth knew, whatever her feigned optimism to her brother, that even if her case was accepted for a hearing in court, she would have a very difficult time winning.  A good part of her reasoning was that in Lubbock, the judges are drawn from a tight knit pool of lawyers almost all of whom are conservative and knew her brother very well. Indeed her efforts just to get a lawyer in Lubbock to take the matter to court had proved impossible on two earlier occasions.

Were there any judicial fairness, the facts would have made transparently clear to any judge that Ruth’s brother Don was playing a preposterous game on her basically to keep his hands on her underpants and have control of her life for personal reasons that had nothing to do with and clearly violated the legal purpose of his trusteeship of her inheritance. Don delighted in Ruth’s suffering in her futile struggle to get the money left her by her mother. She just didn’t count as a human being in his eyes.

The wicked smell that pours continuously off my asshole brother-in-law makes it impossible for me not to insult him in every thought and word I write for I really do hate the worm for what he’s done to Ruth over the years. I’d be happy to be a witness to it, I felt, to make it clear that he should be dismissed as the trustee of her estate. As to why he behaves in this way, and this explains conservative jerks generally, you have to understand Don Graf for the coward I know him to be from the personal experiences I had with him back thirty years ago at the family breakfast get together that Ruth mentions in her complaint and that I talked about earlier.   

In this story worth repeating for emphasis, backed by the large sized Texas pig farmer father of Don’s now ex-wife, Ruby, and her large sized Texas speedway owner then brother-in-law at the family breakfast showdown, Don was too scared to pull the trigger in a planned confrontation with me that would have gotten these two henchmen to jump in and join him in pummeling the heck out of me. All he had to do was to goad me enough by insulting Ruth, my wife, his sister, to start the fight with him that his henchmen would have jumped in to finish. But he was too scared of me to raise the confrontation to the necessary level. After his courage drained and his face fell, he begged me to understand that he had no bad intentions in his insulting Ruth to get me into this lopsided fight: “Please, Pete, I meant nothing wrong.”

This has me upgrade my insults on Don and on all punk conservatives to the next level. The word, queer, originally meaning strange or odd, is now, like the word, faggot, reserved exclusively as a derogatory term for homosexual. What transpired that day in brother-in-law, Don’s, house, was certainly “queer” in the original sense of the word given that no sense could be made of what he was trying to do until the strategy fell apart when his fear was too great to keep up the aggression needed to get the brawl with me going to begin with. And though Ruth and I know of no actual Ted Haggard escapade by Don, we have always referred to him as “the faggot” because of his lack of balls that day in being unable to follow through on his creepy, unmanly efforts to destroy our marriage by every means possible.  

This, as we explain mathematically later, is in the nature of homophobic Christian men who refrain from acting on their true homosexual personalities out of fear of moral and social disapproval. They keep their perversity in their pants, so to speak, often with a wife and family as window dressing to project the illusion of manliness to the outside world. This fundamentalist homophobia is different than the repulsion of a healthy man from another man’s naturally unappetizing private parts, which are instinctively sensed as biologically unsuitable for reproduction. We describe this syndrome using Don Graf as a poster boy for hidden conservative homosexuality especially of the dominant kind facilitated by the power over others that conservatives endlessly crave as part of their personalities.     

We call this the conservative “hidden queer” personality, which helps explain the patently strange or queer faces and utterings of conservative personalities in the public eye like John Boehner, Eric Kantor, Mitch McConnell, Charles Krauthammer, Karl Rove, Bill O’Reilly and Paul Ryan. This goes beyond insult when the dichotomy between normal healthy human beings and asshole conservatives with all their endless doubletalk is clearly explained.

The deception and meanness of Graf in his dealings with my wife, Ruth, his 71-year-old sister, is a microcosm of what the yet sane and human in America will be up against as the economy is made to crumble on their backs by the double talking faggot conservatives who control America to no less a degree than Don Graf controls the legal goings on in Lubbock, TX. Hopefully Obama will wake from his Pollyanna sleep from this tip we are giving him about the sneaky faggot Republicans to do something real about it before the socio-economic situation degrades beyond repair.   

To clarify for you the sneakiness of conservatives in their dealing with the people of America generally in the detail needed for Obama to wake up and do something about it, note that not long after Ruth sent her legal complaint to brother Don she got this note from his law firm.

It should be made clear that this was just another ploy, one Ruth had already seen before. All dentists she contacted insisted on the bills being paid from visit to visit as the work was being done, a standard business practice that Don refused. She’s been effectively denied money to fix her teeth, three of them visibly broken and one missing in the front by dentists in Vermont, Denver and Las Vegas. We tried here in Lubbock in the middle of this court action now that the pain was getting bad for her. This was with a dentist, Jimmy Axe at 4903-82^nd St in Lubbock. We showed Dr. Axe some of the papers in the case and asked him to call Don to see if he’d pay him in a timely way rather insisting that the dentist do $8000 worth of work first and then wait to be paid after review of the work as you saw in this letter from him. 

Dr. Axe laughed and said that no sane dentist would go for that. When we asked if he’d call Don Graf to see if he’d provide payment for services in a more timely way, first Dr. Axe said he would and then a few days later upon reflection said, no way, he didn’t want to get involved with a lawyer in a deal like that because the whole thing was too iffy and messy. This should make it clear that no dentist will do her teeth under the conditions that her asshole brother is insisting on. This should also make it clear that if Don Graf is not even willing to use funds from her trust to pay for her medical/dental work, there is no intention for him to ever release any funds for any reason unless she left me, her husband.  As illustrative of his true intent as his shyster ploy to not pay even any dental bills was the time he had her arrested when he called the police to arrest her for trespassing in his law firm when she refused to leave it after he would not come out of his office to talk to her after Ruth had come all the way from New York to see him.

It’s no wonder when I met her in 1973 she was desperate to escape her loony fundamentalist family. I should say it again more about the pious Christian frauds in her family and how they treated her in her childhood. Don’s comment about her never seeing a penny of the inheritance unless she left me was set up in his law office right after the mother died and just after Ruth brought up about both of them being abused as children by her. Ruth told me many times over the four decades of our marriage about the mother getting her kicks from regular corporal punishment of her children and how she, Ruth, used to cry for Don when he was being spanked by the mother. With Ruth it went beyond spankings to invasiveness of her private parts, specifically with clysters regularly given following the spankings, quite perverse from any objective view. Love those Christians. 

It was after Ruth reminded Don of this abuse on both of them that Don told her she’d never see a penny of the money unless she left me, as though I was somehow responsible for Ruth’s indictment of her mother and for her rebellion against the family and the Lutheran church rather than the abuse on Mildred Graf’s kids that made Don into an obedient puppet, on the one hand, and Ruth a rebel against the abuse.            

Understanding that this was the last chance to get the inheritance that Don’s law firm of McClesky, Harriger, Brazill and Graf would have just out and out stolen every penny of it if she failed to get it on court, Ruth made another attempt to get legal assistance by sending out the following email to every lawyer in Lubbock. 

Might you be interested, for a fee, in reviewing a pro se complaint against a prominent Lubbock attorney by his sister? Because the amount of money sought is only $30,000 (plus possible punitive damages), please indicate in any reply the size of your fee after you’ve gone over the details of the suit on my website that start down after the newspaper article. Also please comment whether you think the complaint would be accepted for a hearing in Judge Parker’s courtroom in the first place.

Thank you,
Ruth Calabria

The handful of replies got back all said essentially the same thing: it’s not the type of legal matter I handle or I’m not taking any new cases right now. The refusal of all the lawyers in Lubbock we theorize derive from Don’s pansy like charm acquired from his getting the same enemas that Ruth did, which turned him into someone naturally adept at telling the clever lies girls do to get the Lubbock lawyers to all fall in love with him and support him in his game of torturing his 71 year old younger sister.

As fate turning this time in our favor would have it, Judge Parker turned out to be a woman, one with a unsavory reputation in Lubbock of having liberal tendencies and she accepted Ruth’s complaint much to our surprise and joy though we still held our breath while waiting for Don to stop avoiding his subpoena and then to turn in his introductory reply to the complaint, which he had twenty days to do.    

I passed some of the wait time at a McDonalds across the street from the main shopping mall in Lubbock, the South Plains Mall. I was drawn to the place less for the deliciousness of a Big Mac than for the fact that as a long time asthmatic I could breathe well in the place. In fact it was one of the few places I found in town where I could spend some time and breathe well, so I started hanging out there with affection for the place akin to a crack addict for crack. To make sure I wouldn’t be hassled or thrown out for loitering given the amount of time I was spending there I brought along a copy of the weapons ban news article I had written as evidence of my being a journalist from New York worthy of parking his ass for six hours a day in the place rather than a homeless person deserving of being evicted from the place for being there day in and day out.

Now as chance would have it, I was sitting in this McDonalds fiddling on my lap top semi-pretending to do some serious journalism with the weapons ban article placed on the table in a prominent place when a half dozen antiquarian GOBs (good old boys) sat themselves down right next to me. This was two days before the Portland, Oregon, mall murders this December. 

The GOBs chitchat that I couldn’t help but overhear centered about blaming Obama and all the other Moslems foolishly let into the United States for all the ills America has ever had excepting this summer’s West Texas drought. After being assaulted with their piety and patriotism drenched hate talk for a half hour, I couldn’t stand it anymore just sitting there and saying nothing. So throwing caution to the wind I push the weapons ban article under the nose of the two antiquated cowboys closest to me and say in as diplomatic language as I can muster: what cha think of this? And then I stroll off to the McDonalds men’s room to give them a few minutes to read it.

As I had been polite in introducing myself into their hate talk quilting bee, so they were polite back in a Texas way in making clear their total objection to the article. Almost immediately the two closest to me whip out their Texas Drivers Licenses to show me the CONCEALED GUN PERMIT stamped on them, their self-impressed smiles shining.

“Well I’m happy to see that you’re both carrying,” I say. “If somebody were to walk in the door right now to get me, I’ve got you fellers here to protect me.”

I said that, believe it or not, trying to be diplomatic, not sarcastic. And possibly because of the friendly tone in which I said it, believe it or not, they accepted it as though I could have possibly meant it. I’ll just list their other objections to getting rid of weapons, large and small, rather than trying to weave our conversation together as a short story.

The “It’s God’s will” excuse for not trying to do anything to prevent the world’s end came up repeatedly whenever the great likelihood  of nuclear war came up too clear in our discussion to be dismissed. Indeed a recent survey said that 40% of American’s believes these are the “end times” and lots of those are Christian conservatives just like those I was talking to. The God’s will mantra, though, is in my opinion disgustingly effeminate for anybody to lean on, what delicate ladies might excuse themselves with. Makes you wonder if all the red state Wrangler wearers have pink panties on under their jeans. Interpret the God’s will excuse properly as: I can’t do anything easy about this problem I think has a good chance of becoming reality so I’m not going to try any of the difficult things needed to prevent nuclear war, fuck the kids and grandkids, of mine and yours, who will suffer an unimaginably horrible death from it. God will put the mercurochrome on their wounds up in Heaven and that’s good enough for me, Lord be praised.

Later for those who need mathematical proof of the obvious, we’ll show how the possibility of a God existing to soothe you after you’re dead is absolutely zero, God being nothing more than cultural propaganda used to keep people obeying their masters “in this life” via their obeying “God’s laws.”

You know that it’s all bullshit when the pro-life fundamentalists are all for the life of a single cell zygote that comes about from the one thing all these uptight phonies are incapable of doing well, sex, but they pass on anything that affects real human life that requires balls and guts beyond carrying a gun and pressing its trigger at the local firing range twice a week. I’m against using guns, but that conservative attitude towards kids’ suffering whether from nuclear attack or mass murder makes me angry enough to want to slap these jerk bastards to wake them all up. 

That’s not just because of the juvenile callousness that characterizes this attitude, but also because of their pompous assumption of what constitutes manhood and how they connect it up with gun ownership. At one point in the dialogue the #2 concealed weapons permit GOB tried to imply that my rejection of gun use was tied up somehow with cowardice on my part.

I was quick to show him the broken knuckle on my right hand from the last punch I threw a few years back when my honor was challenged. I have nothing against defensive aggression for the protection of oneself and family. In the days when our kids were little I took on a hired thug up in Troy, NY, who had caused great upset for the family by setting a chair, believe it or not, outside our bathroom window trying to goad me into a fight he felt sure he would win. And to top it off, this jerk by the name of Dickie Yaddo hired by our landlord to torture us, ultimately made my two year old second son to start crying from the tension and fear the jerk was causing. My response was to call him down by going up to his porch on the second floor where the landlord had ensconced and writing FAGGOT with a red magic marker on his white naugahide chair and then near rip his eyes out of his head in a fist fight after he took the bait. 

So the point of a total weapons ban isn’t to castrate nature’s natural protective aggressiveness needed for self-defense, but rather to keep the fights that erupt between antagonists to injury no worse than what you get in mixed martial arts. If that sounds rough, there’s no comparing a bruise from a punch thrown to a bullet wound. My hand healed after I broke my knuckle in my last fist fight. And I saw Dickie Yaddo a year later and the worst that happened to him was that he was wearing a new pair of coke bottle eye glasses. That’s compared to the hole torn in Gabrielle Giffords head that never healed, not really, poor woman. And none of those kids shot with that automatic weapon at Newtown will ever come back to life, the idiotic prayers to God that may provide some soothing to the God-delusional parents in Newtown notwithstanding.

You can’t obviate aggression in living organisms as Nobelist Konrad Lorenz makes empirically unarguable in his masterpiece, On Aggression. But you can greatly reduce the horrible effects of aggression by limiting the weapons used to fight with to your fists as in the MMA sport, violent but hardly ever fatal or permanently crippling. If you need a gun to feel like a man, you’re not feeling confident about yourself without one and not much of a man.    

By the time we finished talking and arguing with each other, I felt I had learned something though it was also clear to me that these half dozen antiquarian GOBs, average age about 75, were not a statistically representative group. Suddenly the thought came over me to widen the scope of the discussion I’d just had by talking to people from Lubbock of a greater variety with such being available right across the street from McDonalds at the South Plains Mall where a much broader spectrum of folk pass through every day as shoppers.

So I trotted over and a few questions got me directions to the mall management office manned by this quite attractive example of West Texas pulchritude, the receptionist’s looks incidental to her handing me the business card of the right person to speak to, the mall manager, a woman by the name of Beth Bridges.  

I had spelled out my story in brief for the receptionist and asked her to pass it on to the manager as best she could. “I’ll be back tomorrow to see if there’s any interest in allowing me to set up a small table in the mall from which to interview shoppers about their feelings of a weapons. Maybe the mall manager might be interested in the idea of banning guns in the mall,” was my last thought given the plethora of mall mass murders that have plagued the country over the last decade.

As soon as I stepped out of the mall office, though, I noticed that Beth Bridge’s business card included her email address, which immediately got me to send her a note telling her what I had just told the receptionist but with more detail in the argument as to why she should allow it. I didn’t think down deep that it would hit home with her, for the sociopolitical issue of gun control is quite distant from the bottom line concerns of mall management excepting the rare occurrence when a mass murder happens in one’s own mall. I included my awareness of that disparity in the note to Beth Bridges, whoever she was, to subtly let her know that if she were agreeable to this experiment I was proposing that I would understand the exception to the usual business protocol she was making and greatly appreciate it.

A bit astonishingly, though, not long after sending her the email, news of the Portland, Oregon, mall shooting that killed two plus the shooter popped up atop the Goggle News top stories list. Though no believer in transcendental imposition into earthly matters the coincidence did strike me as an encouragement to send Beth a follow up email, now more aggressive in pressing the need for a dialogue between me and her mall patrons on mall mass murders and mall gun restriction. I offered my services for pay as a pollster of mall shoppers and employees to gauge their attitude toward some kind of gun restriction in the mall as I had seen at the Amtrak/Greyhound station in Albuquerque, NM.

My emails soon got back a politely worded reply from Ms. Bridges denying access to the mall for interviews. At one level it made sense to me from a business perspective in its not being directly helpful to the mall’s bottom line and also in the mall being in red state territory where gun rights are as sacred as baptism and religious services on Christmas and Easter. But I thought the ignoring of the mall shooting problem as drawn out by the out of the blue Portland mall shooting right in the middle of our correspondence was more than a little shortsighted.

I spent the next day at McDonalds passing the first few morning hours chatting on the net with an old semi-famous acquaintance about personal matters that had transpired in my life and his since I had last talked with him a year earlier and added a clearer spelling out of my sense of the need for a general weapons ban for PK and how my efforts at starting such a movement in Lubbock had not lit a fire under anybody in town.

I no sooner finished this moderately pleasant way of passing the time waiting for the court hearing over Ruth’s inheritance to materialize when I checked Goggle News as was a regular habit of mine and caught the first news of the school shootings down in Newtown, CT. This early announcement made mention of only some shooting, not killings, and didn’t say whether any kids had been shot or killed. I was astonished even more than I had been after the Portland mall shootings and feeling now by this coincidence with my communications with Beth Bridges that the God I had absolutely no belief in was calling me to do something spontaneously sent off another email to the mall manger, pushing again.

From: "Peter Calabria" petercalabria@matrix-evolutions.com
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 10:18 AM
To: Beth.Bridges@macerich.com
Subject: RE: Weapons Ban Follow Up

Hi Beth,

Thanks for your kind reply. Interesting that this AM I read of another shooting in a public place, this time in an elementary school in Connecticut. Shame that the bottom line in business obviates any active interest in such an endlessly bloody problem. In Lubbock there' is no venue of street traffic that allows for the problem's examination though I certainly have no problem understanding your company’s policy in this critical area.

I get the sense that you do personally understand the enormity and criticality of the problem. I'll be in the mall every now and then strolling around and might pick up a conversation or two with people in the matter without in any way being obvious or intrusive, no different dynamically than two people picking up a conversation on whether the Houston Texans might win the Super Bowl. I hope that wouldn’t violate your policy concerns, and will assume that to be the case if I don’t get a patent restrictive reply back from you.

I'm readily recognizable from my London Fog East Coast style topcoat when I'm in the mall and hope I'm welcome if I keep my presence subtle. If I don’t hear back from you that I'm patent PERSONA NON GRATA, I'll assume I'm welcome for the two more weeks we’ll be here for the holidays.

Peter

I pushed it despite her earlier rejection because somebody has to push it hard if anything is ever going to be done about it I felt. Later in the day I saw on TV that 18 kids had been slaughtered. I raised five of my own, now ages 41 down to 15, and was literally sick to my stomach about it, queasy and on the verge of vomiting for the rest of the afternoon. 

On the bus ride back to the motel that day the news of it was broadcast over the radio feed on the bus so the topic came up readily between the half dozen of us bus passengers. Four Lubbock residents expressed angry thoughts towards the 20-year-old perpetrator. One talked of torturing him by putting fish hooks in the guy’s eye lids and hanging him off a cliff from the fish hooks.

“The guy’s already dead,” my impulse was to say aloud, “what the hell good would that do?” for the kids or for preventing the next such mass murder from happening. Self-protection urged me to keep my mouth shut especially after the gun nut interactions I had already had but the horror of the event kept me from containing myself and I spoke out with: “what about gun control?”

“It’s the person who does the killing, not the gun” came back the standard conservative reply from this quite obese girl in her late twenties sitting across from me.

“Yah,” I responded, up for an argument, “but the people who do such things aren’t in control of what they do to begin with. They’re just unhappy souls so miserable about their lives that killing is the only release for the pain they feel.” I said this quite sure that whatever the psychobabble interpretations of the killings in the media that Adam Lanza had killed the kids to pay back the residents of Newtown whom he blamed for his unhappiness in life from the way they had treated him in interactions with him while he was growing up, teachers and neighbors and friends of his mother.  

The girl continued pressing her outrage at the morality of the deed rather than at the issue of the gun used without which the bloody deed could not possibly have been done: “So what if he was unhappy? I’m unhappy too. In fact I’m unhappy all the time. But I don’t go around killing people.”

“If you went to the next level of unhappiness, where that guy was as is obvious in his super pained face, you would be in the kill zone,” I countered. That’s not exactly true I must interject. Mass murders are invariably done by males, not females like the person across from me on the bus. That’s because men have a distinctly higher intensity of violent aggression in them by nature.  But overall the point is correct. Past some point of unhappiness, often because they are failures in social and sexual relationships, men become unhappy enough to want to relieve their pain by suicide or homicide and what are most of the mass murders we’ve seen in the last decade but suicides to relive the pain of life where the murderer shoots himself in the end.

Surprisingly I had no sooner finished my thought than the overweight girl blurted out: “Well sometimes I would like to kill my husband.” That was the late twenties fellow sitting next to her on the bus, the one who said he would love to torture the Newtown killer with fish hooks.

The wife continued, “I thought about stabbing him to death the other day when he was taking a bath in the bathtub.”

She had begun expressing her rage towards her husband in almost a humorous way as though it were an acceptable level of spontaneous rage in a marital squabble, but as she said the words they and her tone came out grimmer than she had intended and I and the others on the bus fell silent upon hearing it.

It just reinforced the point that Lanza and unhappy people generally are prone to shipping their aggravations to others via violent actions if they can find victims to do it to. And there’s lots of unhappiness in the world once you get past the fake smiles of the TV celebrities, actors, newscasters and politicians, unhappiness that derives most fundamentally as we’ll show mathematically from the obedience required of people in their work and other authority controlled situations. And that includes how parents ship their unhappiness off to their kids as Lanza’s mother surely did to him, screw the explanations from capitalist ideology corrupt clinical psychology that never find fault in wage slavery as the ultimate cause of the vast pool of unhappiness that exists in America.  

I shut my mouth for the rest of the bus ride. The woman’s husband made it clear in dribs and drabs that followed that he was a veteran of Afghanistan and had killed a five-year–old boy in the war there who was strapped to an improvised explosive device. I wanted no part of that line of chitchat and was happy when their bus stop came and this obviously unhappy couple got off the bus.

Back at the motel Ruth and I watched the full tallying of the 26 dead in the slaughter and saw Obama finally opening his mouth about gun control. It’s good to hear, but even as the president speaks it is clear that that he’s not going to do anything about it except the usual which is to pontificate like a minister to show everybody he cares. But there’s no reality about what he says, no heartfelt anger, as per usual from this populist’s mouth.

In England where their strict gun control constitutes a complete ban there are 60 gun deaths a year and the toll in lives is similarly very low in completely gun controlled Japan. This compares to the USA where there are 11,000 gun homicides a year and 20,000 gun suicides. Every counter argument for the tolerance and glorification of gun ownership is specious in the face of these numbers, as utterly ridiculous as the conservatives’ arguments against global warming and evolution, both of which are as sure as 2+3=5, something the conservatives will also start denying to avoid the mathematical argument in this piece that shows them to be the nutjob low bastards they really are.                                                                     

Do they care about the blood soaked bodies of 20 first graders? In truth, however harsh this judgment on them may seem, they don’t, at least not from my conversations with people down in the conservative kingdom of Lubbock. Nothing made this clearer than what happened next at the South Plains Mall. I waited for my latest email to Beth Bridges to generate some explicit permission from her for me to raise the gun issue at the mall.

I didn’t feel comfortable about wading into the interviewing without some form of explicit permission or approval from her saying yes, Dr. Calabria, we care about that senseless slaughter of mere babies that could not possibly have taken place without the killer having access to a military style assault rifle. Go try your best to raise awareness and start a dialogue on it.  

But it didn’t come and I felt I would be legally defenseless if the mall chose to prosecute me in this conservative town especially as Ms. Bridges had already refused me permission to actively interview in plain and clear English. I said to Ruth how much this showed the two coupled interests that really cared nothing about anybody except their own interests, money and lunatic religion soaked ideology, the latter having no real basis in the love for mankind preached by Jesus that blared in the speakers of the South Plains Mall in the form of Christmas Carols all designed to sell goods and make a profit for the wealthy owners of the mall and its businesses. 

As long as such monetarily powerful institutions as the South Plains Mall sit pat happy with bottom line success as their sole pursuit in life and ignore any responsibility to do something about the senseless slaughter of little children, kids and other innocent individuals will continue to be slaughtered in mass murders by readily available guns. The politicians are paid to not rock the boat and eventually the problem of random unhappiness and hate driven killing will escalate to something approaching out and out civil war, which will be bloody indeed.        

All of these thoughts, many of which were judging Beth Bridges on the basis of what she hadn’t replied, prompted me to go over to the mall and try to strike up a conversation with her on the matter. Maybe she really was a sensitive caring soul controlled by the dictates of the out of town corporate owners of the mall. And so I went over to the mall office the Monday morning after the Newtown child murders.

When I walked in this time, no receptionist was there, at first nobody was there. After I called out, in walked somebody new, felt like a substitute receptionist. As I began to speak, telling the girl who I was and that I had communicated with Beth Bridges by email and hoped I could talk to her directly, in walked a woman accompanied by the receptionist, now looking tense rather than pretty, and some heavy set fellow in a tie with no smile on his face and a mall security person in uniform with even less of a smile on his face.       

Beth’s look, also unsmiling, and tone as she began to speak pegged her instantly as what one might call a conservative triple bitch feminist, no insult meant to women who rail against the denial of their reproductive rights by the worst anti-women conservative attitudes as were being displayed by Don Graf towards my wife at this very moment. You would think the lot of them were encountering someone intent on arm robbery on the mall rather than raising the gun control issue.  

Terse and tense was the exchange.

“This is not the place for this kind of activity,” said Ms. Bridges.

“Well I disagree philosophically entirely, though it’s your prerogative not to allow it,” implying that the slaughter of 20 six year olds with an assault rifle should be motivation enough for anybody to try their best to consider some solution to the problem of gun facilitated mass murder.

“Especially not in this city,” she continued as though I had said nothing making it clear that the city fathers potential muscle over her position and career was a significant factor that trumped any consideration of the mass deaths of children.        

In the end, while she went out of her way not to deny me chat with shoppers at the level of talking about Super Bowl prospects as I had mentioned in my last email to her, she made it clear that “if anybody complains that you are harassing them security can be called to take care of the situation.” At that the security guys lack of a smile broke into a patent threat expression to make it clear that I was at risk not just for instant eviction at any moment now and in the future, but also for God knows what criminally, harassment and or criminal trespass charges.

The hostile tone in Ms. Bridges made it clear whatever the nuances in the words she tossed about that I was not going to be able to raise the gun issue in the mall with any sense of comfort in doing so and therefore not going to raise the issue at all. Taking discretion as the better part of idealism and valor after emotionally testing how I felt about the minutiae of permission I had been given by walking over to the food court, I did an about face and walked out of the South Plains Mall once and forever.

All of my interactions with people in Lubbock made it clear that there was no hope of conversation with conservatives there that could lead to any betterment in the mass murder game. The most conservatives can offer is prayers for the dead, cheap and meaningless. But there were lessons to be learned from my experience with the callous fundamentalist nutjobs I encountered.

Conservative Lubbock is the quintessential example of decadence. It tells us what decadence is. Everybody in Lubbock addresses anybody with the slightest perceived rank above them as “sir.” This is obedience town. The place is filled with cathedral sized churches and the message in all of them is OBEY. People in this town don’t do what is smart. They do what is right to do, what is commanded by authority, by a rule. And they believe what they are told is right to believe. Instances of gross stupidity abounded in the couple of months our family was in town interacting with people.

Bus drivers took me far out of my way a couple of times, not out of meanness but out of the inability to meet a problem not in their book of rules and regulations with an intelligent solution. One fellow who attended Texas Tech, the oddest combination of technological instruction and  conservative fundamentalist ideology not only told me that he felt evolution and creationism were on an equal footing scientifically but that he thought that only 35% of professional biologists “believed” in evolution.    

But decadence has not to do just with the stupidity that arises from insistence on knee jerk obedience to authority in every situation, but also with the unhappiness it causes. Here people’s faces are patently ugly for the most part and I doubt that any town has an incidence of gross obesity greater than Lubbock. To sit in the South Plains Mall with your eyes open is to see the fattest people in the world with so many of them lined up in the food court stuffing their faces with sizable platters of food to add another layer of fat onto their already walrus sized bodies.

That is not to bully people because they are overweight but to finger obesity level eating as a manifestation of unhappiness, of culling food pleasure to balance the misery of living in a highly controlled town. If you want to know where America is heading under conservative sway, this is the place to see it, a joke at one level, but a distinct horror at another, a horror made clear in the horrible attitude here toward the horror of the Newtown child slaughter.

I gave up any idea of interviewing people about gun control at the mall. Interestingly a couple of weeks after surrender to any sense of changing opinions on weapons in Lubbock, after stopping into the South Plains Mall to use the bank and then get some wonton soup at the Chinese food kiosk because that day was particularly cold, who ambles over but the management of the mall, Beth Bridges absent, along with a Lubbock police officer to tell me that I will be charged with trespass if I don’t leave. They all seem very proud of this action as though I had come to rob the place rather than make change at the bank and get some soup in the food court.

Of course I said, no problem, all she had to do was tell me not to come in an email and that would have solved any perceived problem before it started. They seemed to take more delight in this “arrest” type of warning considering that every God fearing citizen in Lubbock considers every liberal they might encounter to be a criminal of one sort or another.

On my way out the cop quickly catches up with me and says, “I’ll walk with you on the way out.”

“No problem,” I reply, “Always good to have some company.”

I hand him a copy of the weapons ban article. “Here read this.”

He takes it and glances at the title and then gave the usual conservative rejoinder to any mention of gun control: “People kill people, not guns.” But he says it in an obviously friendly tone to make clear that he was just stuck doing his job with the bullshit trespass warning and had no bad feelings toward me.

At about this time June’s Internet relationship with a fellow in Las Vegas hits its peak and off she goes taking Champ with her. This is dangerous because it cuts our living expenses down to too little to survive with a roof over our heads anymore. With homelessness on the horizon, Ruth sends an email off to brother, Don, with twofold motivation. It says that much to her surprise, “Pete has stolen all the money we had left and run off to Las Vegas.” Don responds by sending $1000 and a relatively conciliatory note suggesting that if what Ruth is truly saying is actually true and not a ploy, perhaps more financial assistance might be forthcoming.

Of course, it was a ploy, both to get the money needed to pay our motel room rent and to make very clear to the court that the only way he would ever give a dime is if she had left me. Not long after she sends Don another email telling him the truth about this and that she will use it in any court proceeding in the above way. Part of what spurred her boldness to tell him this directly is that by this time in mid-January, 2013 Ruth has applied for and gotten food stamps for us, which with Social Security will keep us from hitting the street homeless and dying prematurely as the homeless do.

Don is not told about the food stamps, but what Ruth did tell him must have infuriated the bastard because he follows through by filing papers with the court that he will have witnesses to prove that Ruth is mentally ill and that I am a horrible trespasser not only in Lubbock (somehow Beth Bridges and he must have had a chat over coffee about me) but also in Georgia, New York, Vermont and Nevada. He is also going to bring in another lawyer who will testify that Ruth and his mother wanted the will to be handled in this way, presumably with only 3% of the money in it given her over the 7 years since her death and that only if Pete, me, was out of the picture. His filing is sheer gobbledygook, but it makes us feel since he is, indeed, a lawyer and Lubbock and knows the terrain that all this bullshit will somehow work in court, which at that time was set to come on June 25 at a mandated mediation that also serves as a pretrial conference as far as we, non-lawyers in this mad game can tell.

In the meantime, Health & Human Services, (H&HS), the Food Stamp people, want to know more about the inheritance trust because Ruth had told them about the $1000 he sent as part of the income she had to report that went beyond just the Social Security. They make a considerable effort to explore it, presumably because if you have a ready trust worth $35,000 (adding on the interest over the last seven years to the initial $30,000), what are you doing getting Food Stamps and help paying your Medicare monthly payment?

While H&HS is pursuing this investigation by phone and by having Ruth drop off all of the pertinent documents at their office, we are thinking, hey maybe they can help us. We think that way because the fellow from H&HS by the name of John Flores sounded so sensible when I talked to him over the phone that I spontaneously spit out: “It’s so good to be talking to somebody sane in Lubbock.”

What happens next is anybody’s guess as of March 23, 2013, but to tell you where we at the very moment I am writing this, I will end this story with the two notes Ruth dropped off at H&HS last week.

For: John Flores, Case Worker
Health and Human Services
1716 Parkway Drive
Lubbock, TX  79403 

From: Ruth Calabria, Case #

First let me say that I’m indebted to you for calling my inheritance problem with my trustee lawyer brother, Don Graf, to the attention of the H&HS Commission in Midland. They wrote and asked for information, which I made an effort to get them right away along with letting them know that I had dropped off the important documents with you. I haven’t heard anything back from them yet and thought I would provide H&HS more information through you with this letter. Please don’t lose interest in caring that justice is done in regard to his illegally withholding my inheritance money from me.

I heard on one of the local TV news programs that the sequestration could in the future affect Food Stamp recipients and that in Lubbock this would mean up to 3500 families losing their food stamps. Doesn’t that make my brother’s unlawfully keeping my inheritance money from me an important issue to H&HS, both from the perspective of my being potentially dropped from the program and put out on the street or, as bad, my displacing some needy family who’d be dropped that wouldn’t be if my brother was made to pay the money? At the risk of antagonizing you, I demand, not just as an H&HS recipient of benefits but as a concerned and very upset citizen that you make the effort, as you are fully able, to see that Don Graf releases my inheritance funds to me in order to get me off the welfare rolls as soon as possible.   

Let me go over and expand on points I made before as to why outside intervention beyond the complaint I have currently in the Lubbock County Court is necessary to force Don Graf to release the money. The attitude my brother has toward me remains the same as it was when I divorced my minister husband back 40 years ago, namely that I am some kind of a sinful slut deserving of punishment, an attitude also held by my minister father, now deceased, at that time and by the rest of my conservative fundamentalist family.     

The specifics of my treatment by what I consider to be a pack of pious frauds that include my brother, Don Graf, a trustee of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod are spelled out on our website, matrix-evolutions.com, in a biographical story, A Portrait of the Young Scientist. What is happening now with regard to my inheritance from my mother and my lawyer brother, Don Graf, as its trustee withholding it from me is just a continuation of that attitude and treatment     

Don Graf’s unwillingness to part with no more than 3% of the inheritance valued at $35,000 over the last six years despite obvious desperate need on my part for living expenses and for critical dental problems also has much to do with his attitude towards my husband of the last forty years, Peter Calabria. Simply stated Don hates him because Pete is a political activist on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum who doesn’t share Don’s conservative notions and religious views. Pete’s activist newspaper writings go back thirty years including the one I already gave you on a weapons ban posted on our website and this anti-war article I am also enclosing that touches on police brutality, too.

Pete is a large part of Don Graf’s refusal to give me my money. As I told you and other case workers, Don patently stated shortly after the will was probated that I’d never see a penny of it unless I left Pete. Beyond personal jealousy their contradictory political attitudes are a significant factor in this. To illustrate where Pete and I are coming from in that regard, we mailed the Nicaragua article enclosed out to all US Senators and Representatives towards the end of 1986. I remember that back before emails were invented that cost us a couple of hundred dollars in stamps! We received personal letters back from 20 Congressmen thanking us for our efforts, only one of them Republican. Six months later, Congress started the Iran-Contra Hearings that thwarted Reagan’s efforts to run an unconstitutional covert war against the Nicaraguan government. I am not saying that we caused the Iran-Contra Hearings to come about, but certainly our efforts, if you read the piece, reinforced the need in the minds of Senators and Representatives for such a hearing to be held.    

Don interprets attitudes like this as evil much as conservative Republicans today view many of the ideas and efforts of liberals and even middle of the roaders like Obama as evil. And I am not bringing this up as some made-for-the-moment effort to get your help. We have had this political direction in our lives since we first met back 40 years ago and have pursued it in every way as can also be noted in sociopolitical folk songs Pete wrote and recorded back 25 years ago that you can access from the last sentence on matrix-evolutions.com. They will help make clear that my husband is a genuine political activist and not the evil person Don Graf rationalizes him as to soothe his personal emotional difficulties (Don has been divorced and alone for the last 30 years and is a bitter and jealous man in that regard also.)  You really must read the story on the website to get a full appreciation of what’s going on in this ridiculous battle between us that has been played out over the last four decades and that this idiot brother of mine will take to the grave.     

Of course you people at H&HS can say, it’s primarily a matter of the courts and has little to do with us. This is nonsense, though, in two regards. The first as I said earlier is that if Don Graf released the money, I wouldn’t have to take it from the state. In that regard it’s no different than a father who refuses to pay child support that causes the mother to go on the welfare rolls. When that happens they put the father in jail these days to make him pay if he has the money, which in parallel argument, Don Graf certainly does with my inheritance money. And because of the ideological bent of Lubbock considered to be the second most conservative city in America and Don’s powerful connections to the levers of power here there is little chance I am going to receive my money or get any justice here. You can’t just sit by and blind yourself to that or to the effect that this injustice on me has on the welfare system in general.   

Let me give some specifics of how hard it is get justice in Lubbock. I already told you how impossible it was to even get a lawyer, any lawyer, in Lubbock to handle the case for me after trying three times over six years. Who ever heard of anything like this?! Let me also, to make the point most clearly, tell of my most recent attempt to get a lawyer that was started by my first H&HS Food Stamp case worker, Daniel Sheebeck. He was most considerate of my plight and beyond getting me the Food Stamps told me of a Lubbock lawyer he had used who was a “real human being”, a fellow by the name of Gene Walters.

Great, I thought, and quickly got in touch with this lawyer. Unfortunately his office told me that he did not handle wills at all and referred me to a lawyer who did, Buddy Curry. I called that lawyer’s office six weeks ago and was given an appointment a week later and instructed to mail in pertinent documents so he could get a preview of the case. The day before the scheduled meeting, I got a call from his secretary who told me that “Mr. Curry had an emergency and was rushed to the hospital to have two stents placed in his heart.”

“Oh! I hope he’s alright,” I said spontaneously and then was told that they would get back to me when Buddy Curry was back on his feet. You won’t be surprised, will you, that I never heard back from him or that five weeks later the most likely place you’ll find Buddy Curry is not in the hospital or in the morgue but back in his office practicing law but not against Don Graf. If you can’t even find a lawyer in a city that has a hundred of them to represent you against Don Graf because all the lawyers in this town belong to the same country club, you’re going to have a very hard time winning in Lubbock courts given that the judiciary is all made up of former chummy Lubbock lawyers who dine at the same country club.

Speaking of the courts, the judge assigned to my case is a lesser judge in the sense that Judge Parker gets the unimportant or less important cases. This does not mean that she is inherently less adequate, but it does suggest, particularly as she is a relatively recently arrival, that she is less experienced and possibly inferior in that regard. As I am no lawyer myself and was forced to pursue this action without one “pro se”, I may not be a good evaluator of what is or isn’t reasonable for a judge to do. But especially as I was seen by the court to be so short of money that it waived the usual filing fee of $275, and that the very complaint I made was about Don Graf’s releasing funds from the inheritance so I could survive economically, one might think that the court would not have scheduled the first leg of the four step proceedings six long months from the date I made the complaint. By the time this actually gets into court where a final judgment will be made will take possibly another year or two. A more experienced judge might have caught that and sped things up.

Perhaps courts just behave this way regardless of the specifics of a complaint that suggests a real need for acceleration of the process. Nonetheless, given a 71 year old woman and a trustee rather obviously dragging his feet in not wanting to give her a penny, the scheduling might have been more accommodating to the situation. This suggests no great compassion for my plight in the Lubbock courts, which further suggests given the biases I have already brought up that there is little chance in my getting any justice and any money from local courts.

Let me give an anecdotal example of the general tone in Lubbock that further suggests bias in this matter. I needed to get to the Post Office to reply to the request from the H&HS Commission for documents as soon as possible on the day of the blizzard in Lubbock back a few Monday’s back. While I was walking to the Post Office in the wind and snow, a gentleman stopped in his pick-up truck and asked if I needed a lift. After I got in and thanked him appreciatively for coming from the middle of nowhere to help, he said, “God helps his own.” When I didn’t follow up immediately he said, “You are a Christian, aren’t you?” 

Despite my growing up in Austin as the daughter of a Lutheran minister, after being married to a totally dishonest Ted Haggard type Lutheran minister in my twenties, a student of my father’s, and having my father turn against me when I tried to divorce the creep, of course I am not a Christian anymore. I didn’t say all that to the driver, just that my view of life was that of a scientist rather than a Christian. The fellow’s mood, though, changed abruptly and I was happy to get out of the truck shortly after. I bring that up not to distract with unnecessary digression but to offer a telling illustration that the fundamentalist conservative tenor of this town speaks of a general bias made all the worse by my conservative brother’s power and connections in town, especially with the lawyer click that includes everybody connected with the judiciary, all of whom, I am sure, are fairly devout Christians, at least in outward practice, as Don is.    

From this perspective I again insist that you give serious thought to shifting the investigation and prosecution of his illegal activity in this matter to a court outside of Lubbock, be it at a higher state level or better yet at the federal level. I am asking, insisting, demanding this, please, not only as an individual affected personally by the outcome in this case but also as a citizen who has a microscope on the details of what’s going on and sees my brother’s forcing me to go on welfare because of his illegal withholding of my inheritance as tantamount to stealing public funds with all that implies at this critical time of the sequestration’s potential tattering of the safety net for the needy.                  

I should also make clear in every way that Don Graf has no intent whatever to give any money to me. My teeth are a mess. Two in the back are visibly shattered and one is missing in the front. I’ve been effectively denied money to fix them by Don Graf for three dentists, one in Vermont, one in Denver and one in Las Vegas. We tried here in Lubbock now that the pain is getting bad just a few weeks ago with a dentist, Jimmy Axe at 4903-82^nd St. We showed Dr. Axe some of the papers in the case and asked him to call Don to see if he’d pay him in a timely way rather insisting that the dentist do $8000 worth of work first and then wait to be paid after review of the work as you saw in the letter from him to me I sent you earlier. 

Dr. Axe laughed and said that no sane dentist would go for that. When we asked if he’d call Don Graf to see if he’d provide payment for services in a more timely way, first Dr. Axe said he would and then a few days later said upon reflection, no way, he didn’t want to get involved with a lawyer like that because the whole thing was too iffy and messy. This should make it clear that no dentist will do my teeth, not even one here in Lubbock, under the conditions that Don is imposing. This should also make it clear that if Don Graf is not even willing to use funds from my trust to pay for my medical/dental work, there is no intention for him to ever release any funds for any reason unless I left my husband.

Jim Axe is a local witness to this for the legal action you would pursue. If needs be pointed out again, Don Graf’s using his trusteeship as a personal leash and whip over me is a patent violation of Texas State law but one that will never be seen in Lubbock that way because of Don’s power and connections here.

Let me also emphasize that my loss is the state’s loss and ultimately the taxpayer’s loss. While I am grateful to H&HS for support to compensate for Don Graf’s effective theft of my money, I would rather have and use my own money to live off of and I would think that somebody up there in the hierarchy of H&HS would want him to be providing the money needed for my support instead of the public funds. And would want him to pay criminally for his crime of using his position of trustee in an illegal way, not just to personally teach him a lesson but also to make a public example of him at this critical time for America when the argument over entitlements is so important and in the public’s eye. 

On my own part I would try to pursue justice in this matter in the only other way I can think of and that is by sending out the material from my case to the local newspaper and broadcast media outlets in Lubbock to ask that investigative reporting be done and made public. But in a town as fundamentalist conservative as Lubbock, this is likely a tenuous hope especially for a newspaper that just a few years back had a Bible quote on its front pages every day. I may try it anyway, but what really must be done and I am insisting on it in the strongest terms is that H&HS get somebody outside of Lubbock and outside of Don Graf’s reach to investigate the matter to see that justice is done, again I repeat, not just for my sake, but for the sake of the country for a nation without laws justly applied is a tyranny and in the end will not last.   

Sincerely,
Ruth Calabria 

And she followed this one up with another the following day. 

For: John Flores, Case Supervisor
Health & Human Services
1716 Parkway Drive
Lubbock, TX  79403 

From: Ruth Calabria, Case #
March 15, 2013

I apologize for implying in any way in yesterday's letter that H&HS did not come through for me and am indebted further to you for facilitating the food stamps and the Medicare reduction. I sent Pete off with yesterday's letter to the Parkway office at 10AM and the mail came in oddly at noon telling me about H&HS giving the OK for the assistance.

But I still want H&HS to reexamine my inheritance problem for their helping especially in light of these recent papers filed by my brother, Don Graf, the trustee of my $30,000 inheritance, that are enclosed. The gobbledygook in them is pure nonsense. But his phony baloney innuendoes will be given credence by this Lubbock Court because of the extreme conservative bias in this town and I will lose the case once and for all. There will be no going back to retry it in any way once judgment is passed.  

It was funny that I saw on this last Wednesday's Avalanche Journal front page the Bible based "Words of Inspiration" I talked about in yesterday's letter and on top of that an article about a six year old boy in this most conservative county having to cut his hair to attend school, something you would never see any place on the East Coast or in most other counties in America. Lubbock is truly the second most conservative city in the country, Birmingham, Alabama, being the only place ahead of it in that distinction. And on top of that, there is Don's longtime power and extensive connections in Lubbock.   

Between those elements and the obviousness of his stalling out on paying for my dental work or any other support unless I separate from my husband as made clear in earlier documents I gave you, you really can't miss, John, even as a casual observer, that I am not going to see a penny of the inheritance. Not a penny.

The why of that as I said before is clear from Pete's story of A Portrait of the Young Scientist on our website if you have had time to check it out. But more important is what can be done about it. I realize that H&HS doesn't have as part of its specified duties to the public resolving situations like this. But in circumstances as unorthodox and fuzzy as these are, that begs the question of how public policy decisions of a government agency are made to begin with.

It should be clear that my continuing to receive this assistance for let's say five years without which we'd be out on the street homeless will sum to near the $30,000 in the inheritance trust, which clearly demands that the inheritance be made to be used for my support. That's the hard reality that contrasts with the nonsense Don Graf paints the picture as.

If you step back for a moment from my particular situation, you see the same distortion of reality in the 2008 mortgage scam by the banks and the great pain it put on all the little people who suffered from it via home foreclosure, loss of job and reduction in retirement 401K. (Check out the documentary, "American Winter" for that hidden reality on HBO at 9PM, Monday night.)   

And that's not to speak of the effects of the sequestration over the next ten years that will further murder the working class, the reality also to be papered over by the banks and Wall Street who control most of the information in the media. You at H&HS know better than anybody what the real effects on little people are.  

Is the discrepancy between the reality of my situation and Don's nonsense narrative of it any different? Isn't my situation an example of the above larger picture in a microcosm? Does not that motivate you to step in and do what you can, not just for me but to shine a light on that larger reality? Especially considering that the 30K I will not be getting from my inheritance but from H&HS will by 30K that other needy people, of whom there will be many, could be getting.

I don't know the specific levels of command and control in H&HS and above it in government, but even if you had to send it all the way up to the Dept. of Justice, you doing something like that would have a much easier time of calling attention to it than me, who is but one citizen quite insignificant in a pool of 300 million. If I had a chance of winning in the Lubbock Courts with my formal complaint, it would be different, but the information I am providing you makes it clear that doing that will be impossible. And once I fail this time that will be the end of it. This needs your help now to have justice done.

Otherwise I have no choice but to release all of this including my interactions with H&HS to whatever is left of the liberal media like Rachel Maddow and take my chances there. I will be dropping off this letter at the H&HS Parkway office today and hope you will get back to me in a week's time on what you are going to do or if not I will assume H&HS will be doing nothing and take my chances pushing this with the media as aggressively as I can.

Sincerely,
Ruth Calabria  

Then Ruth sent off this note to the Mediation Office of the Lubbock County Court. 

From: Ruth Calabria
Re: Court Ordered mediation for Ruth Calabria v. Don Graf, 2012-568.251 |
Date Mediation Scheduled: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:00 AM
Assigned Mediator: Jolyn Wilkins

I am going to combine the reasons for my inability to pay with my synopsis of the case as they are intrinsically tied together. I am representing myself, so please excuse my spelling these matters out in a manner less formal than a court body may be used to. I hope to avoid being excessively emotional but how miserable this affair has made me is part of talking straight about it.

The defendant in this case is my older brother, Don Graf. He is 74 and I am his 71 year old younger sister. Don Graf is a lawyer himself, a senior partner in the Lubbock law firm of McClesky, Harriger, Brazill and Graf. He is trustee of an inheritance left me by my mother probated on November 9, 2006 in Lubbock County Court.

The value of my inheritance on that date was $29,560. I assume its current worth to be on the order of $35,000 taking into account the interest it has accrued and the $1200 he has paid out to me over the last six and a half years since the will was probated. I filed my complaint in Judge Parker’s courtroom for that amount plus $15,000 in penalties for the wreck he has made out of me over the last six years.

I wish I could explain the situation in one short paragraph but there are many complications in the case that don’t fit what I would guess are the standard legal problems concerning an inheritance. To sum it up quickly, Don has maneuvered through the loopholes available to torture me by withholding the money for reasons of great family conflict. To explain why and how I can’t really do anything but tell the events and let them speak for themselves.

I don’t know how much good this will do in a mediation as I understand it because he is just going to resist any settlement as part of his endless maneuvering to not release any funds. But I will do my best to clarify the problems anyway because this legal step is court ordered and something I have to be part of whatever my low expectations for any meaningful outcome.

Forgive me if this way of talking about it seems meandering a bit, but this is my way of weaving a tapestry that has a number of parts that must be seen first individually and then put together to show the full picture needed to demonstrate the injustice in his releasing only 4% of the inheritance monies to me over the last six years despite my considerable dental problems and obvious survival needs.

In regard to the latter, note that I and my husband, Peter, live entirely off of $660 in Social Security, $600 per month of which goes for motel rent, along with $360 per month in Food Stamps. If you wonder that this might be stressful, Pete had a seizure in mid-February with blood running out of his mouth and rushed to UMC where he was revived, that like a miracle to me after him being flat out cold for seven hours. First time it ever happened. Doctor said it was because of the stress of this fight.

That the above financial description of our status is a true statement can be easily checked from Health & Human Services who did a thorough check of our circumstances, Case # 1019178368, before giving me Food Stamps through June and helping to pay for my Medicare. I can mail in the documents for it on request from you.

H&HS did a thorough check of my situation because they wanted to know why somebody with a $35,000 trust needed help from Health & Human Services? When I explained to one of my H&HS interviewers, the woman at the window of the West Wing of the H&HS Parkview Drive office, she said to me: “That sounds like fraud!” When I said, "Yes it is!" and asked her if H&HS would go after Don criminally as they do for a father who refuses to pay child support and forces the mother on welfare becasue of it, she said that it was not their business to do that.

Further, as to the potential criminality involved in what Don is doing, let me quote two lawyers from outside of Lubbock where Don Graf has no influence like he has in this town. Both said that what Don was doing was illegal under Texas law. The first is a Sharon Stodghill from Houston who wrote: “I appreciate your interest in my firm but we typically do not travel beyond 150 miles to handle a probate matter. Your brother withholding money from you under the terms of the trust is black letter law wrong and you shouldn’t have any trouble ….” But she didn't quite understand the legal process the way the game is played in Lubbcock.

And the second lawyer was Rick Kennon from Austin who wrote: “…then the executor of the estate is required to carry out the duties and transfer these funds to you or the executor can be removed. I would be surprised that the $30,000 left to you in her will had a condition that you divorce your husband before you could receive (any money) and the executor doesn’t have the legal right to make that condition.”

Those are lawyers outside of Lubbock, of course. Lawyers from Lubbock are all so much in love with Don, some actually using that word in their reply to me turning me down, that it has been impossible to get legal representation from any Lubbock lawyer against Don, literally, even back the two previous times we came down to Lubbock and tried when I had ample money to hire a lawyer. That is not an exaggeration. Everything I am saying I can document one way or another with emails, letters or witnesses. Don should be indicted and removed from the trust, but that is never going to happen in Lubbock because of the great connections and power he has here.

Best is for me to direct you now to our website, matrix-evolutions.com, where there is much more detail on all this like Don telling me the week after the will was probated that I would never see a penny of the money unless I left my husband (of 40 years!). The website also explains and has letter proof of Don’s skirting around paying for my dental problems by stipulating to the dentists that the $8000 worth of work needed for me would not be paid to the dentist until all $8000 of the work was finished and had his approval after the fact. If you think that a joke, his letter stating such is on the website.

No dentist in four states I tried to go to would do that, all pretty much saying that the very idea of it was ridiculous. This includes just this last month Dr. Jim Axe of Lubbock over on 82^nd St. in Lubbock saying he wouldn't go near it with a lawyer asking anything like that. Best you read the tale of this family at war for the last 40 years on the website. It’s on a story called “Portrait of the Scientist as a Young Man” that you have to scroll down past the equations on the website to get to.

Sorry for this disorderly presentation, but the true sense of what happened to cause this problem is gotten by reading that story which also has my original complaint to Judge Parker and much more on it to make rational sense out of all this. Before you look on the website, though, I should give you a couple more items that should clarify to you that Don Graf has no intention of ever paying out any money to me. First I’ll give you his last filing with the court on Feb.26 the essence of which is:

Defendant, DON GRAF, designates the following fact witnesses, who may be called to testify either live or by deposition at the trial of this matter.

1. Members of the City of Lubbock Police Department who investigated various trespass matters involving Plaintiff and/or her husband at various motels, restaurants, shopping malls and other locations in Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas.

2. Witnesses to various trespass and harassment incidents occurring in Lubbock, Texas, the states of New Hampshire, Colorado, New York, Georgia and in Las Vegas, Nevada.

3. Plaintiff, Ruth Calabria

4. Plaintiff’s husband: Dr. Peter Calabria

And on a separate filing on the same date,

1. Licensed psychologist to give opinions regarding mental health matters and mental health issues pertaining to Plaintiff, Ruth Calabria.

2. Licensed attorney at law in Texas to give opinions and interpretations of wording contained in the Mildred E. Graf Trust

3. Licensed attorney at law to give opinions as to duties and obligations of trustee of the Mildred E. Graf Trust.

4. Employee of the Social Security Administration to testify about the rules and regulations of the Social Security Administration as pertains to Plaintiff, Ruth Calabria.

All of the above gobbledygook is directed to smear us into defeat as he thinks he can get away murder in Lubbock becasue of his connections and the conservative bent of this town. For the record I have never been seen or treated, with analysis or pharmacologically, by any mental health professional in all of my 71 years, the labeling of crazy having been put on me by my fundamentalist minister father (LCMS) and Don when I left my first husband who was also an LCMS minister. That label stuck on me was a palliative for them to explain to friends, relatives and other ministers why I left my Ted Haggard minister husband and went off with Pete, an evolutionary biologist. Again the "Portrait" story on the website clearly explains all this family hate of the last 40 years and Don's motives in the power game he is playing with me now.

Whatever Don's take on my and husband’s moral goodness or badness, it has to be clear from his full battle attack against the heretics that he has no intention of paying out any money from the will other than perhaps for my burial plot after I'm dead.

What I would really hope is that you could see the patent injustice in what he is doing and recommend to the Lubbock County District Attorney that Don be investigated, indicted and removed from the trust. That's if you are allowed to do that, which I understand, much like H&HS said, may not be your business to do. It's a shame if all that comes out of this is Don's resisting any suggestions for settlement from the mediator and dragging this on for another year or two while we live on the edge of homelessness and the rest of my teeth fall out.

There are two letters to H&HS copied onto the website at the end of the "Portrait" story that are very informative on this and that you should read I think. And I am going to leave you with this third one I just wrote to H&HS yesterday along with the letter referred to in it that my husband sent to a colleague and old teacher of his that helps to make sense out of why Don, who has been divorced and single for the last thirty years, is so jealous of Pete.

Thanks for your attention to this ugly situation if you have read this far. I am going to sign off now. Sincerely,
Ruth Calabria

For: John Flores or To Whom it May Concern at H&HS
Health and Human Services
1716 Parkway Drive
Lubbock, TX 79403

From: Ruth Calabria, Case # 1019178368
March 25, 2013

As I said in my last note to H&HS, we will be publicizing our situation shortly. As you can see from my husband’s letter to Professor Wilson, enclosed, he thought it would be best to do it first through the academic community given that the bulk of the material on our website, matrix-evolutions.com, which also includes our letters and interactions with H&HS and you, is technical. Dr. Wilson is a big time, very well-known scientist on the East Coast.

I am sending this third note to you at H&HS to keep you informed about what is happening because if the material gets the publicity we feel it will through this route, you will find yourselves involved and in a significant way and you will want to be prepared, I would think, as to what to say when there is media attention on the story. Please, we hope that it will be positive things about us and our situation.

Sincerely,
Ruth Calabria

And this is the letter to Dr. Dwight Wilson referred to in the above sent to him from my husband.

Dear Dr. Wilson,

Please check out our website at www.matrix-evolutions.com. It will explain a lot of the water that has gone under the bridge. Just hope you are alive and well enough to receive this.

Let me begin talking technically as that is my primary point in writing. If you dredge up our website and have it handy while I am speaking to you in this note, it will be helpful to your understanding the excitement that will come through as I talk.

There are a few serious confusions left in science. One is human emotion, obvious as a drive to behavior in our likes and dislikes but not externally observable and as such not formally empirical and understandable like the phenomena of the natural sciences that are externally observable.

Another considerable confusion is entropy. During my faculty return to RPI in the Dept. of Biomedical Engineering I was given assigned Engineering Thermodynamics to teach, this to five classes of undergraduate students. As to my class performance in teaching it, I did well enough to have the highest Tau Beta Pi student evaluations ever gotten I was told and I have to be the only one or one of the few teachers at RPI to ever get a standing ovation by students, three classes of them, at the final exam held in the gym. But entropy still never made clear sense to me, certainly not like something like DNA does.

Another confusing subject even more out of your area is information. True we have classical information theory first developed in 1947. But it now is considered a “failed science”, one that did not live up to its original promise as made clear in a 1996 article in Scientific American. I focused on learning information theory for nearly ten years on my own in the 1990s and can tell you that it is most confusing.

Also related to the understanding of information is the problem of the human mind’s distinction between what is significant and insignificant in the influx of data that flows into the mind through the senses. And related both to information and emotion is one’s sense of personal significance or identity that is also tied up with dominance in social relationships, things that are generally important to people especially if they are on the down side of significance, identity and dominance.

Rather astonishingly, all of the above problems are resolved with one mathematical function, a simple algebraic form called the Simpson’s Diversity Index. It was developed in 1948 by the British statistician, Edward Hugh Simpson, original to quantify ecological and ethnic diversity and is seen extensively in the biological and sociological literature of the last sixty years.

There’s no merit in my detailing the meandering way my wife and I managed to come upon it as such a general solution to the problems mentioned but perhaps to say it took the two of us just about all of the 40 years we’ve been together to do it. The important thing, rather, is to state that the value and broad application of this Simpson’s Diversity Index turns out to go far beyond what Simpson originally devised it for. I am going to spell that out for you in terms that you will have no problem understanding by relating it to ideas you are fully familiar with for, an exercise you will enjoy in the end because this diversity function has great power to explain so much in such a simple way. I will also be asking your help in disseminating it after I finish this mini-lecture.

You are familiar with data that derives from a repeated experiment that takes the form of the arithmetic average or mean of the repeated data. The mean value is also invariable accompanied by a statistical error measure such as the standard deviation and sometimes in the form of the relative error, also called the percent error, r, which is just the standard deviation divided by the mean value.

Let’s look at amounts of radiation from one of your DNA experiments done N=5 times as (110, 112, 110, 109, 99). The arithmetic average or mean value is just the sum of the values, K=540, divided by N=5 or (K/N)=108. And the relative error is without doing the calculations here, r=.0018 for a percent error in the mean of .18%.

Now I want to show how this relates to diversity by taking your number set of experimental values, (110, 112, 110, 109, 99), to denote rather an ecology of N=5 distinct parrot species consisting of K=540 parrots in total. The average number of parrots in a species is, thus, K/N=108 parrots with an r=.18% error in this mean value. One can also assign a Simpson’s Diversity Index to his parrot ecology, which is calculated as a function of the population densities of the N=5 species. It is D=4.99.

It is easy to understand this D=4.99 diversity value intuitively. It specifies diversity as the N=5 number of species but as reduced by the imbalance in the distribution of the parrots over the N=5 species. That is, if K=540 parrots were dispersed over the N=5 species in a perfectly balanced way as (108, 108, 108, 108, 108), the diversity index would be D=N=5 with a relative error of r=0. Or if K=540 parrots were distributed in a less evenly balanced way over the N=5 species as (50, 100, 150, 130, 110), the Simpson’s diversity would be D=4.56 with the percent error in the K/N=108 mean number of parrots being r=.0947=9.47% and. Hence we see from these examples that the Simpson’s diversity is smaller or reduced more from the N=5 number of species the greater the imbalance in the distribution of the parrots in the ecology.

While the textbook evaluations of the D diversity index is from population densities, what Simpson didn’t do and what my wife and I did do was calculate the D diversity from the r percent error measure as D=N/(1+r²). If you put the r values in the above examples into the D=N/(1+r²) equation, you will get their D Simpson’s Diversity Indices.

At this point I am sure you are a tiny bit puzzled about where we are going with this other than to take up your time with a short talk on diversity. To resolve your potential confusion let’s go back to your radiation experiment and understand that number set, (110, 112, 110, 109, 99), and indeed any number set you can imagine, all of which have an r percent error, to also have a diversity measure, D=N/(1+r²). Assigning diversity to a set of repeated experimental data may seem odd because an experimenter doesn’t generally think of data having diversity in the sense that parrot ecologies have diversity.

Nonetheless one can certainly consider data as such, and more importantly can consider any and every number set you can imagine to have diversity, whatever the intuitive sense of it, as specified by Simpson’s Index as calculated from D=N/(1+r²). Hence, the diversity as D becomes thought of as a basic property of any and every number set.

Extending that one step further, one can say that diversity is a characteristic in one sense or another of any and every phenomena in nature that can be represented by a number set. This as it turns out, and you have to look at the website to see how, enables you to use diversity to correctly and beautifully spell out all of the basic human emotions along with thermodynamic entropy, information, significance, dominance and identity. And from this, voila, you have a major scientific breakthrough in your basket.

The website, whose technical part includes 180 equations, is a seminal introduction to it. I need your help, a professor with a good reputation, which I haven’t got, to disseminate it to the scientific community.

In that regard let me bring up a few pertinent points. My wife, Ruth, is presented on the website as the discoverer of the material and I as a helper. In raw fact it has been collaboration between the two of us with a significant amount of input from the two grandchildren. As between me and Ruth, whom I have been lucky to have had an unusually happy collaboration with in all matters over the last 40 years, the science is as between Watson and Crick, on the one hand, and Rosalyn Barlow, on the other, her work obviously indispensable to the discovery of DNA as was Ruth’s input to our discovery for the correct forms of emotion, entropy and information.

Now I will come to the important point. I specify Ruth as discoverer and me as “helper” because my reputation is stained with a trip to federal prison. I will excuse myself from being a true criminal in any way with simple hard facts. I was conned out of $70,000 by an Albany businessman not long after I ran into you in Orleans. He was clearly in the wrong, enough so that we got the $70,000 back quite quickly in a civil settlement, (documentation down at the end of this letter.) But not before I made the dumb error of immediately threatened him out of anger at what he’d done. And I opened my mouth in this fashion across state lines, which made the threat a federal offense. And this was to a millionaire businessman who was close friends with Jerry Jennings, the mayor of Albany, and who also had strong connections to the local office of the FBI in Albany.

While what I said to him, just words, should have gotten me, so we were told by two very knowledgeable lawyers, at most 30 days in the country jail for harassment especially considering that he was fundamentally at fault, the attendant factors including my anger towards justice system personal who were prosecuting me rather than him got me a year and a half sentence compounded by another year and a half, three years in all, for going to Mexico with all six in the family to avoid the horror for a family of federal probation.

You must understand that this took place in the period of the last twenty years when the police locked up and arresting everybody as a result of the sharp increase in prisons and police on the street Clinton signed that was pushed hard by the 1990s Republican legislature in response to the riots from the Rodney King beating that exposed endemic police brutality in our society especially towards blacks.

As you will see that our website has strong political overtones to the technical analyses, let me say a few more words about this. When I was a kid in grade school the nuns told us ad nauseam that communist Russia was an obvious police state because along with clearly tyrannical apartheid South Africa they had the highest prison rates in the world. Now this many years later America significantly surpasses both Russia and South Africa in its incarceration to be number one in the world without question. We have 5% of the world’s population and 25% of its convicts. Whatever the media airbrushing of this hard fact and its effects, this police state mentality reduces people’s lives to that of labor force peons and customers of the business enterprises that in truth own and control America, our corporate media controlled, campaign cash jiggered democratic “freedoms” notwithstanding. Indeed, we denote freedom mathematically in terms of the Diversity Index to make clear that the balance of power in America for individual freedom is considerably out of balance.

The political stuff may be difficult for you to grasp, Dwight, as an old line Yankee conservative and more so also given the relatively insular, career focused life you’ve lived. But as in the physical sciences and even for Darwinian evolution in our explication of it on the website, numbers don’t lie in characterizing our great country now as the most highly controlled in the world.

The practical point of my saying all this even if taken as an excuse and alibi is that my prison time makes me technically a felon and as such less likely to receive any grand prizes for this quite grand work because of that stain on my reputation.

I should say in further digression that nothing is as revealing as the sociopolitical data needed to properly understanding human nature and how it is shaped and abused by society than a trip to prison. And also say that I have absolutely no regrets even if I feel that way only because I was fortunate enough to survive the prison experience. Indeed, it was where I solved the technical problems I write about as a very good thing that came out of it.

Bear with me while I spell that out as a side show anecdote. I used to write long letters to Ruth every day as the only way to stay sane in a place where driving you insane with various tortures, some subtle and others not so subtle especially on political people like myself caught in the net right in the middle of the 9/11 crisis, is the primary object of detention. In a dozen or so page letter filled with technical meanderings as well as personal stuff of the kind I wrote to Ruth every day mostly in solitary confinement where I spent 80% of my time, I remember writing on page nine of this very important letter: “There it is! Back there on page six, the correct formulation of information.” It was the key to resolving the puzzles over emotion and entropy science has a crystal clear way.

Now it’s difficult to imagine you with Alzheimer’s or anything like that so you should have no problem following the simple math on the website assuming you’re still alive to get this. The development of the basic human emotions takes the form of high school algebra and your familiarity with natural selection as having taught me Genetics and Evolution back when should get you past the differential equations that derive our mathematical formulation of selection that perfectly parallels its elucidation by the post WWI classical population biologists, R. A. Fisher and J.B.S. Haldane.

Our overthrowing and replacement of Boltzmann’s statistical entropy with an energy dispersal diversity form may be beyond immediate easy grasp for you, but is really beautiful. I would have no more problems explaining it to you if we got together face to face than you did explaining molecular biology to me back in your classroom. It has the same simple and direct logical order and Occam’s razor end point of explaining a great deal with one tight and simple generalization that the 1953 discovery of DNA did for the molecular genetics puzzles that preceded it.

We are currently down in Lubbock, TX, the why of that thoroughly spelled out on our website down after the equations in the story called “Portrait of the Scientist as a Young Man. I am hoping to make a connection with you after you check out the material to help us get this around to the scientific community at large first and then to the general public.

I am writing this on a Sunday without access to the Internet on our barely alive laptop. On Monday, tomorrow, I will go up to the Texas Tech University library to search the Internet to see if you are still alive and still living down Cape Cod with an address for you clearly spelled out or better your email address. If just the former, I’ll mail this to you the old fashioned way and await your reply to my email address. I have two, which sometime screw up, so please copy to both:
pvcalabria@gmail.com and petercalabria@matrix-evolutions.com.

The technical material speaks to itself as to value. Take your time looking it through if you’re up to it.

Hope this finds everything well with you,
Peter
 

 

And Ruth followed up with a letter that she mailed to the Office of Dispute Resolution.

Addendum to Synopsis for Case 2012-568.251

From: Ruth Calabria

Re: Court Ordered mediation for Ruth Calabria v. Don Graf, 2012-568.251
Date Mediation Scheduled: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:00 AM
Assigned Mediator: Jolyn Wilkins

Dear Office of Dispute Resolution:

I sent an email to you last Wednesday, March 27, outlining my case that also directed you to the “Portrait of the Scientist” story on our website,
matrix-evolutions.com, for more detailed information. On it you would have seen a news article written by my husband, Peter, towards the end of the Cold War back in 1986 entitled “Weapons Ban Should Be Part of Our Culture” that is germane to our case in giving a characterization of us as antithetical to the right wing ideology of the Defendant in this case, Don Graf.

I am following that up in this letter with another one of the bunch of anti-war articles Pete wrote back then without which it is difficult to understand our sending the article to all of the Representatives and Senators in Congress, which helped start or minimally was prefatory to the Congressional Iran-Contra Hearings that stopped the Contra War in Nicaragua. You have to go to the website to see the details on this. There’s no point in repeating myself here.

This anti-war effort of ours with Congress in 1986 is important for any mediator in this case or judge to know about because it makes clear that we were normally patriotic citizens before my husband was railroaded and wrongfully convicted of the federal crime in 1999 discussed on the website, after which our more radical ideas couldn’t help taking hold as a result of our bad experiences with the justice system and with Pete’s brutal treatment once he was sent to federal prison.

Let me cite a couple of specific horrors from that, not to get your sympathy but to make clear why it is that we have such little faith in justice being done in America. It is not because we are impossible trouble makers as Don Graf tries to imply in his lies in his last filing with the court but because we have seen the worst of the system first hand. On one occasion when Pete offered no resistance (he was near 60 years old when he was in prison), two guards held him down, one pried open his eye lids and a fourth poured pepper spray directly into his eyes. He said he screamed for the next two hours and that evening lost all the words that normally flow through a person’s mind.

On another occasion, in the middle of a federal hearing as witnessed directly by me and three of our children, while completely in chains in the courthouse hallway, he was savagely beaten and kicked by two US Marshalls enough in his hip to keep him from walking normally for the next six months. We sued for that (I have the papers if you want to see them) but it went nowhere despite being directly witnessed because of the legal technicality of our not being able to get the names of the perpetrators on the suit. None of the authorities we asked would give them to us.

Also federal prison personal set him up as a cell mate with known homosexual rapists a number of times, a common practice used, Pete said, to break the spirit of political type prisoners. It never worked with him because he was furious defending his honor, but he still bears the physical scars from two of those encounters.    

Now we are front and center with another miscarriage of justice about to happen. To clarify it, I will repeat and make clear what is on the website in two important areas with respect to Don Graf. First of all, though I have been with my husband near 40 years, Pete met my brother, Don Graf, only once in his life. We came down to Texas in 1980 to see my son from my first marriage to the minister, Nathan Schoppa, who is now a Professor of Biophysics at University of Colorado, Denver.

While we were visiting Nathan in Waco, an invitation came through my parents to visit with Don and his wife, Ruby, in Lubbock. Whatever the prior animosities from my divorce from the minister seven years earlier, you always try to smooth things out with your family, especially after so much time had passed and kids were involved. We went over to Don’s house in Lubbock for breakfast when we got to Lubbock. Surprise was that not only were Don and Ruby at the breakfast table when we came in but also Ruby’s father, a large sized pig farmer from San Antonio, and Ruby’s sister and her brother-in-law, an even larger sized fellow who owned a speedway down in that area.

Breakfast went fine with Don insisting a number of times in a friendly tone that Pete and I come out to see his vineyard and winery on the outskirts of Lubbock, come out with Don’s father-in-law pig farmer and his brother-in-law speedway owner, the five of us. Isn’t that nice? A nice little family gathering, so appropriate, all of us going out together to the winery.

Pete was at all times trying to be on his best behavior because of my feelings for my kids down here in Texas from the former marriage, really our only reason for coming to Texas that summer in 1980. By this time Pete had finished his PhD from Rensselaer Poly in Troy, NY, and gotten a faculty appointment there in the Dept. of Biomedical Engineering and on this day he was all dressed in suit and tie with his once long hair cut as neat and trim as a State Policeman.

Let me get to the important scene inside the winery that I remember so well. Eventually Don positioned himself on one side of a bench with a hammer in his hand that they use to put the corks in the wine bottles and is talking to me, who was on the other side of the bench with Pete at my side. Don’s tone begins to get low level insulting towards me, but distinctly grating on me nonetheless. And as Don is talking, he speaks in a more and more aggressive and excited tone while banging the rubber wine bottle cork hammer on the bench top repeatedly.

I have to stop a minute here to explain that my relationship with Don from childhood was one of little sister to older brother with him often teasing me and punching me in the arm as a way we got by, his attitude toward me much in keeping with the general subordinate relationship of women to men in the fundamentalist Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) that my father and first husband were ministers in. I bring this up to make clear that I was conditioned to be affected by Don negatively when he pushed on me from my young life experiences with him. 

So picture this scene in this unoccupied out-of-season winery building out in the middle of nowhere with the two large in-laws off to the side about ten feet watching how Don is acting toward me and with Pete doing everything not to react angrily, not because he was afraid of Don with the hammer or even of the two guys, because Pete was very confident physically. He used to say in our early marriage days that he would have no problem stepping into the ring with Mohamed Ali if it ever came to it and he showed it a couple of times when guys tried to cause us trouble in our younger days.

Don in escalating his teasing was soon beginning to get to me. Pete heard my increasingly alarmed tone of voice but kept holding his feelings in and saying nothing, though I think he was looking straight into Don’s face as this was happening, looking Don right in the eye until Don just broke. He dropped the hammer and near ran away from us at the bench. I am just describing what I saw and experienced without interpretation, but you can judge for yourself that it was very probable that what Don was doing might have started something, a fight with Don on the other side of the bench so Pete couldn’t get to him and with Don’s two in-law henchmen ready to jump in as soon as the fight that Don was trying to provoke started. But before Don could goad Pete into such a tussle, Don, a pansy, with guys if not with me, wilted and quit his plan. 

The next part is funny in a way, sorry to take up your time telling it perhaps, but still pertinent to the case overall. It had rained the day prior to our coming out to the winery and the little road that spun through the vineyard had pools of water in it here and there. When Pete and I got back in our car neither Pete nor I had any conscious idea of what Don had been planning to do. Pete looked in the rear view mirror at his own face and said, “Jesus, I look like some kind of killer in a movie.” He said that meaning that he was afraid that he hadn’t made a very good friendly “family impression.” We were rather naïve back when we were young. I told you this was funny.

Soon after Pete made his remark and we started driving out on the dirt road, Don, whose car with his in-laws in it was in front of us stopped in one of the mud puddles on the road and we, behind him, had to stop, too. After a minute or so Don jumped out of his car and came running back to us and said to Pete through the car window in a very rattled tone, sorry, that he really was stuck in the mud puddle and not trying to block our moving forward in any intentional way.

That’s an absolutely true story and only our going over it again and again when we were driving on the long trip back to New York made sense of the winery scenario. I should also add that the two in-law characters had a disgusted look on their faces when we all came together for the last time before leaving Lubbock. Obviously the game was for a fight to start and for Pete to get beat up bhy the three of them and also possibly, this part is more a guess on my part, for the police to be called in by lawyer, Don, and for Pete to be arrested.

What happened instead is that about a year later give or take a few months, we got a hand written letter from Ruby Graf up in New York telling us that she had divorced Don. Surprising to me was both her hateful tone in the letter towards him and that she even bothered to tell us, but that is how much she must have despised him that she wanted to hurt him to the max by telling us about the divorce, his worst enemies. If the Texas interaction I just described that made a fool out of Don in front of Ruby’s relatives and her after she was told about it was not the cause of her divorcing him, certainly it didn’t improve whatever bad feelings she had towards him to begin with.

I would take twenty lie detector tests on this story down to every detail in it.

Don never remarried after his divorce. Pete never saw him again. It doesn’t take much to see why he hates Pete so much and felt negative enough towards us to tell me after my mother passed away that I would never see a penny of the inheritance unless I left Pete. I will happily take a lie detector test on that point also. I should also mention that after my bringing up to Don a number of times what he said about the money and my leaving Pete to get it, he sent me a formal letter the entire contents of which was to deny having ever made that statement, as though, shrewd lawyer that he is, having written it in a letter was somehow court worthy proof that he never said it.

Of course, he is nothing but a liar not only in that but in everything else he is saying in this case, easily proven by the fact that I, indeed, have gotten less than 4% of the inheritance money in the last six and a half years and that the onetime this last December he did give money was after I told him out of harsh necessity a bare faced lie that Pete had left me, that correspondence available if you’d like to see it.

Possibly more to the point are the hard facts of my present situation that override everything else in this case. I am in emergency mode money wise. We live on food stamps provided by Health & Human Services, who also found me after a month long investigation impoverished enough to pay for my Social Security Medicare. Simple arithmetic shows my $669 per month SS allotment leaving me with $69 for non-food expenses after paying $600 a month for our one room apartment in the cheapest motel in Lubbock. My needing to get a new pair of sneakers today - a telling coincidence as I am writing this letter - constitutes a crisis for us.

We live at that level of penny counting stress every day and worse than the stress (it was said by the UMC emergency room doctor to have been the cause of Pete’s seizure in January) is the possibility of one of the needs that 70 year olds just unavoidably have over time being the straw that breaks the camel’s back and puts us out on the street.                                                                                               

That is by way of my saying that getting this matter resolved one way or the other ASAP is a genuine emergency. What Don Graf is doing is criminal. Isn’t there some way to take that into account to speed up this process and put some teeth into it? I would appreciate it so much, please, if you will do your best in that regard to the extent that it is possible.  

Sincerely,
Ruth Calabria  

This gives a pretty good picture of where we stand at the moment. What happens next is anybody’s guess, justice be done or justice be damned.

MATHEMATICAL DISPROOF OF GOD

While we are waiting in Lubbock for one conclusion or the other, I happen to catch two movies on TV a few nights back by the Italian director, Roberto Rossellini, Socrates and Blaise Pascal. I had taken a course in college on the Greek philosophers that made clear that Socrates was the beginning of the Greek inventions of philosophy, a non-religious explanation of life, along with systematic mathematics and early science. And Blaise Pascal was one of our early modern scientists who analyzed nature via observation rather than pure reason along with his being the mathematician who fathered elementary probability theory, an effort that got the Pope back then to label him as a bad guy whose ideas shouldn’t be paid any attention to. 

Pascal’s disapproval by Christian authorities was paralleled by Socrates being sentenced to death for promoting ideas antithetical to the mythological religion of the ancient Greeks. These conflicts between superstitious religious ideas and clear thinking were forerunners of what we see today between Christianity and science, so much so that I feel it is very important for me to go over the mathematics Ruth has laid out, much of which is incomprehensible to the non-scientist, to make it understandable for the average reader enough to have them flush modern day religious superstition down the drain in favor of firm scientific thinking.

The Blaise Pascal film had a scene in it that showed how much superstitious religious dogma can negatively affect people’s lives of housemaid who was blamed as a witch for causing some debility in the son of her master. Her legs were broken as a means to driving out the devil which was necessary to get her to confess as a prelude to being cleansed of her sins by a redemptive burning at the stake.

While we don’t burn people at the stake any more, modern manifestations of such horrors caused by attitudes and laws based on religious morality and on the secular religion of pseudo-science clinical psychology cause a lot of pain and unhappiness and need to be expunged by replacing their misleading notions by the mathematically precise ideas in Evolutionary Hedonism but spelled out in a more digestible way for the general public. 

The difficulties in replacing superstitious mistruth with scientific truth were also made thoroughly clear in both the Socrates and Pascal movies and in that regard I want to start by getting down to the most basic aspects of Evolutionary Hedonism to show why it must be used as the new foundation not only of mathematics but also of all of science. In other words we need to revamp mathematics and science with Evolutionary Hedonism in order to make them sharp enough to completely cleanse the religious nonsense from people’s thinking. That’s not going to be easy given the emotional needs of those caught up in modern wage slavery for the relief provided by religious delusion. But I’m going to give it a try. We will start with the most fundamental origin of the diversity functions on which Evolutionary Hedonism is based.  

Ruth introduced the Simpson’s Reciprocal Diversity Index, D, back in Eq41 as the underpinning of the solutions to a number of problem phenomena in nature like significance, emotion and entropy. And later she showed that the L=D−1 diversity measure of Eq185 we call number information is the proper general function for information. Now I want to show how it is that the L and D=L+1 diversity functions are utterly fundamental in being based directly on how we see or observe things. Once I do you will understand why it is that everything we observe or sense, the entirety of nature - physical, biological and human – is based on these L and D diversity measures and on Evolutionary Hedonism functions directly derived from them. This analysis will also firmly disprove the existence of God.         

Consider a set of K=8 blocks, (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■), in N=4 subsets or categories of red, green, purple and black to be the entirely of what you see in your visual field, hence, to be your visual reality at the moment. One can map or describe what you see in (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) quantitatively or with numbers. We can say that (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) consists of K=8 unit objects, (same sized objects), divided into N=4 subsets or categories of x₁=2 red blocks, x₂=2 green blocks, x₃=2 purple blocks and x₄=2 black blocks.  

We also intuitively distinguish between blocks of different color in the (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) visual field as between a red block, ■, and a green block, ■. And we also sense some of the blocks to be in the same color category as with the 1^st red block, ■, and the 2^nd red block, ■. To quantitatively map the distinctions between blocks and the samenesses we see, we count them just as we counted the K=8 number of blocks in the set and the N=4 number of color categories in the set. The most systematic way of doing that is by comparing the blocks in (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) to each other in pairs in a matrix and counting the pairs that are distinct color wise and the pairs of the same color. 

Figure 190. The Matrix of (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■)

The number of distinctions or distinct pairs in this K²=64 pair matrix is Y=48. You know that by counting them in the matrix. Or you can also obtain Y=48 it from the formula for Y developed earlier back at Eq170 that expands for the N=4, (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■), set as     

191.)  

The number of pairs of the same color or samenesses in the matrix is counted as ε=16 or obtained from Eq168 as

192.)          

These Y=48 distinctions and ε=16 samenesses are as much a quantitative description of what we see in the (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) visual field as the K=8 objects we see for we undeniably see or sense the distinctions and the samenesses as well as seeing the individual objects in (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■).

Note that the matrix generates two pairs for every distinction we intuitively make between two different colored blocks. For example, our distinction between the 1^st red block, ■, in (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) and the 1^st green block, ■, is represented in the matrix doubly or redundantly as ■■ and ■■. For that reason one may prefer to specify the number of distinctions between the objects in (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) in a non-redundant way as Y/2=24 and similarly the samenesses, which are also generated redundantly in the matrix, in a non-redundant way as ε/2=8. The important point , though, is that we can quantitatively map the distinctions and samenesses between blocks, whether we do it redundantly or non-redundantly.      

We not only distinguish between the objects in (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■), as ■ from ■ and ■ from ■, but we also distinguish between the subsets in (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■), as ■■ from ■■ and ■■ from ■■. And much as we quantify the number of subsets in (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) by counting them as N=4, we are also able to quantify the distinction between subsets, which we do with a function called L number information whose value from Eq187 for a balanced set like N=4, (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■), is L=N−1=3.

Number information, L=3, can be most easily understood as a count of the subset distinctions in (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) as the number of distinctions that any one subset has with all the other subsets in the set. For example, the subset, ■■, is distinguished from ■■ and ■■ and ■■, which represents L=3 subset distinctions. And every other color subset in the (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) set also has L=3 distinctions from the subsets other than itself. Note that while there are L=3 subset distinctions that parallel the Y=48 object distinctions in (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■), there are no subset samenesses to parallel the ε=16 object samenesses because every subsets of a set is inherently distinct from every other subset.

The important point is that what we sense in a visual field like (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) are not just the individual objects that can be specified quantitatively as K=8 and the N=4 subsets, but also the distinctions and sameness between objects and the distinctions between subsets, which can also be specified quantitatively by Y, ε and L to give a complete description of everything we sense in the visual field with numbers.

Of course it can be argued, and should be for the visual field of (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■), which has balanced subsets all the same size or with the same number of objects in them, that the K and N parameters of the set are sufficient for completely specifying all of what you see in the visual field because the Y and ε object distinctions and samenesses and the L subset distinctions are simple functions of those K and N parameters. Specifically for a balanced set, which has all of its x_i=K/N like the (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■)↔(2, 2, 2, 2) balanced set, the ε object samenesses and Y object distinctions are from Eqs168&170 simple functions of K and N as 

193.)             

194.)                                 

To illustrate we see that the ε=16 samenesses for the K=8, N=4, (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) set counted in the matrix of Figure 190 derives from Eq191 as ε=8²/4=16 and that the Y=48 distinctions in the matrix derive from Eq192 as Y=8²(3/4)=48. Also for a balanced set, L=3 is obtained via Eq187 as a simple function of N for the set as L=N−1=4−1=3. And also note that L is generally obtained from Y and ε for any natural (while numbered) number set via Eqs168,170,41&185 as  

195.)            

Indeed, the L=3 of the Y=48, ε=16, (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■), set is obtained from the above function as L=48/16=3. This suggests that the set of objects described by its K and N parameters is the fundamental structure in mathematics in being sufficient to functionally generate everything we see in the visual field of (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■), including the distinction and sameness between objects of Y and ε and distinctions between subsets as L. From that perspective via the Occam’s razor the set theory foundation of mathematics seems to be entirely reasonable.

However the distribution of objects over subsets in a balanced way as (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) that was used to provide a smooth introduction to our analysis is a bit of an oversimplification of the reality of objects we see in a realistic field that are distributed over categories in an unbalanced way as we see in the K=8, N=4, (4, 2, 1, 1), set, (■■■■, ■■, ■, ■). Taking that visual reality into account will make it clear that the visual field is not properly described with only the basic set parameters.

Of course, the reality of our visual field is also generally of different size objects rather than same size unit objects, but that is a minor problem readily taken care of as we shall do later. For now rather we want to focus on unbalanced sets of unit objects like (■■■■, ■■, ■, ■), which has x₁=4 red blocks, x₂=2 green blocks, x₃=1 purple block and x₄=1 black block. The comparison matrix of this set is

Figure 196. The Matrix of (■■■■, ■■, ■, ■).

We can count the object distinctions in the matrix as Y=42 or obtain it from the formula in Eq191 as

197.) 

And we can count the object samenesses in the matrix as ε=22 or obtain from the formula in Eq192 as

198.)                       

This then obtains the L amount of distinction between the subsets in Y=42, ε=22, (■■■■, ■■, ■, ■), from Eq195 as

199.)             

 And we also want to specify the diversity, D, of these two illustrative set. For the balanced N=4 set of (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■)↔(2, 2, 2, 2), it is from Eq185,

200.)        

And for the unbalanced N=4 set of (■■■■, ■■, ■, ■)↔(4, 2, 1, 1) it is from Eq185

201.)       

Now we want to explain how L number information is a measure of the distinctions between subsets in an unbalanced visual field like (■■■■, ■■, ■, ■), which has L=21/11=1.909. To do that we need to introduce a familiar function in mathematics, the root mean square (rms) average, ξ, (xi).

202.)               

To get a sense of ξ let us contrast it to the μ mean or arithmetic average, first of the K=8, N=4, (4, 2, 1, 1) unbalanced set, which has μ=K/N=2 and ξ=2.35, and then of the K=8, N=4, (2, 2, 2, 2) balanced set, which has from all of its x_i=μ, ξ=x_i=μ=2. Indeed for all balanced sets, ξ=x_i=μ. The square of ξ is also of interest because of its simple relationship to the ε number of samenesses in a matrix from Eq198 of

203.)               

For the ε=22, N=4, (4, 2, 1, 1) set, ξ²=22/4=5.5 and for the ε=16, N=4, (2, 2, 2, 2) set, ξ²=µ²=16/4=4. Eq203 enables us to write number information, L=Y/ε, for an N=4 set as a function of the ξ root mean square average via Eqs195,197&193 as 

204.)               

Now let’s express the first polynomial term in [brackets] in the above divided by ξ² as

205.)             

For the balanced set, (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■)↔(2, 2, 2, 2) these three terms in the right side expression of the polynomial represent the distinctions of ■■ from ■■, ■■, and ■■. We said earlier that because ■■ has 1 distinction from each of the subsets, ■■, ■■, and ■■, its 3 distinctions gives a good sense of the L=3 of the (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■)↔(2, 2, 2, 2) set as a measure of its subset distinctions. That is a good introductory sense of what L means as a measure of a set’s subset distinctions, but the precise evaluation of L is a bit more complex (and general) than that.

Focusing on Eq205, recall our saying following Eq202 that all x_i=μ=ξ for a balanced set. Hence the value of every one of the 3 terms in the right side polynomial of Eq205 is (1)(1)=1, which makes the sum of the three terms, 3, an exact development of the 3 distinctions that ■■ has from ■■, ■■, and ■■. Each of the other three [bracketed] polynomials in Eq204 divided by ξ² also evaluate as 3 for (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■)↔(2, 2, 2, 2), which similarly says that every subset in the set has 3 distinctions with all the other subsets. This understanding evaluates L from Eq204 as the average of the subset distinctions of each the N=4 subset in the set as

206.) 

In that way L, the amount of subset distinction in the (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■)↔(2, 2, 2, 2) balanced set, is seen to be the average of the distinctions that each subset has from the other subsets, which is L=3. This explains the L=21/11=1.909 of the unbalanced set, (■■■■, ■■, ■, ■)↔(4, 2, 1, 1) in the exact same way, as the average of the distinctions that each subset in the set has with all the other subsets with a distinction between subsets evaluated by the appropriate (x_i/ξ)(x_j/ξ) term, i≠j, in the above. Given ξ²=5.5 for the (4, 2, 1, 1) set, the distinctions of the x₁=4 red subset, ■■■■ from the x₂=2 green subset, ■■, the x₁=1 purple subset, ■, and the x₄=1 black subset, ■, sum to

207.)                

And with the subset distinctions of the green, purple and black subsets respectively computed as 12/5.5, 7/5.5 and 7/5.5, the formula in Eq206 computes the L amount of subset distinction in the set to be the average of the subset distinctions of the N=4 subsets as

208.)              L= (16/5.5 + 12/5.5 + 7/5.5 + 7/5.5)/4 = (2.909 + 2.182 + 1.273 + 1.273)/4 = 1.909

This spells out L as the amount of subset distinction in a set with N=4 subsets as the average of the amount of distinction that each subset has with all the other subsets, with L=N−1 for a balanced set and L<N−1 for an unbalanced set. This generalizes L as the quantitative description of the subset distinction people see in their visual field.

We understand D=L+1 in terms of the visual field as the one identity of a subset with itself whose value is always 1, sum of all the , average of all the subset relationmships of a subset including the identity with itself, so that D can also be understood as deriving from the viosual field. ]

With this somewhat tedious task completed let’s go back and review the broader point we are trying to make. What we see in our visual field is a set of objects divided into N distinguishable subsets, categories or kinds, most generally in an unbalanced way. Presuming for mathematical simplicity that all the objects are unit or same sized objects has us quantitatively describe the visual field in terms of K objects distributed over N subset categories with some objects seen to be distinct in kind from others as quantified by Y and some objects to be the same kind as quantified by ε and with the distinctions between subsets quantified by L.

One mismatch between this mathematical picture and true visual reality remaining is that in real life the individual objects seen in the visual field are not the same or unit sized as we presumed for mathematical simplicity. But that could easily be taken care of much as we did in the above with different subset sizes, the end product being much more complex but no different in the overall form that it takes which is much easier to get an intuitive grasp of using unit, same sized, objects.

We now want to ask whether the set and its N and K parameters are sufficient to specify the visual field quantitatively for the unbalanced case illustrated by a visual field of (■■■■, ■■, ■, ■)↔(4, 2, 1, 1) as they were for the balanced case illustrated by (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■)↔(2, 2, 2, 2). Here the answer as we shall show next is NO. We need to include our sense of distinction and sameness as elemental sensory phenomena as measured by Y, ε and L along with the count of the K objects and of their N categories subsets to give a complete quantitative description of the visual field. But to understand why that is so we need to next explain what we mean by exact and inexact counting in mathematics.                     

To introduce the subtle concepts of exactness and inexactness we are temporarily going to get rid of color as our signification of distinction and make distinction more general yet by understanding the commas in a set of objects that separate objects as symbols of distinction. Thus the (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) representation will be understood to imply N=4 distinct subsets of the K=8 blocks in the set just from the commas that separate them. For if the objects were not distinct in kind or category in some way, we would just represent the set of the 8 of them as (■■■■■■■■).

That said, to see what we mean by an exact count let’s start by counting the number of objects in the set: (■■■■). Of course, we count 4 objects in it, one, two three, four. That is an exact count because all the objects are the same size. So when we say there are 4 objects in (■■■■), it is clear that we mean unequivocally that there are 4 of this: ■.

Compare now to the count of the number of objects in the set: (■■■■). Certainly we can say again one, two, three, four, and count 4 objects in that sense. But this is not an exact count because the objects we are counting are not of the same size. That is, when we say there are 4 objects in (■■■■), what we mean, what we are referring to, when we say object is equivocal. What is it that there are 4 of becomes fuzzy when the objects counted are different from each other in size. If this is hard to latch onto we will make clear the inexactness of counting 4 objects in of (■■■■), what we will call its casual count, from a number of perspectives.  

That the count of different sized things is inexact derives most simply from the second grade law of addition that told us when we were seven years old that you don’t add or group things together that are unlike each other, whether unlike qualitatively like a kitten and a galaxy that you wouldn’t add together, or unlike quantitatively or in size like ■ and ■.   

This grade school rule applied to things of different size is rigidly held to in commercial mathematics. If each object in (■■■■) were a bag of rice, specifying the set as 4 bags of rice is so patently inexact that commerce would never use this measure of “4 bags” for buying or selling rice because the bags are of different size. Rather commerce uses standard measure, indeed specifically because all standard measures are the same size, be they volume measures, four liters of rice being exact because every liter measure is the same as every other liter measure. Or be they weight measures, four pounds of rice being an exact measure because every pound is exactly the same as every other pound. 

Now let’s look at the N=4 count of the number of subsets in (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■)↔(2, 2, 2, 2). It is an exact count because all the subsets are the same size or have the same number of unit objects in them. And let’s also look at the D diversity measure for this set that derives from its L=3 in a most simple way from Eq185 as D=L+1=4=N=4. This D measure is also exact because it is equal to the exact N=4 count of the subsets in the set.

But the N=4 count of (■■■■, ■■, ■, ■)↔(4, 2, 1, 1) is inexact because the subsets counted are of different sizes from having a different number of unit objects in them. On the other hand, the D=32/11=2.909 diversity of this unbalanced set is exact because from Eq193&185 

195.)               

The D diversity is an exact measure because the counts of Y and ε in the matrix of a set that D is a function of are exact given that all pairs in the matrix whether distinct or the same consist of two same-sized unit objects. Hence D is an exact measure of a set, but N is not exact except in balanced sets where N=D. It is clear from the equality of D and N in the balanced case that D and N are measures of the same thing, namely the number of subsets in a set. We can reconcile any conceptual confusion that arises from the equivalence of the two in light that we intuitively distinguish between them with D understood as the diversity of the set. That confusion, though, is quickly erased when we think of D as a measure of the number of (quantitatively) significant subsets in a set as was made clear in the Diversity, Significance and Propaganda section developed from Eq41 through Figure 50.

The N=D equivalence between N and D in balanced sets like (■■, ■■, ■■, ■■) then readily makes sense in that the D number of significant subsets is the same as the N number of subsets when all subsets are the same size. And in unbalanced sets like the N=4, (■■■■, ■■, ■, ■), set, D=2.909 is an exact measure of the number of significant subsets that are less than the inexact N=4 casually counted number of subsets in the set. That the D measure of the number of significant subsets in an unbalanced set is exact and the N number of subsets inexact is readily seen in two systems in nature quite distant from each other, the neuro-physiological system of the human mind and physico-chemical thermodynamic systems.

As was clearly demonstrated in the Diversity, Significance and Propaganda section back at Eq41, the human mind automatically registers an unbalanced set of objects with the larger subsets sensed as significant and the smaller subsets sensed as insignificant, indeed in the limit not sensed or noticed all. In the example used in that section displayed again below, the 1 purple thread in the N=3, (10, 10, 1), set of plaid colored threads on the left is insignificant in the sense that it is barely noticed or not at all as manifest in that plaid being verbalized as a red and green plaid with reference to the insignificant purple thread omitted. 

Figure 50. Illustration of Insignificant and Significant Subsets

As the human mind’s neurophysiology must operate on exact mathematical algorithms rather than inexact, our automatic sense of D=2.19≈2 significant subsets in this plaid pattern that is verbalized as a red and green plaid rather than an N=3 subset red, green and purple plaid makes it clear that the D diversity measure and the L subset measure from which it is derived as D=L+1 is, indeed, an exact measure and that the N casual count of color subsets is inexact.

The conclusion that the unbalanced set parameter N is inexact and its D diversity measure exact is powerfully reinforced by the entropy of a thermodynamic systems when it is properly specified as the square root diversity, G, derived back in the Diversity Based Entropy section starting at Eq89. The G diversity index of Eq135 in parallel to the D diversity index is readily interpretable as the number of energetically significant molecules in a thermodynamic system, an exact measure, in contrast to the N number of molecules, which is inexact because of the imbalance in the distribution of the K energy units over the N molecules of the system via the Maxwell-Boltzmann energy distribution of Figure 107.

We note not only that the mind’s sense of significance and thermodynamic entropy are underpinned by exact diversity measures rather than inexact casual N counts of object subsets and molecules respectively but that these exact diversity based phenomena greatly affect the behavior of the mind and thermodynamic systems. This powerfully makes clear that the Y, ε, D, L and G measures ultimately based on distinction and sameness are not derivable from the simple and inexact N parameter of an unbalanced set and must be considered to be elemental parameters of what we see.   

Indeed the phenomena of distinction and sameness are utterly elemental in the mind’s making an exact count of objects to begin with. Earlier Ruth characterized fundamental distinction in the section on RELATIONAL GEOMETRY following Figure 166. Let’s review it with the set of K=8 objects of the same kind in (■■■■■■■■). Though they are of the same kind, these objects are fundamentally distinct from each other, the 1^st ■ object in (■■■■■■■■) being different or distinct from the 2^nd ■ object in it in being in a different place. You can’t count objects, exactly or inexactly, unless they are fundamentally distinct from each other. If all the objects of ■■■■■■■■ were merged as ■■■■■■■■   and not fundamentally distinct from each other, you couldn’t count them. Further to make an exact count of objects, as we have shown, they have to be the same size as they are in (■■■■■■■■). If they are of different sizes as with (■■■■■■■■), the count of 8 of them is inexact.

Note then that our sense of objects, even including how we describe them in the most basic way mathematically by counting them, depends entirely on the mind’s elemental operations of making distinctions between objects and recognizing sameness, operations that are not independent properties of objects that exist outside of the way the human mind senses them to exist. We can have no sense of what exists in the world beyond our peculiar human way of sensing it. Hence when we say that something exists, what we really mean is that it is sensed to exist. The conclusion is unavoidable, then, that God and other imagined spirit entities cannot exist because they are not sensed to exist.

We apply this common sense paradigm of what we see being reality to every practical thing we deal with in life and science, which makes computers and put a man on the moon, follows it also. The emotional reasons people stupidly believe in a God they can’t sense exists are explained in Ruth’s visionary section, A WORLD WITHOUT WEAPONS. People who place their hopes in things not sensed to exist make a bad deal that ultimately turns out to be a ZONK.   

The need for mathematics to be the language to use for an unequivocal expression of nature whether to explain thermodynamic entropy or the non-existence of spirit gods is understood well from molecular biology as follows. The DNA information that acts as instruction for developing and maintaining a living cell is noteworthy in the unambiguous coding of the information. Of the 64 triplet codons DNA has, each one specifies one and only one particular amino acid component of a protein or is a particular punctuation mark needed to make the protein. The meaning of each triplet base pair word in DNA is unequivocal. The AGT codon instructs for the amino acid, serine, and none of the other 29 amino acids. If its meaning were ambiguous and it coded for two amino acids, say serine and argentine, the instruction would be garbled and the particular protein the cell needed to make with its particular amino acid components would not be made correctly or at least not very efficiently.      

I want to use that as a take-off point for considering the words people speak with and what they mean. Much as DNA triplet codon words get their meaning from the amino acids they code for, so do spoken words get their meaning from the sensations they represent. The word, dog, for example, has meaning only by reference to a dog that you see. This is obvious for any parent who has ever had the experience of teaching a child to speak. You point to the dog the child sees in the backyard or the picture book and say, “dog.” And the child repeats, “dog”, and now knows what a dog means by associated the word sound to the visual image of the dog. The word sound “dog” codes for the visual image of the dog and now knows what “dog” means.

This gets tricky when people talk to each other if each has a different referent or meaning for a word. That doesn’t usually happen when people talk about dogs because all of us have seen a dog and generally speaking most dogs have pretty much enough of the same main characteristics to keep any confusion about what we mean by “dog” to a minimum. If I say “dog” to you, what comes into your mind is pretty much the image I had in mind when I said the word.

Spoken words code not only for visual sensations, though, but also for emotions and for visual sensations associated with emotions. If you don’t have a dog as a pet and you live next door to an unfriendly neighbor who owns a pair of pit bulls that he allows to run loose in his front yard, the emotion conjured up when you hear the word “dog” may be quite different than if you had no neighbors and you owned a gentle dachshund yourself.

The meaning of emotional words like love and sex and anger can also be very different for different people depending on their experiences or lack of them with loving and sexual and angry situations. The ambiguity of words, particularly emotion laden words, is the basis of “spin” in political talk. Words with multiple and vague meanings are also the meat of religious sermons. When one hears of the “love of God” for you, what is being referred to is quite vague and ambiguous with no tangible sensory referent, just what is needed when you are asked to pay for that “love” with a donation.

People tend to make words less ambiguous when the words are instructions to make things that are valuable in some way. Even a recipe book strives for clarity in the words used for ingredients, for ambiguous words make for bad cooking. Being told to add some salt to the bread dough is less sure to make a tasty loaf of bread than being told to add two teaspoons of salt. This example points up the value of using mathematical language in description because its terms have unequivocal meaning. The number word “two” has very clear meaning as does the measure word “teaspoon.” Much like the word “dog” you are teaching the meaning of to a child by pointing to a dog, the words, “two” and “teaspoon” have sensory referents you can point to that make you sure what the words meaning.

While words whose origins are emotional to some degree are difficult because you can’t point to an emotion and because we don’t all experience the same emotions, as bad are words whose origins have no basis in experiential sensation, be it perceptual or emotional, but only in thought images conjured up by imagination. Use of such words especially when loaded with emotion can be unintentionally very confusing. And they can also be intentionally very deceptive.

Observing the sermon of a standard fundamentalist televangelist objectively makes clear that it is filled with emotion words and references to unseen sprits and invariably delivered with great emotionality. And one gets the same deceptive fingerprint off a speech delivered by a politician, especially by a Republican, the meanings of the words intentionally garbled and spun to make them difficult to argue against.

There’s a reason that the Republicans hate science and that’s because science uses words with unambiguous referents whenever it can and uses mathematical words whenever appropriate because mathematical words are quintessentially unambiguous. At least good science does this. You know what’s called science is full of crap when it consists of vague psychobabble words spit out with great emotion, the stuff of Dr. Phil and Dr. Drew and Dr. Wendy and that crew of secular preachers.

While mathematics is a set of logical rules for computing, the above considerations should make clear that it is also a language and that it is a very good language because the meaning of its words are unequivocal. That’s why much of science is mathematical, namely because mathematics makes for a precise specification of nature when it is used to describe it. The problem, though, has been that mathematical language prior to `Hedonism didn’t have enough words in it to describe all of nature,

What Evolutionary Hedonism has done is to add the words needed in mathematics to complete the mathematical lexicon and make mathematics a language be able to describe all of nature, physical, biological and human. The additional mathematical words are for diversity and distinction starting with the function for diversity I talked to you about in the first letter, Dr. Wilson, the Simpson’s Reciprocal Diversity Index spelled out from Eqs41,47,149&160 as

209.)               

 

We’ve already talked about the empirical origination of D=L+1 in how we see objects in our visual field in terms of the L subset distinctions sensed. In the last section I also went over how D translates into the number of significant subsets in a set.  And we’ve seen what broad application D has in describing phenomena that range from the human emotions to thermodynamic entropy.

Now I want to go