You are on page 1of 183

Informational

Comparative Space

Marcus Wilson
© 2004 - 2006 by Marcus Wilson, All Rights Reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording without written permission by the author.

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 6
The Two Dimension of Human Reasoning 7
Description 8
Kinds Space 9
Relations Space 12
Comparative Space 14
Kinds Integration 15
Relations Integration 16
Comparative Integration 17
Kinds Division 18
Relations Division 19
Comparative Division 20
Kinds Awareness 21
Relations Awareness 23
Comparative Awareness 24
Kinds Levels of Composition 26
Relations Levels of Composition 28
Comparative Levels of Composition 30
Kinds Space Nested Patterns 32
Relations Space Nested Patterns 33
Comparative Space Nested Patterns 33
Kinds Transitivity 34
Relations Transitivity 35
Comparative Transitivity 38
Kinds Relationship Measurement 39

3
Relations Relationship Measurement 39
Comparative Relationship Measurement 40
Kinds Order 41
Relations Order 43
Comparative Order 45
Kinds Quantity 46
Relations Quantity 47
Comparative Quantity 47
Kinds Density 48
Relations Density 49
Comparative Density 49
Kinds Common Description 50
Relations Common Description 60
Comparative Common Description 66
Kinds Uncommon Description 74
Relations Uncommon Description 75
Comparative Uncommon Description 77
Kinds Main Parts 78
Relations Main Parts 80
Comparative Main Parts 81
The World of Comparative Units 81
Building Comparative Units 108
The Warping of the Dimensions 136
Rotating Comparative Units 145
Comparative Locative Correspondence 148
Deductive Certainty and Uncertainty 149
Explaining Itself 151

4
The Law of Comparative Wholeness 152
The Absolutes of Comparative Space 154
Glossary 156
List of Principles 159
Appendix 166

5
Introduction
Beginning in May of 2000 is when I first began my search for comparing
knowledge. The principles such as that of the telescope I attempted to expand.
So that is when I spent nearly a year attempting to substitute the telescope
principle into other mediums of knowledge.
However, in order to do so successfully, I knew that not only did the ways
of the principle need to be discovered, but the fundamental principle of
everything in Universe. Prior to that, I knew that there appeared to be some
fundamental concept that everything was analogous to.
Therefore, in an explicit attempt to find and discover this, I’ve spent a good
bit of almost 4 long years. I knew that I didn’t want to spend 10 to 12 years
searching for it, so that is when I began to maximize most of my time and do so
in the best way that I understood possible.
So now I must say that after the years of observation of all knowledge in
the Universe, and of the years of reasoning by day and night, that I have
discovered the fundamental analogy of the Universe. Within the contents of this
book, I will reveal that fundamental metaphor of everything in our existence.
With this fundamental metaphor, just as we can compare the growth
concept to all living plants and animals that grow and produce fruit; or just as we
can compare the circulation concept to all kinds of systems, such as: the solar
system, the galaxies, the stars, and even our bodies (the circulatory system and
all the other various systems), so with this fundamental metaphor we are able to
compare to all knowledge in the Universe.
Within the contents of this book, for easy understanding, I have described
the main principles, or knowledge, that I have come to associate with it toward its
development. And towards the end of the book, I will describe its ability to
explain itself; the negative or reverse aspect of the principles; various future
applications; and the final law that I have come to associate with it in its entirety.
I fancy you enjoy all that is therein and see the world in a new light and
achieve higher levels of understanding by the principles.

Marcus Wilson
May 2004

6
The Two Dimensions of Human
Reasoning
There exist two dimensions of human reasoning that work together to
create comparative space: Kinds space and Relations space.

During the search for the fundamental analogy/metaphor of the Universe, I
have come to notice that there are two main dimensions of human reasoning that
work together to create Comparative Space
.
The first dimension is Kinds Space:

This is the knowledge of similarities and differences. It is the knowledge
variations and constants. It is the knowledge of identical things and non identical
things. Kinds Space is more associated with the differences and similarities of
things varying in quality and quantity.

The second dimension is Relations Space.

This is the knowledge of interconnections and separations. It is the
knowledge of parts and wholes of systems. It is the knowledge of working
together and independents. Relations Space is more associated with the
proximities and distances of things varying in space and time.

Kinds Space times Relations Space is Equal to Comparative Space

In mathematics, the area of shape is defined as the length times the width.
In the following example, we can see that the length is the horizontal extension of
the figure, and the height is the vertical extension of the figure. When they are
multiplied together, the area of the two dimensional figure is created.
Comparative Space, as it is ordered in cells, is as the two dimensional
figure, or extension, although it can be comprised of more dimensions. Kinds
Space is organized vertically while Relations Space organized horizontally (or at
least that they are perpendicular to each other). As length times width equals the
area of the two dimensional space, so Kinds Space times Relations Space is
equal to Comparative Space.

7
The two dimensions are interchangeable.

This means that the kinds within Kinds Space are also relations. Likewise,
the relations within Relations Space are also kinds. In the proceeding chapters,
Kinds Space and Relations Space are going to be described as being separate,
even though they are interchangeable and both aspects of each other. More
about their interchangeability is described in The Warping of the Dimensions
section.
Just as the 3 dimensions of space are all interchangeable, being aspects
of each other, so the two dimensions of Comparative Space are illusively both
aspects of each other.

Description
Anything that we can know or understand we can give a corresponding
description using symbolic forms.

With all the types of books written by mankind, all of them contain
description. There are physics books, mathematical books, encyclopedia books,
economics books, astronomy books, biology books, psychology books,
philosophy books, and so on. All of these contain description. Everything that
we can know or understand we can give a corresponding description using
symbolic forms.
This is how we are able to write and explain what we learn of the world.
Without description, we would not be able to relate to others, or teach them what
we've come to know and understand. By giving things names, it allows our
minds to grab certain objects, concepts, and ideas in a corresponding manner.
Here are some examples of objects, concepts, or ideas we call by name
(and as we can see, it can be ANYTHING that we know or understand):

8
A book is something that we can know or understand. We give it the
name 'book' as a corresponding description in symbolic form.

A planet is something that we can know or understand. We give it the
name 'planet' as a corresponding description in symbolic form.

An equation is something that we can know or understand. We give it the
name 'equation' as a corresponding description in symbolic form.

Gravity is something that we can know or understand. We give it the
name 'gravity' as a corresponding description in symbolic form.

Love is something that we can know or understand. We give it the name
'love' as a corresponding description in symbolic form.

A dream is something that we can know or understand. We give it the
name 'dream' as a corresponding description in symbolic form.

Kinds Space
Everything is different.

One of the most fundamental and well-known principles in the Universe is
that everything is different.
The Universe is composed of a various array of things varying in size,
shape, complexity, color, texture, pattern…with no two things being exactly alike.
A human being based on finite perception may consider that two things in this
physical universe are exactly like but by looking closely, even on smaller and
smaller scales, he will find that no two things contain the exact identity.
In the early 1900’s a scientist by the name of Wilson A. Bentley did
experiments with snowflakes collecting the patterns of the various forms
produced year after year. Of the collective accumulation of his discoveries, he
came to notice that no two snowflakes are alike. He realized that there is some
degree of difference between all of them making them to not be identical in any
way or form. There are some snowflakes that are very similar to others, but if you
look very carefully, they will come out to be completely different. Only by
observing carefully, or by having a means of a microscope, or other amplifying
methods, can one truly see the difference of all unique things.
By this observation (as we will see in the later chapters of this book) we
can notice that there exists a principle in the Universe. Not only are all
snowflakes unique, but all things are unique: each moment, in certain conditions,
at certain times; and in certain places snowflakes form. Each time they are
produced, not one snowflake turns out to be exactly alike. This is an example of
the uniqueness principle.
Now when we look at our earth, we can clearly see the various arrays of
animals; the varying array of environments; the varying array of mountains. The

9
uniqueness principle states that animals, environments; and mountains are of no
difference than snowflakes. Each time new plants are formed under certain
conditions and at certain times, they are shaped with their own individuality or
uniqueness.

There are trees that look very similar to each other, but if we were to look
very carefully, there would be some degree of difference.

There are plants and flowers that look almost identical to each other, but
there are no two that are exactly identical.

There are mountains throughout our Universe that may look or appear to
be alike, but the evolution of different places in space and time of each
thing assures them to have at least some slight bit of difference.

With the entire humans population both present, past, and future it is
widely known that no two fingerprints are exactly alike. Everyone has his or her
own fingerprint. Just as with snowflakes, there are some very similar, so also
there are people who have very similar fingerprints but no two are of exact
identity. Even the genetic code of each human is slightly different, but no two of
equal identity. In the case of twins, it may appear that they may have the same
genetic code, but by observing it down to the structure we will notice that there is
some slight but of difference.
Not only does everyone have their own finger print, but everyone has their
own hand; everyone has their own brain; their own consciousness; their own
heart; their own arms; their own personality; their own body, and so on.
When things are in difference places and at different times, it is only
obvious that they are under different circumstances, and thus they must come
out to be different according to their place in space and time.
No two snowflakes are alike, no to fingerprints are alike; no two persons
are alike; no two things in our Universe are exactly alike. With this principle we
can come to understand the uniqueness and differences in our every day life.

Everything is similar.

As previously explained, there is the principle that everything is different.
However, not only is everything different, but everything is also similar. Things in
this Universe are not 100% different that they don't have at least some degree of
similarity.
Even though the Universe is composed of a various array of things varying
in size, shape, complexity, color, texture, pattern…with no two things being
exactly alike, all those varying array of things are similar to each other in some
way or form. A human being based on finite perception may consider that two
things have no similarities but by looking closely, he will find that no two things
are so different that they don't have some degree of similarity.

10
Now when we look at our earth, we can clearly see the various arrays of
animals; the varying array of environments; the varying array of mountains. The
universal similarity principle states that animals, environments; and mountains all
have some degree of similarity. Each time new plants are formed under certain
similar conditions and at certain times, they are also shaped with similarities.

Gravity and water appear to be very different from each other, but if we
were to look closely, there would be some degree of similarity.

The nervous system and circulatory system may appear to be very
different from each other, but if we were to look closely, there would be
some degree of similarity.

A thought and a nail may appear to be very different from each other, but
if we were to look closely, there would be some degree of similarity.

The mind and the universe may appear to be very different from each
other, but if we were to look closely, there would be some degree of
similarity.

Just as nothing is exactly identical that it doesn't have some degree of
difference, so two things are so different that they don't have some degree of
similarity.

There are mountains throughout our Universe that may look or appear to
be different, but the evolution of similar places in space and time of each
thing assures them to have at least some slight bit of similarity.

When things are in similar places and at similar times, it is only obvious
that they are under similar circumstances, and thus they must come out to be
similar according to their place in space and time.

No two snowflakes are alike, but so also every snowflake is similar.

No to fingerprints are alike; but so also every fingerprint is similar.

No two persons are alike; but so also every person is similar.

With this principle we can come to understand the commonalities and
similarities of things in our every day life.

11
Relations Space
Everything is divided.

Another one of the fundamental principles is that the Universe is
extension. It extends in space. It extends in time. The Universe extends in
various other forms of extension.
What two things do we know of that share the exact same place in space
and/or time?
Our bodies are composed of countless molecules all being divided
by space:

Our heads are at different locations than our arms.

Our legs are at different locations than our lungs.

Our eyes are at different locations than our ears.

Each cell on our bodies are location at different locations in the body.

Our bodies are also composed of countless molecules all being
divided by time:

Ten years ago, you had different cells in your body than they were today.

The cells in your future will be different than the ones you have in your
present.

Each time each molecules in your body moves to a new location, the way
it was in its previous location is no different in its present.

Your body is different than it was 5 minutes ago; 5 years ago; and different
from when you were born.

Not only is our bodies divided in space and time, but also the
universe and all within it:

Our galaxy, the Milkyway, is composed of many star systems. However,
each of those systems has their own place within the galaxy. No two of the star
systems are at the same place and time at any given time. There is space in
between every star system. And even with all the stars systems in the Universe,
we know they may contain planets. However, each of those planets within each
of the star systems is divided by portions of space. And each within each of the
planets it is composed of parts, which are each, divided little portions of space.
And it goes down on smaller and smaller scales.

12
With the extension of time, we can observe an object moving through our
field of vision. But of that complete event, it is composed of even smaller events
divided in time, and even more events divided in time.
Even the thoughts we produce are divided by space and time. No two
thoughts have the exact same place in space–time; the earth is rotating and
revolving each minute, as well as the entire solar system it is in, the galaxy, the
constellation, and all of the cosmos.
As we can see, just as everything is different, so also everything is
divided. No two things are in the exact same place at the exact same time. By
this principle we can come to know and understand the unique locations of things
in our every day life.

Everything is connected.

Even we've noticed that everything is divided, so also everything is
related. Everything is interdependent and connected. We know that the
Universe is extension. It extends in space. It extends in time. But things are not
so divided 100% that they don't have some degree of interconnection.
What two things do we know of that are so distant and space-time that
they do not affect each other?

Our bodies are composed of countless molecules all being divided
by space, but yet all connected as well:

Our heads are at different locations than our arms; however, they are all
connected to the body.

Our legs are at different locations than our lungs; however, they are all
connected to the body.

Our eyes are at different locations than our ears; however, they are all
connected to the body.

Each cell in our bodies is at different locations; however, they are all
connected within the body.

Our bodies are also composed of countless molecules all being
divided by time, but yet all are connected as well:

Ten years ago, you had different cells in your body than they were today;
however, they are all related to each other, as they affect each other
throughout time.

The cells in your future will be different than the ones you have in your
present; however, they will still affect each other even though they are
divided by time.

13
Each time each of the molecules in your body moves to a new location,
the way it was in its previous location is no different in its present;
however, they still affect each other, even though they are divided by time.

Your body is different than it was 5 minutes ago; 5 years ago; and different
from when you were born, however, at each of those times, it was
important for them to affect each of those times.

Not only does our body contain things that are divided, but yet
connected in space and time, but also the Universe and all within it is
connected and related:

Our galaxy, the Milkyway, is composed of many star systems. Even thou
each of those systems are divided within the galaxy, no two of the star systems
are so divided that they don't have some degree of connection.

There is space in between every galaxy, yet there is interconnectivity
between every galaxy.

There is space in between every star system, yet there is interconnectivity
between every star system.

There is space in between every planet, yet there is interconnectivity
between every planet.

There is space in between every molecule, yet there is interconnectivity
between every molecule.

Even though the thoughts we produce are divided by space and time, no
two thoughts are so divided that they don't have so degree of influence or
connectivity.

As we can see, just as everything is divided, with no two things being in
the exact same place in space-time; so also everything is connected, with no two
things being so divided that they don't have some degree of relatedness.

Comparative Space
Everything being unique and alike, divided and related creates
Comparative Space.

The Universe contains the differences and similarities of qualities and
quantities, and it contains the divisions and relations of space and time. Of these
two observations, we can see how both of them together create the combination

14
of things being different and similar and divided and related. This is Comparative
Space. It is when things are different and similar and divided and connected.

A group of many kinds of fish may all be different and similar to each
other, but also each of their parts that they are composed of is divided and
related. The difference and similarities is vertical and their dividedness
and relatedness is horizontal.

A group of many universes may all be different and similar to each other,
but also each of their parts that they are composed of is divided and
related. The difference and similarities is vertical and their dividedness
and relatedness is horizontal.

A group of many kinds of people may all be different and similar to each
other, but also each of their parts that they are composed of is divided and
related. The difference and similarities are perpendicular to their
dividedness and relatedness.

A group of many kinds of houses may all be different and similar to each
other, but also each of their parts that they are composed of is divided and
related. The difference and similarities is one way; their dividedness and
relatedness is the opposite way.

A group of many planets may all be different and similar to each other, but
also each of their parts that they are composed of is divided and related.
The difference and similarities are perpendicular to their dividedness and
relatedness.

Comparative Space is a combination of Kinds Space and Relations
Space. We know that everything is unique and similar. We know that everything
is divided and related. Therefore, everything is uniquely and similarly divided
and connected or divided and connectively unique and similar – a combination of
the two.

Kinds Integration
Our mind has the ability to group together things that are unique as if they
were alike.

Kinds Integration is the ability to group things that are different in this
Universe as if they were alike. As previously iterated, the universe is
differentiated in qualities and quantities. However, even though all things are
distinct, our mind is able to group together things as if they were not distinct: but
as if they were alike.

15
There are many kinds of people on this earth; however, no two people are
of exact identity. Nonetheless, we are able to group together those people
we deem most alike in relation to all the others.

There are many kinds of cars; however, no two cars are of exact identity.
Nonetheless, we are able to group together those cars we deem most
alike in relations to all the others.

There are many kinds of inventions; however, no two inventions are of
exact identity. Nonetheless, we are able to group together those
inventions we deem most alike in relations to all the others.

There are many kinds of galaxies; however, no two galaxies are of exact
identity. Nonetheless, we are able to group together those galaxies we
deem most alike in relations to all the others.

There are many kinds of colors; however, no two colors are of exact
identity. Nonetheless, we are able to group together those colors we
deem most alike in relations to all the others.

There are many kinds of brains; however, no two brains are of exact
identity. Nonetheless, we are able to group together those brains we
deem most alike in relations to all the others.

Kinds Integration is the ability to group together things that are unique as if
they are alike, or more similar in relation to all other things that are more
different.

Relations Integration
Our mind has the ability to group together things that are divided as if they
were related.

Relations Integration is the ability to group things that are divided in this
Universe as if they were connected. As previously iterated, the universe is
divided in space and time. However, even though all things are divided, our mind
is able to group together things as if they were not divided: but as if they were
related.

There are many biological cells on earth; however, no two biological cells
are in the exact same space-time. Nonetheless, we are able to group
together by Relations Integration those biological cells we deem closest
together in space-time in relation to all the others. A specific plant, fish,
bird, or human would all be examples of specific Relations Integrations of
all the divided biological cells on earth.

16
There are many water molecules on earth; however, no two molecules are
in the exact same space-time. Nonetheless, we are able to group
together by Relations Integration those molecules we deem closest
together in space-time in relation to all the others. A specific ocean, sea,
river, or lake would all be examples of specific Relations Integrations of all
the divided water molecules on earth.

There are many thoughts on earth; however, no two thoughts are in the
exact same space-time. Nonetheless, we are able to group together by
Relations Integration those thoughts we deem closest together in space-
time in relation to all the others. A specific book, speech, painting, or
dream would all be examples of specific Relations Integrations of all the
divided thoughts on earth.

There are many events in the universe; however, no two events are in the
exact same space-time. Nonetheless, we are able to group together by
Relations Integration those events we deem closest together in space-
time in relation to all the others. A specific holiday, movie, time frame, or
song would all be examples of specific Relations Integrations of all the
divided events in space-time.

Relations Integration is the ability to group together things that are divided
as if they are connected, or closer together in space-time in relation to all other
things that are more divided.

Comparative Integration
Our mind has the ability to group together things that are distinct and
divided into comparatives.

Comparative Integration is the ability of our minds to group together
things that are distinct and divided into comparatives. As previously iterated, The
Universe contains the differences of qualities and quantities, and it contains the
divisions of space and time. Comparative Integration is a combination of Kinds
Integration and Relations Integration. Examples would be:

There are many different kinds of houses. Each of those houses is
different in quality and quantity, and each of those houses is divided in
space and time. Our mind has the ability to group together those houses
by Kinds Integration and each of their parts by Relations Integration and
therefore group their similarities and parts with Comparative Integration.

There are many different kinds of mountains. Each of those mountains is
different in quality and quantity, and each of those mountains is divided in

17
space and time. Our mind has the ability to group together those
mountains by Kinds Integration and each of their parts by Relations
Integration and therefore group their similarities and parts with
Comparative Integration.

There are many different kinds of computers. Each of those computers is
different in quality and quantity, and each of those computers is divided in
space and time. Our mind has the ability to group together those
computers by Kinds Integration and each of their parts by Relations
Integration and therefore group their similarities and parts with
Comparative Integration.

There are many different kinds of stories. Each of those stories is different
in quality and quantity, and each of those stories is divided in space and
time. Our mind has the ability to group together those stories by Kinds
Integration and each of their parts by Relations Integration and therefore
group their similarities and parts with Comparative Integration.

Comparative Integration is the ability of our mind to group together things
that are different and divided as if they are alike and related, or closer together in
quality-quantity and space-time in relation to all other things that are more
different and divided.
Kinds Division
Our mind has the ability to divide apart things that are alike as if they were
distinct.

Kinds Division is the ability to divide things that are more alike in this
Universe as if they were divided. As previously iterated, we are able to group
together things as if they are alike. However, our mind is also able to divide apart
things that are very similar as if they are not very similar at all.

There are various colors of red. Although two colors may appear to be
identical, by observing them carefully, we are able distinguish between
them and notice their differences.

There are various types of lions. Although two lions may appear to be
identical, by observing them carefully, we are able distinguish between
them and notice their differences.

There are various types of voices. Although two voices may appear to be
identical, by observing them carefully, we are able distinguish between
them and notice their differences.

There are various types of ants. Although two ants may appear to be
identical, by observing them carefully, we are able distinguish between

18
them and notice their differences.

There are various types of experiences. Although two experiences may
appear to be identical, by observing them carefully, we are able
distinguish between them and notice their differences.

Kinds Division is the ability of our minds to divide apart things that are
alike as if they were different.

Relations Division
Our mind has the ability to divide apart things that appear to be connected
as if they were divided.

Relations Division is the ability to divide things that are related in this
Universe as if they were separate. As previously iterated, the Universe is
connected and close within space and time. However, even though all things
close in space and time, our mind is able to divide apart things as if they were not
connected or related.

There are many biological cells in our body; however, no two biological
cells are so close that we can't notice that they are divided by space and
time. We are able to separate those biological cells we deem very close
by Relations Division.

There are many water molecules in a body of water; however, no two
water molecules are so close that we can't notice that they are divided by
space and time. We are able to separate those water molecules we deem
very close by Relations Division.

There are many thoughts in our mind; however, no two thoughts are so
close that we can't notice that they are divided by space and time. We are
able to separate those thoughts we deem very close by Relations Division.

There are many events in our lives; however, no two events are so close
that we can't notice that they are divided by space and time. We are able
to separate those thoughts we deem very close by Relations Division.

Relations Division is the ability to divide apart things that are more
connected as if they are divided.

19
Comparative Division
Our mind has the ability to divide apart things that appear to be alike and
connected as if they were distinct and divided.

Comparative Division is the ability of our minds to divide apart things that
are alike and connected. As previously explained, The Universe contains the
similarities of qualities and quantities, and it contains the proximities of space and
time. Comparative Division is a combination of Kinds Division and Relations
Division. Examples would be:

All houses have similarity. Each of the parts of those houses is
connected. Our mind has the ability to divide apart those houses by Kinds
Division and each of their parts by Relations Division and therefore divide
their similarities and connections by Comparative Division.

All mountains have similarity. Each of the parts of those mountains is
connected. Our mind has the ability to divide apart those mountains by
Kinds Division and each of their parts by Relations Division and therefore
divide their similarities and connections by Comparative Division.

All computers have similarity. Each of the parts of those computers is
connected. Our mind has the ability to divide apart those computers by
Kinds Division and each of their parts by Relations Division and therefore
divide their similarities and connections by Comparative Division.

The various types of stories have similarity. Each of the parts of those
stories is connected. Our mind has the ability to divide apart those stories
by Kinds Division and each of their parts by Relations Division and
therefore divide their similarities and connections by Comparative Division.

The various types of brains have similarity. Each of the parts of those
brains is connected. Our mind has the ability to divide apart those brains
by Kinds Division and each of their parts by Relations Division and
therefore divide their similarities and connections by Comparative Division.

Comparative Division is the ability of our mind to divide apart things that
are alike and connected as if they are different and divided.

20
Kinds Space and Awareness
At any given time, we can perceive only a finite portion of Kinds Space.
Kinds Space extends indefinitely.

Based on our everyday experience, we can come to notice that our
perception of the Universe is finite. Additionally, our Kinds Awareness of any
given spectrum is finite as well.

When we attempt to observe into space, there’s a limit to how far our eyes
can see, and there's a limit to how small our eyes can see.

When we attempt to lift objects, there's a limit to how much weight we can
light, and there's a limit to how small of objects we can grab.

When we attempt to hear specific sounds, there's a limit to how low of a
pitch we can hear, and there's a limit to how high of a pitch we can hear.

When we attempt to solve large calculations, there’s a limit to how fast we
can calculate, and there's a limit to how slow we can calculate.

The human body is finite, thus, all its functions reach finite levels.

Kinds Integration and Division is no different. Our mind may be able to
group together many things that are different as if they were alike, but there is
always more things on larger portions of the spectrum. Our mind may be able to
divide apart many things that alike into differences, but there are always more
things that can be found to have some slight bit of difference. In both of these
areas it extends to infinity; our finite mind can only perceive a finite portion of
them.
Scientists have come to notice more than 100 kinds of chemical elements
in the Universe; however, the principle states that there are more elements with
varying properties that we are not aware of.
For example, air is mostly in gas state form and gold in solid state form.
Although we classify those two things alike with Kinds Integration, their properties
are different with Kinds Division. Gases are easily moved throughout space and
are less dense; however, gold is heavy and denser.
According to the principle, it states that there are even states of matter
that we are not aware of that are more dense and heavier than gold. And it states
that there are states of matter that we are not aware of that are less dense and
heavier than air. And in both of these aspects, if the denser and lighter materials
are discovered, then there will be even more materials to be discovered.
The electromagnetic spectrum organized by physics is one of the easiest
ways we can see the principle of finite perception of Kinds Space. For example,
the electromagnetic spectrum is divided into main kinds of light corresponding to
their wavelengths and frequencies. These are: Radio Waves, which have the

21
lowest frequency but the longest wavelengths, Infrared Rays, Visible Light,
Ultraviolet, X – rays and Gamma rays, which have the highest frequency but
shortest wavelengths.
However, of all those different kinds of frequencies of light, our minds by
Kinds Integration can only perceive a finite portion, which we call 'Visible Light'.
We cannot see radio waves, infrared rays, ultraviolet rays, or gamma rays. We
must use other means of detection to understand them or realize that they exist.
Even comparing the electromagnetic spectrum to the biological life
spectrum, we can notice that they are really of no difference. We are aware of
fish, plants, insects, land animals, birds, humans, ground animals, and trees.
However, as with the electromagnetic spectrum and matter spectrum, the living
species spectrum is also similar. We can only perceive a finite portion all possible
kinds of biological life process. The principle states that there is an infinite
spectrum to perceive and that we must use other means to detect them outside
of our normal state of awareness.
Kinds Space extends in higher and lower levels, however, at any given
time we can only perceive a finite portion of it.

The Kinds Awareness of any given spectrum of kinds can be increased to
larger portions of the spectrum.

Even though at any given time we can perceive only finite portions of
Kinds Space, however, do to instruments and exploration our Kinds Awareness
can be increase to larger portions of the spectrum on the higher and lower levels.

Our field of view on the kinds of inventions that exist today is currently
limited and finite. However, by just attempting to do so we can increase
our awareness of the many possible inventions to larger portions of the
spectrum.

Our field of view on the kinds of discoveries that exist today is currently
limited and finite. However, by just attempting to do so we can increase
our awareness of the many possible discoveries to larger portions of the
spectrum.

Our field of view on the kinds of religions that exist today is currently
limited and finite. However, by just attempting to do so we can increase
our awareness of the many possible religions to larger portions of the
spectrum.

Our field of view on the kinds of paranormal mysteries that exist today is
currently limited and finite. However, by just attempting to do so we can
increase our awareness of the many possible paranormal mysteries to
larger portions of the spectrum.

22
Even thou any given spectrum of kinds will be finite; we can always
increase our awareness to larger portions of the spectrum by attempting to do so.

Relations Space and Awareness
At any given time, we can perceive only a finite portion of Relations Space.
Relations space extends indefinitely.

The space and time of the Universe appears to be infinite. However, our
perceptions are finite. Thus, we can only perceive, at any given time, a finite
portion of the Relations Space with our Relations Awareness.

Our sense of sight is only aware of a finite amount of all that is available to
see. There are an infinite of number of things we haven't yet seen.

Our sense of smell is only aware of a finite amount of all that is available
to smell. There are an infinite number of things we haven't yet smelt.

Our sense of sound is only aware of a finite amount of all that is available
to hear. There are an infinite number of things we haven't yet heard.

Our sense of taste is only aware of a finite amount of all that is available to
taste. There are an infinite number of things we haven't yet tasted.

Our knowledge of the Universe is of only a finite amount of all that is
available. There are an infinite number of things we do not know.

This principle applies to any form of Relations Space. For each Relations
Integration, it is only a finite portion of all the relations that are available of
perceiving, even on the higher and lower levels.

Considering the Relations Integration of a plant, we know that the plant
has roots, stems, leaves, and fruit. However, it also has relations in the
past and relations in the future. And if we continue to go down the line in
both directions, we’ll go back to the beginning and end of time.
Nonetheless, we can perceive or remember only but so much of time at
any given time.

Considering the Relations Divisions of a house, we know that the house
has parts. However, its parts are also composed of parts, and those parts
are composed of parts. And if we continue to go down farther into the
parts, we will notice that at any given time we can perceive only a finite
portion of all the relations that are available.

However, not only do these things apply to the Relations Integration of a
plant, or the Relations Division of a house, but to all Relations Integrations and

23
Divisions we experience. At any given time, we can perceive only a finite portion
of Relations Space. Relations space extends indefinitely.

The Relations Awareness of any given form of relations can be increased
to larger portions of the Relations Space.

Even though at any given time we can perceive only finite portions of
Relations Space, however, do to instruments and exploration our Relations
Awareness can be increased to larger portions of the spectrum on the higher and
lower levels.

Our field of view on the relations of a particular tree may be limited and
finite. However, by just attempting to do so we can increase our
awareness of other possible relations of the tree to larger portions of the
Relations Space.

Our field of view on the relations of a particular event may be limited and
finite. However, by just attempting to do so we can increase our
awareness of the many possible relations of the event to larger portions of
the Relations Space.

Our field of view on the relations of the formation of our galaxy may be
limited and finite. However, by just attempting to do so we can increase
our awareness of other possible relations of the formation of the galaxy to
larger portions of the Relations Space.

Our field of view on the relations of the formation of life on earth may be
limited and finite. However, by just attempting to do so we can increase
our awareness of other possible relations of the formation of life on earth
to larger portions of the Relations Space.

Even thou any given form of relations will be finite; we can always
increase our awareness to larger portions of the relations integration by
attempting to do so.

Comparative Space and Awareness
At any given time, we can perceive only a finite portion of comparative
space. Comparative space extends indefinitely.

The logic associated with the finite awareness of the infinite extension of
Kinds and Relations Space determines the finite Comparative Awareness of the
infinite extension of Comparative Space. Comparative Space is the combination
of Kinds and Relations Space; therefore, what applies to them coherently applies
to Comparative Space.

24
There are infinite kinds of numbers, and there are infinite relations of
numbers. Each of those numbers belongs to kinds and relations space,
and at any given time we can only perceive a finite portion. Therefore, at
any given time, we can only perceive a finite portion of the Comparative
Space of the numbers, which extends indefinitely.

There are infinite kinds of energy, and there are infinite relations of
energy. Each of those energies belongs to kinds and relations space, and
at any given time we can only perceive a finite portion. Therefore, at any
given time, we can only perceive a finite portion of the Comparative Space
of the energies. The comparative space of energy extends indefinitely.
There are infinite kinds of movies, and there are infinite relations of
movies. Each of those movies belongs to kinds and relations space, and
at any given time we can only perceive a finite portion. Therefore, at any
given time, we can only perceive a finite portion of the comparative space
of the movies. The comparative space of the movies extends indefinitely.

There are infinite kinds of minds, and there are infinite relations of minds.
Each of those minds belongs to kinds and relations space, and at any
given time we can only perceive a finite portion. Therefore, at any given
time we can only perceive a finite portion of the comparative space of the
minds. The comparative space of the consciousness extends indefinitely.

There are infinite kinds of consciousness, and there are infinite relations of
consciousness. Each of those minds belongs to kinds and relations
space, and at any given time we can only perceive a finite portion.
Therefore, at any given time we can only perceive a finite portion of the
comparative space of the consciousness. The comparative space of the
consciousness extends indefinitely.

Comparative Space itself is a structure that can only be perceive by finite
means; just like our finite awareness of space itself. This Comparative Space
extends indefinitely and at any given time we can perceive only a finite portion of
it.

The comparative awareness of any given unit of comparatives can be
increased to larger portions of the comparative unit.

Even though we can only perceive finite portions of comparative space,
we can always increase our Comparative Awareness of it by attempting to do so.
As our human race explores and continuously tries to gain and find new
knowledge of things that are unknown, so we can explore the infinite expansion
of comparative space and discover new aspects of its structure.

The Comparative Space of all life on earth may appear to be finite, but by
exploring to find more kinds and relations of all life on earth, we can

25
coherently discover and find new comparatives. Likewise, with even those
new comparatives of life on earth, we can find and discover even more.

The Comparative Space of all stars in the Universe may appear to be
finite, but by exploring to find more kinds and relations of all stars in the
Universe, we can coherently discover and find new comparatives.
Likewise, with even those new comparatives of all stars in the Universe,
we can find and discover even more.

The Comparative Space of all theories in the Universe may appear to be
finite, but by exploring to find more kinds and relations of the theories, we
can coherently discover and find the new comparatives. Likewise, with
even those new comparatives of theories, we can find and discover even
more.

Continuously going on with all things known, even thou we may have
integrated them within a portion of comparative space, the principle states that by
just attempting to do so, we can discover even more, which will allow us to
increase our awareness of any given unit of the comparative unit.

Kinds Levels of Composition
Everything belongs to an infinite space of kinds.

Kinds Levels of Composition reveals that everything we know or
understand belongs to Kinds Space. A spoon, for example, belongs to the Kinds
Space of many kinds of spoons. When we expand our awareness of that
particular spectrum, we will find that it also belongs to a spectrum called ‘silver
ware’. Furthermore, we can expand our awareness of that spectrum and include
much higher levels of Kinds Space. This form of expansion is infinite. Everything,
the spoon and its kinds; the silverware and its kinds, has its place within the
infinite space of kinds. Other examples include:

Water belongs to an infinite space of kinds. Water belongs to the mater
spectrum. However, even the mater spectrum belongs to its own space of
kinds. Water is also a part of the space of kinds that the mater spectrum
is a part, and it goes on to infinity.

Love belongs to an infinite space of kinds. Love belongs to the emotional
spectrum. However, even the emotional spectrum belongs to its own
space of kinds. Love is also a part of the space of kinds that the
emotional spectrum is a part, and it goes on to infinity.

Brain belongs to an infinite space of kinds. Brain belongs to a biological
spectrum. However, even the biological spectrum belongs to its own
space of kinds. Brain is also a part of the space of kinds that the

26
biological spectrum is a part, and it goes on to infinity.

Television show belongs to an infinite space of kinds. Television show
belongs to a television show spectrum. However, even the television
show spectrum belongs to its own space of kinds. Television show is also
a part of the space of kinds that the television show spectrum is a part,
and it goes on to infinity.

Concept belongs to an infinite space of kinds. Concept belongs to a
concept spectrum. However, even the concept spectrum belongs to its
own space of kinds. Concept is also a part of the space of kinds that the
concept spectrum is a part, and it goes on to infinity.

In all the previous understanding expansions, the Kinds Space of each of
the ideas extends out to infinity, even looping unto their self, with each thought or
idea belonging to an infinite space of kinds.

Everything is composed of kinds.

All things that we can know or understand are composed of kinds. A
color, for example, belongs to the Kinds Space of the many kinds of that
particular color. However, each of those colors is composed of many other
distinguishable colors. Furthermore, each of those particular colors, are
composed of even more distinguishable colors. Although, this is pretty much an
equivalent explanatory of the infinite space of kinds, however, when we refer to
space, normally we refer to the higher level expansion of it. However, in this
section we will see that everything is also composed of kinds; even those kinds
they are composed of:

Animals are composed of kinds. Various types of animals include:
alligators, snakes, elephants, and other kinds of animals. However, even
an alligator is composed of many kinds of alligators. A snake is composed
of many kinds of snakes. An elephant is composed of many kinds of
elephants.

Spirits are composed of kinds. Various types of spirits include: ghosts,
fairies, angels, and other kinds of spirits. However, even a ghost is
composed of many kinds of ghosts. A fairy is composed of many kinds of
fairies. An angel is composed of many kinds of angels.

Particles are composed of kinds. Various types of particles include:
protons, neutrons, gluons, and other kinds of particles. However, even a
proton is composed of many kinds of protons. A neutron is composed of
many kinds of neutrons. A gluon is composed of many kinds of gluons.

Sports are composed of kinds. Various types of sports include:

27
basketball, soccer, golf and other kinds of sports. However, even
basketball is composed of many kinds of basketball. Soccer is composed
of many kinds of soccer. Golf is composed of many kinds of golf.

In all the previous similarities, the inner expansion of the Kinds Space
extends out to infinity and looping unto their self with each thought or idea being
composed of an infinite space of kinds

Relations Levels of Composition
Everything belongs to an infinite space of relations.

Relations Levels of Composition reveals that everything we know or
understand belongs to Relations Space. A goat, for example, belongs to the
Relations Space of its parents and the environment it is born in. When we
expand our awareness of those particular relations, we will find that it also
belongs to Relations Space. Furthermore, we can expand our awareness of that
particular group and include even much higher levels of Rinds Space. This form
of expansion is infinite. Everything, the goat and its relations and the relations of
the goat's relations has its place within the infinite space of relations. Other
examples include:

Grand Canyon belongs to an infinite space of relations. Grand Canyon
belongs to earth. However, even the Earth belongs to its own space of
relations. The Grand Canyon is also a part of the space of relations that
the Earth is a part, and from there it goes on to infinity.

Tree belongs to an infinite space of relations. Tree belongs to a forest.
However, even the forest belongs to its own space of relations. The tree
is also a part of the space of relations that the forest is a part, and from
there it goes on to infinity.

A story belongs to an infinite space of relations. The story is related to the
people that will read it and the person that wrote it. However, even those
people belong to their own space of relations. The story is also a part of
the space of relations that the people are a part and it goes on to infinity.

Shoe belongs to an infinite space of relations. The shoe is related to the
people that will wear it and the person that created it. However, even
those people belong to their own space of relations. The cup is also a part
of the space of relations that the people are a part and it goes on to
infinity.

Spinal chord belongs to an infinite space of relations. Spinal chord
belongs to the nervous system. However, even the nervous system

28
belongs to its own space of relations. The spinal chord is also a part of
the space of kinds that the nervous system is a part, and it goes on to
infinity.

Television show belongs to an infinite space of kinds. Television show
belongs to a television show spectrum. However, even the television
show spectrum belongs to its own space of kinds. Television show is also
a part of the space of kinds that the television show spectrum is a part,
and it goes on to infinity.

Concept belongs to an infinite space of kinds. Concept belongs to a
concept spectrum. However, even the concept spectrum belongs to its
own space of kinds. Concept is also a part of the space of kinds that the
concept spectrum is a part, and it goes on to infinity.

In all the previous understanding expansions, the Relations Space of each
of the ideas extends out to infinity, even looping unto their self, with each thought
or idea belonging to an infinite space of relations

Everything is composed of relations.

All things that we can know or understand are composed of relations. A
pencil, for example, belongs to the Relations Space of the materials that
comprise it. However, each of those materials is composed of many other
materials. Furthermore, each of those is composed of even more materials.
Although, this is pretty much an equivalent explanatory of the infinite space of
relations, however, when we refer to space, normally we refer to the higher level
expansion of it. However, in this section we will see that everything is also
composed of relations; even those relations they are composed of:

A human is composed of relations. Relations of a human include: heart,
lungs, brain, and other relations of a human. However, even the heart is
composed of relations of the heart. The lung is composed of relations of
the lung. The brain is composed of relations of the brain.

A theory is composed of relations. Relations of a theory include:
evidence, postulates, experiments, and other relations of the theory.
However, even the evidence is composed of relations of the evidence.
The postulates are composed of relations of the postulates. The
experiments are composed of relations of the experiments.

A dream is composed of relations. Relations of a dream include: how,
what, why, and other relations of the dream. However, even the 'how' of
the dream is composed of relations of the how. The 'what' of the dream is
composed of relations of the what. The why of the dream is composed of
relations of the why.

29
The Universe is composed of relations. Relations of the Universe include:
constellations, galaxies, planetary systems, and other relations of the
Universe. However, even the constellations are composed of relations.
The galaxies are composed of relations. The planetary systems are
composed of relations.

In all the previous ideas, the inner expansion of the Relations Space
extends out to infinity and looping unto their self with each thought or idea being
composed of an infinite space of relations.

Comparative Levels of Composition
Everything has its place within comparative space.

This is the fundamental analogy of the Universe. Everything has its place
within Comparative Space. All things belong to Kinds Space. All things belong
to Relations Space. Therefore, all things belong to Comparative Space, which
contains Comparative Levels of Composition. As with the relations and kinds,
comparative space extends indefinitely; everything belongs to an infinite space of
comparatives.

If we create a Comparative Unit, anything can be placed within it.

Eye

We know that there are things that are kind to Eye:

Ear
Eye
Nose
Skin

We know there are things related to the Ear, Eye, Nose, and Skin

Nerves for Sensing Sound Ear Sound Medium of Sound
Nerves for Sensing Light Eye Light Medium of Light
Nerves for Sensing Smell Nose Smell Medium of Smell
Nerves for Sensing Pressure Skin Pressure Medium of Pressure

30
Thus in the previous examples, we’ve started with something known that
we call by the name ‘eye’. Since everything belongs to an infinite space of kinds,
we were able to compute some of them vertically, and since everything belongs
to an infinite space of relations, we were able to compute some of them
horizontally. So now since each of the added kinds and relations each belong to
an infinite space of kinds and relations, and then as we can see, all parts of the
comparative unit are comparatives, and everything has its place within
comparative space.

Everything is composed of comparatives.

Just as everything is composed of kinds and relations, so everything is
composed of comparatives.
Comparative Space is a combination of Kinds Space and Relations
Space, thus we can only conclude that the principles of kinds and relations
create the principles of Comparative Space.
Thus, as with the previous example, concerning the eye, we can divide
things into kinds and relations rather than group them. In doing so, we can still
create comparatives within comparative space:
Now the principle states that everything is composed of comparatives.
Therefore, that should imply that the description, ‘Systems of the Human Body’,
must be composed of comparatives. We are aware that it is composed of kinds
and relations; therefore, comparatives as well:

Systems of the Human Body

It can be divided into composed kinds:

Circulatory System
Respiratory System
Digestive System
Nervous System

Each of the kinds can be divided into composed relations:

Blood Vessels Heart
Air Wind Pipes Lungs
Food Esophagus Intestines
Electrons Nerves Brain

Thus, in that example, the unit of knowledge described as 'Systems of the
Human Body' is composed of comparatives. Conversely, even descriptions such

31
as the 'eye' are composed of comparatives; however, some things are so alike
that we limit our distinguishing ability and therefore the descriptions as well.

Kinds Space – Nested Patterns
The kinds within the infinite expansion of Kinds Space form nested
patterns.

Another property of Kinds Space is that the kinds within the infinite
expansion form nested patterns. Kinds are composed of kinds and are a part of
kinds, thus, the elements within the infinite expansion of Kinds Space form
nested patterns.
An interesting way to recognize this distinct property is concerning the
every day life of biological species. Certain animals can only mate with certain
animals. There is a specific form of division where the line is crossed on various
parts of the spectrum. Monkeys, for example, can only mate with monkeys.
Fish can only mate with fish: birds with birds; humans with humans; and so forth.
However, each species belongs to the same biological spectrum, yet, there are
specific divisions where the line is crossed. Like the roots of a tree, each of them
are divided forming nested patterns. Other examples include:

There are many kinds of elements. Each of those elements undergoes a
'skip'. They are explained on higher levels of the spectrum: solids, liquids,
gases, and plasma. Furthermore, they too undergo a skip of that higher
level of difference.

There are many kinds of clothing. Each of those clothing undergoes a
'skip'. They are explained on higher levels of the spectrum: shoes, jeans,
shirt, hat... Furthermore, they too undergo a skip of that higher level of
difference.

There are many kinds of light. Each of those light undergoes a 'skip'.
They are explained on higher levels of the spectrum: x-rays, gamma rays,
ultraviolet, visible… Furthermore, they too undergo a skip of that higher
level of difference.

Basically, spectrums are composed of spectrums and a part of spectrums.
This reveals that there is a sorted nested pattern of divisions of the levels of
composition of the kinds within the spectrum.

32
Relations Space – Nested Patterns
The relations within the infinite expansion of relations space form nested
patterns.

Another property of Relations Space is that the relations within the infinite
expansion form nested patterns. Relations are composed of relations and are a
part of relations. Thus, the elements within the infinite expansion of Relations
Space form nested patterns.

The human body is composed arms, legs, hands, feet, head, shoulders,
stomach, back, and chest. However, each of those parts is composed of
parts. The arms are composed of parts; the legs are also composed of
parts, even the hands, feet, head, shoulders, stomach, back and chest.
Also, each of the parts that comprise them is composed of parts as well.

Even the human body is nested within a much larger form we call the
Earth. The Earth is nested in a much larger form we call the solar system.
The solar system is nested in a much larger form we call the galaxy. In
each of those levels of composition there is a sort of skip from one to the
next, it does not flow perfectly smoothly; therefore, it is nested.

Events in time are also nested. Each one is a part of the other and even
the other are composed of parts. Large events are comprised with smaller
events and even the smaller events are comprised of even smaller ones.
It does not flow smoothly, but rather skips in a nested way.

The Universe itself is composed of large groups of energy. Every one of
those groups is composed of smaller groups of energy and each of those
groups, and so on. Thus, as we can see, the relations within the infinite
expansion of Relations Space form nested patterns of the relations

Comparative Space – Nested Patterns
The comparatives within the infinite expansion of comparative space form
nested patterns.

As previously iterated, Comparative Space is simply Kinds and Relations
Space unified together. The skipping differences of the levels of parts of
spectrums of kinds, and the skipping divisions of the levels of parts of forms or
systems of relations creates the skipping differences and divisions of
Comparative Space.
Comparative Space is like our normal three dimensional space that
comprise our Universe. The normal space is composed of constellations,

33
galaxies, star systems, planets, rocks, and so forth. Comparative Space is
similar. It is composed of larger units of knowledge, which contains smaller units
of knowledge, which is composed of smaller units of knowledge, and so on. This
is the nested patterns of Comparative Space. As with the skipping differences
and divisions of relations and kinds, so the skipping levels of composition of the
comparatives within Comparative Space.

Kinds Transitivity
If two or more things are kind, then they each are kind to each of their
kinds.

Kinds Transitivity involves the interconnectivity of all kinds. It involves
the oneness of the extension of all things within Kinds Space: If two or more
things are kind, then they each are kind to each of their kinds:

If red is kind to orange and orange is kind to yellow, then red is kind to
yellow. Red, orange, and yellow are all colors. Likewise, if another is kind
to either of the colors, then the remaining ones are also kind to it

If triangle is kind to square and square is kind to pentagon, then triangle is
kind to pentagon. Triangle, square, and pentagon are all shapes.
Likewise, if another is kind to either of the shapes, then the remaining
ones are also kind to it

If love is kind to joy and joy is kind to excitement, then love is kind to
excitement. Love, joy, and excitement are all emotions. Likewise, if
another is kind to either of the emotions, then the remaining ones are also
kind to it

If airplane is kind to car and car is kind to boat, then airplane is kind to
boat. Airplane, car, and boat are all means of transportation. If another is
kind to airplane, car, or boat, then so will it be to the remaining kinds.

If pencil is kind to pen and pen is kind to marker, then pencil is kind to
marker. Pencil, pen, and marker are all writing utensils. If another is kind
to pencil, pen, or marker, then so will it be to the remaining kinds.

By going down the list of all possible kinds within any Kinds Integration,
we can conclude by Kinds Transitivity that if two or more things are kinds, then
they each must be kind to each of their kinds.

34
Relations Transitivity
If two or more things are related, then they each are related to each of their
relations.

Relations Transitivity involves the interconnectivity of all relations. It
involves the oneness of the extension of all things within Relations Space: If two
or more things are related, then they each are related to each of their relations:
With this principle of understanding, this involves deduction and the
property of interconnectivity within relations space.
For example, let's say you are sitting in your house, watching the news.
Suddenly, you see through your window a car pull into the driveway. Seconds
later, you hear the door shut. Afterwards, you hear someone knocking on the
door. You answer it, and it happens to be a relative of yours.

Now with that event, the entire time of your awareness of it was Relations
Integration.

First, was seeing the car in the window.
Second, was hearing the door shut.
Third, was hearing a knock on the door.
Fourth, was seeing your relative.
Relations

Car in Window Door Shut Knock on Door Relative

With those four events, we mentally group them together into one:

The relative was related to the knock on the door.
The knock on the door was related to the car door being shut.
The car door being shut was related to the car driving pass window.

According to the rule of transitivity of relations, then:

If the relative is related to the knock on the door, and the knock on the
door is related to the car door being shut, then the relative is also related to the
car door being shut.

Or since the car door being shut is related to the drive by the window, then
the relative is also related to the drive by the window.

35
Therefore:

Therefore:

Car in Window is related to Relative because it is related to Car Door
Shut, and Car Door Shut is related to knock on door, and Knock on Door is
related to Relative.

Additional Examples:

Winter is related to snow. Snow is related to crystals. Therefore, winter is
related to crystals.

Boat is related to water. Water is related to fish. Therefore, boat is
related to fish.

Closed eyes are related to sleep. Sleep is related to dreaming.

36
Therefore, closed eyes are related to sleep and dreaming.

Bank is related to money. Money is related to buying things. Therefore,
bank is related to buying things.

Light is related to 'fasted speed'. Eyes are related to light. Therefore,
eyes are related to 'fasted speed'.

Books are related to reading. Reading is related to information.
Therefore, books are related to information.

Water evaporation is related to clouds. Clouds are related to rain. Rain is
related to watering plants. Therefore, water evaporation is related to
watering plants.

Einstein is related to relativity. Relativity is related to time travel.
Therefore, Einstein is related to time travel.

Past is related to present. Present is related to future. Therefore past is
related to future.

Foot is related to shoe. Shoe is related to Shoe Factory. Shoe Factory is
related to Shoe Factory Founder. Therefore, foot is related to Shoe
Factory and Shoe Factory Founder.

Wings are related to birds. Birds are related to the sky. The sky is related
to air. Therefore, wings are related to air.

Pen is related to ink. Ink is related to paper. Paper is related to wood.
Therefore, pen is related to wood.

Evolution is related to change. Change is related to time. Therefore,
evolution is related to time.

Brain is related to perception. Perception is related to energy. Therefore,
brain is related to energy.

With Relations Transitivity, we can notice that if two or more things are
related, then they each are related to each of their relations.

37
Comparative Transitivity
If four or more things are comparative, then they each are comparative to
each of their comparatives.

Comparative Transitivity is the property of distant interconnectivity of the
comparatives within Comparative Space. Just as the kinds involves Kinds
Transitivity, and the relations involves Relations Transitivity so the Comparatives
involve Comparative Transitivity. Consider the following Comparative Unit:

Eye Light
Ear Sound

Eye is to Light as Ear is to Sound are all Comparatives. In the case of
Comparative Transitivity, if one new thing is comparative to either one of them,
then remaining comparatives are also comparative to it:

Eye Light
Ear Sound
Tongue Taste

Since 'Tongue' and 'Taste' are added to the Comparative Unit, then if 'Eye'
is to 'Light' as 'Ear' is to 'Sound', and 'Ear' is to 'Sound' as 'Tongue' is to 'Taste',
then 'Eye' is to 'Light' as 'Tongue' is to 'Taste'.

If more is added to the Comparative Unit, then addition can be deduced
concerning Comparative Transitivity:

Eye Light Colors
Ear Sound Notes
Tongue Taste Flavors

The Comparative Transitivity of this particular Comparative Unit can be
deduced in many ways. One particular way is to notice that any four words
within the Comparative Space that share the same Relations and Kinds of space,
one of each, then they are comparatives. This is because if the original four are
comparatives and two kinds are added as comparatives to light and sound
(Colors and Notes), then eye and ear are also comparatives two Colors and
Notes. Furthermore, since Ear and Notes are comparatives to Tongue and
Flavors, then so likewise is Eye and Colors.
Comparative Transitivity, as with Kinds and Relations Transitivity, involve
the distant interconnectivity of all things comparative. If four or more things are

38
comparatives, then they must also be comparative to each of their comparatives.

Kinds Relationship Measurement
The more alike are two or more kinds, the greater their kinds relationship
measurement.

Kinds Relations Measurement is an element of Kinds Division and
Integration. All things may be different and alike, but some things are more alike
and different than others. Some things may be more distinct from each other
then two other things are from each other. Similarly, two things may be more
alike to each other than two other things are to each other. This ability of Kinds
Space is noticing the Kinds Relationship Measurement, which has a greater
quantity the more alike are two or more things.

Examples include:

Two people may be more alike than two other people. Therefore, those
people who are more alike have a greater Kinds Relationship
Measurement. However, those people who are less alike have a lower
Kind Relationship Measurement.

Two hats may be more alike than two other hats. Therefore, those hats
that are more alike have a greater Kinds Relationship Measurement.
However, those hats that are less alike have a lower Kind Relationship
Measurement.

Two birds may be more alike than two other birds. Therefore, those birds
that are more alike have a greater Kinds Relationship Measurement.
However, those birds that are less alike have a lower Kind Relationship
Measurement.

Two thoughts may be more alike than two other thoughts. Therefore,
those thoughts that are more alike have a greater Kinds Relationship
Measurement. However, those thoughts that are less alike have a lower
Kind Relationship Measurement.

Relations Relationship Measurement
The more related are two or more relations, the greater their relations
relationship measurement.

Relations Relationship Measurement concerns the amount of

39
relatedness of two or more things. When a given number of relations are more
related, or more likely to work together, then those relations have a greater
Relations Relationship Measurement. Likewise, when a given number of
relations are less related, or less likely to work together, then the relations are
less related and have a lower Relations Relationship Measurement.

Two relations such as a duck and a pond they swim in have a greater
Relations Relationship Measurement than a duck and a desert. Ducks are
more likely to work together with ponds, however, a desert is hardly
related to them; therefore, the Relations Relationship Measurement is
smaller.

Two relations such as a boat and fishermen have a greater Relations
Relationship Measurement than a boat and astronaut. A boat and
fisherman are more likely to work together. However, an astronaut is less
likely to work together and has a smaller Relations Relationship
Measurement.

Two relations such as a water and ice have a greater Relations
Relationship Measurement than water and coal. Water and ice are ideas
more associated together. However, coal is less related to them and has a
lower Relations Relationship Measurement.

Two relations such as tree and leaves have a greater Relations
Relationship Measurement than a tree and a cloud. Tree and leaves are
ideas more associated together. However, a cloud is less related to them
and has a lower Relations Relationship Measurement.

Comparative Relationship Measurement
The more alike and related are four or more comparatives, the greater their
comparative relationship measurement.

The comparatives within Comparative Space that are closer together are
more alike and related. Thus, they have a greater Comparative Relationship
Measurement than comparatives that are farther away. In the following
example, comparatives with a greater Comparative Relationship Measurement
are closer together and those with lesser are farther apart:

Teeth Toothbrush Toothpaste
Hair Hands Shampoo
Skin Rag Soap

In the previous Comparative Unit, Teeth, Toothpaste, Skin and Soap,

40
have the lowest Comparative Relationship Measurement. This is because they
are farthest apart.
However, hair, hands, skin, and rag, as well as all other comparatives with
the same distance, have a greater Comparative Relationship measurement. If
more were added to the Comparative Unit, then those that are farthest apart
would decrease in Comparative Relationship Measurement.

Kinds Order
Spectrums of kinds must maintain a specific order for understanding,
where those that are most alike are closest together and those least alike
farthest apart.

Before being able to truly understand a Kinds Integration, there needs to
be some degree of Kinds Order. The order of kinds within Kinds Space is
where those that are most alike are closest together and those least alike farthest
apart. For example:
The numbers 1 through 10 are all distinct. However, not all are equally as
distinct to each and every one. When grouping them together into kinds without
ordering them as most alike closest together, we get:
9
2
3
6
7
1
8
4
5
10

As is apparent, there's not much meaning when there's low Kinds Order:

1 is more alike to 2 than 1 is to 7 or 8. Yet, we have those two numbers
closer together to 1 than 2.

8 is more alike to 7 and 9 than 1 and 4. Yet, we have those numbers (1
and 4) closer to 8 than 7 and 9. The difference between 9 and 4 is 5. The
difference between 4 and 7 is 3. Therefore, 4 and 7 should be closer than
9 and 4.

10 is more alike to 9 than it is to 5. Yet, we have 5 closer to 10 than 9.
Their quantities are of different magnitudes, but there are also those with
closest magnitudes than the others.

41
As is apparent, there's not much meaning when the group of numbers
aren't arranged where those most alike are closest together. Therefore, by
putting them in their order, we can more easily understand them and notice them
kinds:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

In the previous example, those most alike, or closest in magnitude, are
closest together, and those least alike are farthest apart. With this type of
ordering, understanding them as kinds is made much easier.

Orange
Purple
Yellow
Blue
Green
Red

In the previous example, we have the colors arranged randomly.

Red
Orange
Yellow
Green
Blue
Purple

In this example we have them arranged with Kinds Order:

Red and yellow have a closer frequency and wavelength to orange than
orange has to all the remaining colors.

Orange and green have a closer frequency and wavelength to yellow than
yellow has to all the remaining colors.

Yellow and blue have a closer frequency and wavelength to green than
green has to all the remaining colors.

42
Green and purple have a closer frequency and wavelength to blue than
blue has to all the remaining colors.

Least alike closer together:

Liquid
Plasma
Gas
Solid

Least alike farthest apart:

Gas
Liquid
Solid
Plasma

Gases are more alike to liquids, than they are to solids and Plasma.

Liquids are more alike to gas and solids than they are to plasma.

Solids are more alike to liquid and plasma than they are to gases.

Plasma is more alike to solids, than it is to liquid and gases.

In the previous examples, it is apparent that there needs to be some
degree of Kinds Order for understanding. And this is done by arranging those
that are most alike as closest together and those least alike as farthest apart.

Relations Order
Forms of relations must maintain a specific order for understanding, where
those that are most related are closest together and those least related
farthest apart.

In order to understand a Relations Integration there needs to be some
degree Relations Order. Consider the following sentence: “The Cow ate its
food.” Each of those words is related to each other but only because of the way
they are arranged in relationship to each other.
If we rearranged the words into “food The Cow its Ate,” understanding
them as relations, or working together becomes hideous. There’s not a very a
good possibility we are able to understand the integration. In the case of the first
sentence, those that were most related were closest together, and those least

43
related farthest apart. In the case of the second, those that were most related
were apart.
Now let’s take the entire previous paragraph and determine the order of
relations:
The following group of relations in the previous paragraph starting with “If
we rearranged…” is structured where those most related are closest together,
and those least related farthest apart. Here it is again:

“If we rearranged, the words into “food The Cow its Ate,” understanding
them as relations, or working together becomes hideous. There’s not a very a
good possibility we are able to understand the integration. In the case of the first
sentence, those that were most related were closest together, and those least
related farthest apart. In the case of the second, those that were most related
were apart.”

Now if we arrange them were those that are least related closer together
and those most related farther apart, we get:

“apart. If were we related rearranged, most the were words that into those
"food second, The the Cow of its case Ate," the understanding In them apart. As
farthest relations, related or least working those together and becomes together
hideous. closest There's were not related a most very were a that good those
possibility sentence, we first are the able of to case understand the the In
integration.”

In the later paragraph, it is not very easy to understand the given form of
relations. The given form has all the parts of the first paragraph, but it is not with
relations order. It is not arranged where those that are most related are closest
together, and those least related farthest apart. It is rather the opposite. So we
need Relations Order for understanding a given form of relations.
Things in our everyday life also need Relations Order for understanding.
Cars, for example, if they had wheels on top rather than on the bottom, and the
car seat facing the ground, and everything else randomly arranged, it would be
very difficult to understand the form – it would be more difficult to see the given
form of relations.
If a humans parts weren’t ordered as they normally are, we’d think it were
a different creature, and in fact not even understand what it is.
If the rooms of a house had the compositions of each other room, such as
dishes in the bathroom, television in the closet, stairs going outside; refrigerator
on the roof, and so forth, it wouldn't be very easy to understand them as
relations. Thus, in order to do so, we need a given amount of Relations Order for
the understanding of relations.

44
Comparative Order
Comparatives within a comparative unit must maintain a specific order for
understanding, where those that are most alike and related are closest
together and those least alike and related farthest apart.

Now as with kinds and relations, in order to understand a Comparative
Unit, there needs to be some degree of Comparative Order.
Within any given Comparative Unit, kinds are arranged vertically, and
relations horizontally, or at least that they are perpendicular to each other within
any comparative system. The kinds are order where those that are more alike
are closest together and those least alike farthest apart. The relations are
ordered horizontally where those that are more related are closer together and
those least related farther apart. Thus, this creates the comparatives within
comparative space being closer together to those more related and alike, and
farther apart from those less related and alike

Examples include:

Arranged where those that are most alike and related are closest together:

Blood Vessels Heart
Air Wind Pipes Lungs
Food Esophagus Intestines
Electrons Nerves Brain

Arranged where those that are most alike and related are not closest together

Air Vessels Heart
Esophagus Intestines Vessels
Electrons Lungs Food
Wind Pipes Nerves Blood

Arranged where those that are most alike and related are closest together:

Christmas Day Christmas Date
New Years Day New Years Date
Easter Day Easter Date
Independence Day Independence Date
Halloween Day Halloween Date
Thanks Giving Day Thanks given Date

Arranged where those that are most alike and related are not closest together

45
Independence Day Halloween Day
New Years Date Thanks Giving Date
Easter Day Christmas Date
Independence Date New Years Day
Easter Date Halloween Date
Christmas Day Thanks Give Day

With the previous examples, there needs to be some degree of
comparative order for understanding. This is emphasized by those that are most
alike and related are closer together, and that the relations and kinds are ordered
perpendicularly.

Kinds Quantity
Within any given spectrum of kinds, there exists a specific Kinds Quantity.

Kinds Quantity is the number of kinds we perceive within a given Kinds
Integration. Being aware of a specific spectrum, the number of distinct kinds can
be counted. That number will be equal to the Kinds Quantity.

Examples include:

There are many kinds of stars in the Universe. We can count those many
kinds of stars to be a specific number. That specific number of distinct
stars is equal to the Kinds Quantity.

There are many kinds of life on earth. We can count those many kinds of
life to be a specific number. That specific number of distinct life is equal to
Kinds Quantity.

There are many kinds of numbers. We can count those many kinds of
numbers to be a specific number. That specific number of distinct
numbers is equal to the Kinds Quantity.

There are many kinds of books. We can count those many kinds of books
to be a specific number. That specific number of distinct books is equal to
the Kinds Quantity.

There are many kinds of past events. We can count those many kinds of
past events to be a specific number. That specific number of distinct past
events is equal to the Kinds Quantity.

46
Relations Quantity
Within any given form of relations, there exists a specific relations quantity.

Relations Quantity is the number of relations we perceive within a given
Relations Integration. Being aware of a specific system, the number of relations
can be counted. That number will be equal to the Relations Quantity.

Examples include:

A cup is composed of many parts of energy. The cup as a whole is a
group of relations that work together. We can attempt to count, or
estimate, the number of parts that the cup is composed of.

A tree is composed of many parts of energy. The tree as a whole is a
group of relations that work together. We can attempt to count, or
estimate, the number of parts that the tree is composed of.

The earth is composed of many parts of energy. The earth as a whole is a
group of relations that work together. We can attempt to count, or
estimate, the number of parts that the earth is composed of.

A frequency of light is composed of many parts. Within a given period of
time, the number of waves that pass a given point can be counted. The
number will be equal to the Relations Quantity.

Space itself is an extension. It is composed of units within space. Thus,
those units that comprise it can be counted, or estimated. The number will
be equal to Relations Quantity

An entire story is composed of many words. All those words work
together to create the story. We can attempt to count, or estimate, the
number of words of the given story.

Comparative Quantity
Within any given unit of comparatives, there exists a specific comparative
quantity.

Comparative Space is composed of comparatives. The number of
comparatives within a given portion of Comparative Space is equal to the
Comparative Quantity. Since comparatives are the equivalents of kinds and
relations, comparative quantity is the sum of the relations ad kinds quantity of a
given Comparative Unit:

47
Here are some examples from the previous comparative units:

Blood Vessels Heart
Air Wind Pipes Lungs
Food Esophagus Intestines
Electrons Nerves Brain

This Comparative Unit contains twelve comparatives. Each spectrum is
contains of four kinds, or Kinds Quantity. Each Relations Integration contains
three relations, or Relations Quantity. Relations Quantity x Kinds Quantity is
Equal to Comparative Quantity.

Christmas Day Christmas Date
New Years Day New Years Date
Easter Day Easter Date
Independence Day Independence Date
Halloween Day Halloween Date

This Comparative Unit has a Comparative Quantity of ten. Its Kinds
Quantity in each spectrum is five. Its Relations Quantity in each row is two.
Thus, its Comparative Quantity is equal to its Relations Quantity x its Kinds
Quantity.

Kinds Density
The greater the number of kinds within a given portion of kinds space, the
greater the kinds density.

Kinds Density refers to the number of kinds within any fixed portion of
Kinds Space. As matter density exists in the physical world, so Kinds Density
exists in the comparative world. As the greater the number of particles within a
given portion of space, the greater the matter density, so the greater the number
of kinds per kinds space, the greater the Kinds Density. Examples include:

The Kind Integration of the many kinds of shapes is known to particular
people. However, one person may know of more different kinds of shapes
per Kinds Awareness than another. In this case, the person has a much
greater Kinds Density of the idea 'shapes'.

The Kinds Integration of the many kinds of languages is known to

48
particular people. However, one person may know of more different kinds
of languages per Kinds Awareness than another. In this case, the person
has a much greater Kinds Density of the idea 'languages'.

The Kinds Integration of the many kinds of experiences is known to
particular people. However, one person may know of more different kinds
of experiences per Kinds Awareness than another. In this case, the
person has a much greater Kinds Density of the idea 'experiences'.

Relations Density
The greater the number of relations within a given portion of relations
space, the greater the relations density.

Relations Density refers to the number of relations within any fixed
portion of Relations Space. As Kinds Density exists within Kinds Space, so with
Relations Density exists within Relations Space. The greater the number of
relations per unit of Relations Awareness, the greater the Relations Density.
This kind of density is the normal density we see in our every day life.
Physicists explain density as mass per unit volume. With this principle, including
a greater number of things, relations are the mass, and Relations Space is the
volume. The greater the number of relations per Relations Space, the greater
the Relations Density.
This applies not only to matter and space, but to all forms of Relations
Integration. Time, for example, is no different than space. It is an extension
composed of events. A wave occurs within time and various waves have various
frequencies. That frequency is the number of times a given part of the wave
passes a given point within a finite number of time. The greater the frequency of
the wave, the greater the density it has within time. Frequency is velocity divided
by wavelength. Just as Density is Mass Per Unit Volume, so Frequency is
Velocity Divided by Wavelength.
From those two equations, we can unite them with a common description.
The relationship between Relations Awareness, Relations, and relations density
is as follows: Relations Density = Relations/Relations Awareness. This includes
the density of matter within space, the density of occurrences within time, and
any other form of Relations Integration.

Comparative Density
The greater the number of comparatives within any given portions of
comparative space, the greater the comparative density.

Comparative Density refers to the number of comparatives within any fixed
portion of Comparative Space. As Kinds and Relations Density exists within

49
Kinds and Relations Space, so Comparative Density exists within Comparative
Space. The greater the number of comparatives per unit of Comparative
Awareness, the greater the Comparative Density. The following Comparative
Unit contains one with greater and less density:

Comparative Unit with less density:

Book Writer
Song Singer

Comparative Unit with more density:

Book Writer Book Publisher
Song Singer Song Producer

In the latter Comparative Unit, it contains more detail of ideas within the
four cell space than the first comparative unit. Therefore, we can say that it has
a greater Comparative Density.

Kinds Common Description
Those things we group together as if they were alike, we give common
descriptions.

When we integrate distinct things by Kinds Integration, we give them a
Kinds Common Description. This mentally programs our mind to mentally
integrate the given number of distinct things. Here are a few examples:

There are many distinct bodies that revolve around the sun. However, we
can group them all and give them a Kinds Common Description by
denoting them all as 'planets'.

There are many distinct things that are built for people to live in. However,
we can group them all and give them a Kinds Common Description by
denoting them all as 'a home'.

There are many distinct things in the Universe in which we are able to
know and understand. However, we can group them all together and give
them a Kinds Common Description by denoting them all as 'everything'.

Addition examples include:

Kinds Common Description 1:

50
In the previous example, even though all those forms are distinct, by
separating them from all other distinct things in the Universe, we can group only
them together as one and give them all a Kinds Common Description in which we
infer by the name 'fruit'.

Kinds Common Description 2:

In the previous example, even though all those forms are distinct, by
separating them from all other distinct things in the Universe, we can group them
together as one and give them all a Kinds Common Description in which we infer
by the name 'shapes'.

Kinds Common Description 3:

51
In the previous example, even though all those forms are distinct, by
separating them from all other distinct things in the Universe, we can group them
together as one and give them all a Kinds Common Description, in which we infer
by the name 'colors'.

Within a Comparative Unit, the Kinds Common Description comes after the
Kinds Uncommon Descriptions; the Kinds Uncommon Descriptions come
before the Kinds Common Description.

When we attempt to describe Kinds Common Descriptions the Kinds
Uncommon Descriptions come before the common description.
For example, the human hand is composed of five fingers. Each of those
fingers is different but we apply them a Kinds Common Description. The kind of
finger we are referring to has a description that comes before the kinds common
description 'finger':

Correct:

Pinky Finger
Ring Finger
Middle Finger
Index Finger
Thumb Finger

Incorrect:

Finger Pinky
Finger Ring
Finger Middle
Finger Index
Finger Thumb

The Kinds Uncommon Descriptions are: Pinky, Ring, Middle, Index, and
Thumb. The Kinds Common Description is Finger. As we can see the Kinds
Uncommon Descriptions Proceed the Kinds Common Description, this is when
we are applying them within a comparative unit.

52
Applying common kinds descriptions to uncommon kind descriptions and
uncommon kinds descriptions to common kinds descriptions increases
our kinds integration and division of the kinds.

As previously noted, our mind has the ability to group together things that
are alike and give them a common description. It also has the ability to divide
apart things that are different and give them an uncommon description. However,
what would happen if we were to do them at the same time? What would happen
if we group and divide a group of different things at the same time? We will give
Kinds Common Descriptions uncommon descriptions and Kinds Uncommon
Descriptions Common Descriptions:

Kinds of Colors:

Red
Orange
Yellow
Green
Blue
Purple

Thus:

Red Color
Orange Color
Yellow Color
Green Color
Blue Color
Purple Color

In the previous example, the kinds are divided by giving them Kinds
Uncommon Descriptions (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and purple) and at the
same time grouped by giving them a Kinds Common Description (color). The
Uncommon Kinds Descriptions are located to the left, and the Kinds Common
Description preceding each of the Kinds Uncommon Descriptions. By doing so, it
programs our mind to group together and divides apart distinct things.

Kinds of Animals:

Land
Air
Water
Ground

53
Thus:

Land Animals
Air Animals
Water Animals
Ground Animals

In the previous example, the kinds are divided by giving them Kinds
Uncommon Descriptions (land, air, water, and ground) and at the same time
grouped by giving them a Kinds Common Description (animals). The Uncommon
Kinds Descriptions are located to the left, and the Kinds Common Description
preceding each of the Kinds Uncommon Descriptions. By doing so, it programs
our mind to group together and divides apart the distinct things.

Kinds of Matter:

Solid
Liquid
Gas
Plasma

Thus:

Solid Matter
Liquid Matter
Gas Matter
Plasma Matter

In the previous example, the kinds are divided by giving them Kinds
Uncommon Descriptions (solid, liquid, gas, and plasma) and at the same time
grouped by giving them a Kinds Common Description (matter). The Uncommon
Kinds Descriptions are located to the left, and the Kinds Common Description
preceding each of the Kinds Uncommon Descriptions. By doing so, it programs
our mind to group together and divides apart the distinct things.

Kinds of Transportation:

Water
Ground
Land
Air
Space

Thus:

Water Transportation

54
Ground Transportation
Land Transportation
Air Transportation
Space Transportation

In the previous example, the kinds are divided by giving them Kinds
Uncommon Descriptions (water, ground, land, air, and space) and at the same
time grouped by giving them a Kinds Common Description (transportation). The
Uncommon Kinds Descriptions are located to the left, and the Kinds Common
Description preceding each of the Kinds Uncommon Descriptions. By doing so, it
programs our mind to group together and divides apart the distinct things.

Kinds of Seasons:

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

Thus:

Spring Season
Summer Season
Fall Season
Winter Season

In the previous example, the kinds are divided by giving them Kinds
Uncommon Descriptions (spring, summer, fall, and winter) and at the same time
grouped by giving them a Kinds Common Description (Season). The Uncommon
Kinds Descriptions are located to the left, and the Kinds Common Description
preceding each of the Kinds Uncommon Descriptions. By doing so, it programs
our mind to group together and divides apart the distinct things.

Kinds of Emotions:

Joy
Love
Hope
Determination
Excitement

Thus:

Joy Emotion
Love Emotion

55
Hope Emotion
Determination Emotion
Excitement Emotion

In the previous example, the kinds are divided by giving them Kinds
Uncommon Descriptions (joy, love, hope, determination, and excitement) and at
the same time grouped by giving them a Kinds Common Description (emotion).
The Uncommon Kinds Descriptions are located to the left, and the Kinds
Common Description preceding each of the Kinds Uncommon Descriptions. By
doing so, it programs our mind to group together and divide apart the distinct
things.

Kinds of Dimensions
Length
Width
Height
Time

Thus:

Length Dimension
Width Dimension
Height Dimension
Time Dimension

In the previous example, the kinds are divided by giving them Kinds
Uncommon Descriptions (Length, width, height, and time) and at the same time
grouped by giving them a Kinds Common Description (dimensions). The
Uncommon Kinds Descriptions are located to the left, and the Kinds Common
Description preceding each of the Kinds Uncommon Descriptions. By doing so, it
programs our mind to group together and divides apart the distinct things.

Every corresponding description applies to more than one thing we
consider as alike.

One Word Descriptions

When considering anything we know and its corresponding name or
description, that thing or idea is always more than one.

The word 'in', for example, can apply to a variety of situations:

Perhaps you are looking in your closet for something to wear.
Someone asks, “What are you doing?"

56
You reply with: "I am looking IN the closet."

Perhaps you are swimming in your swimming pool.
Someone asks, "What are you doing?"

You reply with, "I am swimming IN the pool."

Perhaps you are about to get into your car to go to work.
Someone asks, "What are you doing?"

You reply with, "I am getting IN to the car."

Perhaps you are pouring water into a cup.
Someone asks, "What are you going?"

You reply with, "I am pouring water IN to the cup"

In each of the previous examples, we described the concept of 'in';
however, no 'in' was exactly alike. The description 'in' is a one word description,
however, in our mind it applies to more than one thing we consider as alike.
What we've done is just given them, the distinct things, a Kinds Common
Description. Nevertheless, they apply to more than one thing we consider as
alike.
There are various other kinds of ‘in such as’:

'In' a refrigerator
'In' a boat
'In' a food store
'In' the mind
'In' the house
'In' the world
'In' the book

The word is one thing, but it is describing more than one thing we consider
as alike.
Another important thing to acknowledge is that no 'in' is alike. For
example, you can be swimming in a lake, and another person in a different lake.
Thus, you can say you are swimming in the lake, and you can say he is
swimming in the lake. However, once again, those are slightly different ideas
that we mentally group together by Kinds Integration. We use one word to
describe them, but in the real world they are more than one thing.
The word 'nail' is a corresponding description, but it applies to more than
one thing we consider as alike:

There are many nails on earth. However, there is no nail alike. There are

57
large nails and small nails and nails of many kinds, but we can still group
them together by giving them a Kinds Common Description. The
corresponding description, however, applies to a great variety of things we
consider as alike.

The word 'thought' is a corresponding description, but it applies to more
than one thing we consider as alike:

There are many thoughts on earth. However, there is no thought alike.
There are large thoughts and small thoughts and thoughts of many kinds,
but we can still group them together by giving them a Kinds Common
Description. The corresponding description, however, applies to a great
variety of things we consider as alike.

Each moment in time, we may ponder a given thought. However, during
our entire lifetime, we've produced too many thoughts to count. The idea
of a 'thought' is rather a group of many things that we know or understand.
We consider them as alike, so we group them together by Kinds
Integration. No thought during our life is alike. Neither on earth is there
any thought exactly alike. There are billions upon billions of thoughts
created each minute throughout earth and the Universe. However, with
the one little word 'thought' we can mean a great variety of things.

The idea of 'time' is no different than a nail or thought. Right now, we are
aware of our experience of time. However, no time idea is really alike. A
person can be on a different planet with a different time frame. This
person can still call it 'time' even thou they are different. You can also be
twenty years old and call that year ‘time’ and be a different age and still
call that different year, 'time'. The idea of ‘time’ is something we really
mean by more than one thing: different things that we consider as most
alike and group together with a corresponding description.

If you and five friends are watching a television and, suddenly, each of you
starts laughing, every one of you will all be 'laughing', yet if you look
closely in the physical world instead of that of description, you will see that
no laughter by each of you is exactly alike. In fact, no persons' laugh is
exactly alike. However, with the one word 'laughter' we can mean a
greater number of things we consider as alike.

More Than One Word Descriptions

When describing something we know, not always does it have to be with
one word. Description can be as long as it likes. Description can be an entire
bibliography about someone's life. It can be a short sentence describing an
event. The premise, although, in both cases is the same: we are using symbols,
words, letters, or any other form of symbolization to describe something we

58
know. There really is no difference of calling something 'apple', or describing an
event such as, "He is running down the road." In both cases, they are both
describing something we know.
Since more than one word descriptions can be used to describe
something we know, and they’re basically the same thing, and since every word
that we use to describe something really means a large number of unique, we
can conclude that it also applies to descriptions that involve more than one word.
For example, say we describe something we know saying:

"The Planet Rotates on its Axis."

In this example, we are doing the same thing. We know something as:
‘The earth rotating on its axis.’ As with describing something round, red, and on
a tree an 'apple'; as with describing something we know or understand as 'in', we
can describe something we know or understand as "The Planet Rotates on its
Axis."
As with 'apple', no apple is alike, however, with the one little word we can
mean a great many things, so with the description, "The Planet Rotates on its
Axis". We can say the same thing for all planets known or understood.
Even concerning the description of our individual planet across the
continuum of time, we can say, "The Planet is rotating on its axis," yet the
description applies to more than one thing we consider as alike. There is no
moment in time in which the earth is rotating in the exact same fashion as its
previous. Another person living in the past or future could say the exact same
thing. The truth, however, is that throughout time the earth is spinning at slight
different speeds, in slightly differently places, and with slightly different
circumstances. Yet, we can all still give them a common description.
Consider even longer descriptions such as:

"As the boat sailed across the sea, the fishermen cast their hooks into the
water. Each of them received a fish, and they enjoyed their dinner that night.

The following morning, they all awoke to a bright and sunny day. The Captain
grabbed a hold of his binoculars and looked across, and saw the land. They
were joyous beyond measure that they were soon going to inhabit an island..."

The previous description is a complete event. However, we can say the
exact same thing about different people on different parts of the planet. We can
also say it about different people on different planets in the Universe. As with the
description of a 'thought'; or the description, "The planet rotates on its axis," so
also the description of that entire event applies to more than one thing we
consider as alike.

59
Relations Common Description
Those things we group together as if they were related, we give a common
description.

One Word Descriptions

When we mentally integrate things with Relations Integration, we give
them a Relations Common Description.

A computer is composed of many divide parts that work together. We give them
all a Relations Common Description by naming them all 'computer'.

Molecules that comprise the sea all work together. We give them all a
Relations Common Description by naming them 'water'

A person moving quickly from various parts in space and time are all
related to each other. We give them all a Relations Common Description
by naming them ‘running’.

A large object composed of wood, windows, a chimney, and a roof are all
related to each other. We can give them all a Relations Common
Description by naming them all 'house'.

Common 'togetherness' descriptions of relations are to mentally program
our minds to group things into relations. Words program our mind to think in a
specific way. The common description of relations is an effect of Relations
Integration. We group them together as related with their Relations Common
Description.

Additional examples:

Relations Common Description 1:

60
In the 'house' example, even though the house is composed of many
divided things, by separating them all from other divided things in the Universe,
we can group them together as one and give them all a Relations Common
Description.

Relations Common Description 2:

In the 'face' example, even though the face is composed of many divided
things, by separating them all from other divided things in the Universe, we can
group them together as one and give them all a Relations Common Description.

Relations Common Description 3:

61
With the 'tree' example, even though the tree is composed of many
divided things, by separating them all from other divided things in the Universe,
we can group them together as one and give them all a Relations Common
Description.

More than One Word Descriptions

Common relation descriptions not only involve one word descriptions, but more
than one word descriptions:

“The building was built in 1942.”

The sentence is a description like the previous one word descriptions. We
are describing something we know or understand using words and by other
forms of symbolization.
Different parts of the description:

The Building
The Year
The Process of its creation
The Builders

Those parts of relations are all divided things, yet we group them all

62
together by giving them a common description. This also applies to much larger
descriptions involving sentences, paragraphs, and even entire books. Although
there are many other parts with any given description, with the Relations
Common Description we create simplicity by mentally grouping them together.

Within a Comparative Unit, the Relations Common Description comes
before the Relations Uncommon Descriptions; the Relations Uncommon
Descriptions come after the Relations Common Description.

Each finger on the human hand is also composed of relations. Each of
those relations are divided but we apply them a Relations Common Description.
The relation of the finger we are referring to has a description that comes after
the relations common description 'finger':

Correct:

Finger Tip
Finger Nail
Finger Joint
Finger Base
Finger Side

Incorrect:

Tip Finger
Nail Finger
Joint Finger
Base Finger
Side Finger

The Relations Uncommon Descriptions are: Tip, Nail, Joint, Base, and
Side. The Relations Common Description is Finger. As we can see, the
Relations Uncommon Descriptions follow the Relations Common Description;
this is when we are applying them within a comparative unit.

Applying common relations descriptions to uncommon relations
descriptions and uncommon relations descriptions to common relations
descriptions increases our relations integration and division of the
relations.

When we are faced with a Relations Integration, our mental unification of
such relations can be programmically increased by giving them a common
description. We notify their dividedness by their uncommon descriptions, but we
can also group them together by giving them a common description. In the
following examples, we will see how applying common relations descriptions to

63
uncommon relations descriptions increase our relations integration of the divided
relations.

Optic Nerve Retina Lens Pupil Iris Cornea

With the previous relations uncommon descriptions, we can see their
dividedness. For each thing that we know, we can give a common description.
Those things are related, thus we’ve grouped them together horizontally by
relations integration. However, we know that all six of those descriptions belong
to the same given form of relations. We know that they all belong to ‘eye’. Thus
we shall apply the common description ‘eye’ to each of relations integration
uncommon descriptions:

Eye Optic Nerve Eye Retina Eye Lens Eye Pupil Eye Iris Eye Cornea

Thus as we can see, in relation to the first one, we can see them all as
one by placing them horizontally within the comparative unit. However, by also
giving them a common relations description, we can more easily see them as
one. We can more easily integrate them as relations integration.
Uncommon Relations Descriptions:

Monitor Keyboard PC Mouse Speaker

Applying Common Description:

Computer Monitor Computer Keyboard Computer PC Computer Mouse Computer Speaker

Uncommon Relations Descriptions:

Wheels Hood Windows Trunk Engine Doors

Applying Common Description:

Car Wheels Car Hood Car Windows Car Trunk Car Engine Car Doors

By applying common relations descriptions to uncommon relations
descriptions, we can see that concerning relations integration, it increases.
Experiments can be done with all words and all forms of relations integrations in
the Universe.

Every corresponding description applies to more than one thing we
consider as related.

Everything that we know or understand can be given a corresponding
description. The description of kinds usually applies to more than one thing we

64
consider as alike. However, when we observe something in the Universe and
give it a corresponding description, not only does it apply to a large spectrum of
kinds but also to a given number of relations. This quantity is more than one
even though the description is finite.
For example, if we were to observe a 'tree', we know there are many
different kinds of trees in which we can call ‘tree’. However, not only does the
description 'tree' apply to many kinds of things, but it also describe a group of
(more than one) things working together. Thus, when we observe it and say,
"Tree," we are really meaning a group of relations. The tree itself is composed of
many parts and its parts are composed of many parts, yet, we can group all of
them with a common description.
Even from outer space, we can observe the large planet we live on called
'Earth'. However, with that single word, we grouping a number of divided things
as if they were one. The word itself is finite, but the parts that comprise it are
infinite.
Or, what about the word, 'motion'. Thus as we know, there has to be
motion in order to perceive a unit of motion just as there needs to be matter to
perceive a unit of matter. As physical objects are composed of smaller parts
within space, so events are composed of smaller parts, or events, within time.
Thus the word 'motion' just as a tree, mean a group of things. It means a group
of events through time. Thus all of those events are relations. And thus we can
give them all a common description and call them an ‘event’.
Likewise, what about the word ‘emotion’? In order to perceive emotion,
there needs to be parts to make up the emotion, just as there needs to be parts
to make up an event. Everything that we know or understand is two or more
relations or two or more kinds.
Now once again, describing something known doesn't have to be limited
to just one word. Let’s take the sentence, "The volcano is erupting". Now, in this
case we are describing a group of things as one and given it a togetherness
description. We know that to know and understand "The volcano is erupting,"
there needs to be a volcano; there needs to be lava; there needs to be time and
space and so forth - Just as in order to know and understand a tree there needs
to be leaves, trunk, and roots. Thus, the description "The volcano is erupting," is
a description that describes the togetherness of relations, or parts, as if they
were one.
However, not only are there relations in the physical world, but also in the
world of knowledge. For example the sentence, "Water evaporates at certain
temperatures," is a form of relations. The sentence is composed of the word
'water'; the word 'evaporates'; the word 'at'; the word 'certain'; and the word
'temperatures'. Thus, they are a group of parts that make up a form just like a
house; a boat; a thought; or a brain. Just as the tree is composed of leaves,
branches, a trunk, and roots, and we can group them together and given them a
common together description called a 'tree', so also with the sentence: "Water
evaporates at certain temperatures." All those different parts have a common
togetherness description called 'sentence'.
The world of time also involves relations and common description. An

65
event, for example, can be grouped together as one. However, each event is
composed of smaller events. And so it can be said that the event is composed of
more than one relation even though it is given the common description 'event',
For each thing we can know, we can give a corresponding description.
And each description applies to more than one thing we consider as related.

Comparative Common Description
Those things we group together as if they were comparatives, we give a
common description.

Comparative Integration allows comparatives to have a Comparative
Common Description. The integration of comparatives involves the integration
of relations and kinds and giving them both a common description. In the
following examples, we will see how not only is there relations and kinds
integration and description, but also Comparative Common Descriptions.
In the following comparative unit there are a group of kinds and a group of
relations:

Pencil Lead Paper
Pen Ink Paper
Keyboard Pixel Color Computer Monitor
Voice Sound Waves Speaker

Pen is to Lead is to Paper as Pen is to Ink is to Paper as Keyboard is to
Pixel Color is to Computer Monitor as Voice is to Sound Waves is to Tape

Now with Kind Integration we can give each spectrum of kinds within the
Comparative Unit a common description. And with each form of relations we can
do the same:

Kinds Common Description: Tools for relaying Information:

Spectrum 1:

Pencil
Pen
Keyboard
Voice

Kinds Common Description: Tools used by those things that related information

Spectrum 2:

66
Lead
Ink
Pixel Color
Sound waves

Kinds Common Description: Where the information is stored

Spectrum 3

Paper
Paper
Computer Monitor
Speaker

Relations Common Description: Pencil System Communication

Relations 1

Pencil, Lead, Paper

Relations Common Description: Pen System Communication

Relations 2

Pen, Ink, Paper

Relations Common Description: Keyboard System Communication

Relations 3

Keyboard, Pixel Color, Computer Monitor

Relations Common Description: Voice System Communication

Relations 4:

Voice, Sound Waves, Speaker

Comparative Common Description:

Systems of Communication

Comparative Unit:

Eye Sees Light

67
Nose Smells Scent
Ear Hears Sound
Tongue Tastes Flavor
Hands Feels Mass

Kinds Common Description for Senses

Sensor Sees Light
Sensor Smells Scent
Sensor Hears Sound
Sensor Tastes Flavor
Sensor Feels Mass

Kinds Common Description for what each sensor does:

Eye Senses Light
Nose Senses Scent
Ear Senses Sound
Tongue Senses Flavor
Hands Senses Mass

Thus Senses Kinds Division Descriptions = Seeing, Smelling, Hearing, Tasting,
and Touching

Kinds Common Description for what each is perceives:

Eye Sees Waves
Nose Smells Waves
Ear Hears Waves
Tongue Tastes Waves
Hands Feels Waves

Thus, Waves Kinds Division Descriptions are = Light, Scent, Sound, Flavor,
Mass

Common Integration Description for the 3 related spectrums of kinds:

Sensors Senses Waves
Sensors Senses Waves
Sensors Senses Waves
Sensors Senses Waves
Sensors Senses Waves

68
Thus:

Sensors Senses Waves

Comparative Common Description:

Systems of Perception

Applying common comparative descriptions to uncommon comparative
descriptions and uncommon comparative descriptions to common
comparative descriptions increases our comparative integration and
division of the comparative parts.

Since Comparative Space is a combination of Relations Space and
Kinds Space, by combining the principles of each of the dimensions, we can
automatically create the principles of Comparative Space
We know that with Kinds Integration we can group things together by
giving them common kinds description and with Kinds Division we can divide
them apart by giving them uncommon descriptions. We know that with Relations
Integration we can group together things by giving them a common relations
description and with Relations Division we can divide them and give them
uncommon relations descriptions. Therefore, with Comparative Integration and
Division, it is only a combination of the two as follows:

Kinds Division: uncommon descriptions

Kinds of Music:

Jazz
Rock
Rap
Dance
Classical

Kinds Integration: common descriptions

Thus:

Jazz Music
Rock Music
Rap Music
Dance Music
Classical Music

Relations Division: uncommon descriptions

69
Relations of Music:

Instruments
Musicians
Listeners
Recordings
Concerts

Relations Integration: common descriptions

Thus:

Music Instruments
Music Listeners
Music Musicians
Music Recordings
Music Concerts

Comparatives of Music: Kinds Division and Integration uncommon and common
descriptions and Relations Division and Integration uncommon and common
descriptions:

Jazz Jazz Jazz Jazz Jazz
Music Music Music Music Music
Instruments Listeners Musicians Recordings Concerts
Rock Rock Rock Rock Rock
Music Music Music Music Music
Instruments Listeners Musicians Recordings Concerts
Rap Rap Rap Rap Rap
Music Music Music Music Music
Instruments Listeners Musicians Recordings Concerts
Dance Dance Dance Dance Dance
Music Music Music Music Music
Instruments Listeners Musicians Recordings Concerts
Classical Classical Classical Classical Classical
Music Music Music Music Music
Instruments Listeners Musicians Recordings Concerts

As we can see with the previous comparative unit, relations are to the left
and right each other, and kinds are above and below each other.
In each horizontal group, the common description is first and the
uncommon description is second, and in each vertical group, the common
description is second and the uncommon description first. Therefore, the
common and uncommon comparative descriptions are simply a combination of

70
relations and kinds uncommon and common descriptions organized into a
comparative unit.

Here are some more examples:

Kinds of Religions:

Judaism
Christianity
Islam
Hinduism
Buddhism
Taoism

Thus:

Judaism Religion
Christianity Religion
Islam Religion
Hinduism Religion
Buddhism Religion
Taoism Religion

Relations of Religions:

Ministers
Churches
Teachings
Beliefs
Students
Origination

Thus:

Religion Ministers
Religion Churches
Religion Teachings
Religion Beliefs
Religion Students
Religion Origination

Comparatives of Religion:

Judaism Judaism Judaism Judaism Judaism Judaism
Religion Religion Religion Religion Religion Religion
Ministers Churches Teachings Beliefs Students Origination

71
Christianity Christianity Christianity Christianity Christianity Christianity
Religion Religion Religion Religion Religion Religion
Ministers Churches Teachings Beliefs Students Origination
Islam Islam Islam Islam Islam Islam
Religion Religion Religion Religion Religion Religion
Ministers Churches Teachings Beliefs Students Origination
Hinduism Hinduism Hinduism Hinduism Hinduism Hinduism
Religion Religion Religion Religion Religion Religion
Ministers Churches Teachings Beliefs Students Origination
Buddhism Buddhism Buddhism Buddhism Buddhism Buddhism
Religion Religion Religion Religion Religion Religion
Ministers Churches Teachings Beliefs Students Origination
Taoism Taoism Taoism Taoism Taoism Taoism
Religion Religion Religion Religion Religion Religion
Ministers Churches Teachings Beliefs Students Origination

Kinds of Consciousness:

Human
Fish
Cat
Star
Plant
Thus:

Human Consciousness
Fish Consciousness
Cat Consciousness
Star Consciousness
Plant Consciousness

Relations of Consciousness

Mind
Soul
Reality
Force
Awareness

Thus:

Consciousness Mind
Consciousness Soul
Consciousness Reality
Consciousness Force
Consciousness Awareness

72
Comparative of Consciousness:

Human Human Human Human Human
Consciousness Consciousness Consciousness Consciousness Consciousness
Mind Soul Reality Force Awareness
Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish
Consciousness Consciousness Consciousness Consciousness Consciousness
Mind Soul Reality Force Awareness
Cat Cat Cat Cat Cat
Consciousness Consciousness Consciousness Consciousness Consciousness
Mind Soul Reality Force Awareness
Star Star Star Star Star
Consciousness Consciousness Consciousness Consciousness Consciousness
Mind Soul Reality Force Awareness
Plant Plant Plant Plant Plant
Consciousness Consciousness Consciousness Consciousness Consciousness
Mind Soul Reality Force Awareness

Every corresponding description applies to more than one thing we
consider as comparative.

Comparative Common Description is no different than Relations and Kinds
Common Description. Just as the common description of relations or kinds,
applies to more than one thing we consider related or alike, so Comparative
Common Description applies to more than one thing we consider as
comparative. The description may be finite, but the number of relations and
kinds per Comparative Common Description applies to more than one.

'Intelligence' is a description that applies to a large number of kinds of
intelligence and a large number of relations of intelligence, and therefore it
can apply to a large number of comparatives of intelligence. However,
with just the single word 'intelligence' we really mean more than one.

'Money' is a description that applies to a large number of kinds of money
and a large number of relations of money, and therefore it can apply to a
large number of comparatives of money. However, with just the single
word 'money' we really mean more than one.

'Education' is a description that applies to a large number of kinds of
education and a large number of relations of education, and therefore it
can apply to a large number of comparatives of education. However, with
just the single word 'education' we really mean more than one.

73
Kinds Uncommon Description
Those things we divide apart as if they were distinct, we give uncommon
descriptions.

When we divide similar things by Kinds Division, we give them Kinds
Uncommon Descriptions. This programs our mind to mentally divide the given
number of similar things. Here are a few examples:

There are many similar bodies that revolve around the sun. However, we
can divide them all and give them Kinds Uncommon Descriptions by
denoting them as 'Mercury', 'Mars', 'Venus', 'Earth', 'Saturn', 'Jupiter',
'Uranus', 'Neptune', and 'Pluto'.

There are many similar oceans on earth. However, we can divide them all
and give them Kinds Uncommon Descriptions by denoting them as 'Pacific
Ocean', 'Atlantic Ocean', 'Indian Ocean', and 'Arctic Ocean'.

There are many similar dimensions of space. However, we can divide
them all and give them Kinds Uncommon Descriptions by denoting them
as: 'Length', 'Width', and 'Breadth'.

As Kinds Integration uses common descriptions, so Kinds Division uses
uncommon descriptions:

Kinds Uncommon Descriptions 1

Kinds Uncommon Description 2:

74
With the shapes, by Kinds Integration we’ve given them all a Kinds
Common Description. However, with Kinds Division, we can clearly divide the
parts, and give them uncommon descriptions.

Kinds Uncommon Description 3:

We don’t have to always call them colors showing that they are alike, but
we can show their distinction by giving them uncommon descriptions. Those
things we consider as distinct we give uncommon descriptions.

Relations Uncommon Description
The relations we separate as if they were divided, we give uncommon
descriptions.

As the integration of relations involves Relations Uncommon Descriptions,
so the division of relations involves Relations Uncommon Descriptions. When
we mentally divide apart things with Relations Division, we notify it by giving them
uncommon descriptions.

Examples of giving uncommon descriptions to things we want to divide

75
apart are as follows:

Relations Uncommon Descriptions 1:

In the house example, since we want to mentally divide the parts, we
denote this by given them Relations Uncommon Descriptions: chimney, roof,
windows, and door.

Relations Uncommon Descriptions 2:

In the face example, since we want to mentally divide the parts, we denote
this by given them all Relations Uncommon Descriptions: eyes, nose, and mouth.

Relations Uncommon Descriptions 3:

76
In the tree example, since we want to mentally divide the parts, we denote
this by giving them Relations Uncommon Descriptions: leaves, branches, and
stem.
In each of those previous examples, the parts are all connected things, yet
we divided them apart by giving them uncommon descriptions.

Comparative Uncommon Description
Those things we divide apart as if they were separate and distinct, we give
uncommon descriptions.

The elements within Comparative Space are all unique and divided. Many
times we give them common descriptions by applying them with the same name;
however, we can also give them Comparative Uncommon Descriptions to
show their difference and dividedness.
Looking back from the previous Comparative Unit of common description,
the entire comparative unit was grouped into one description and called ‘systems
of communication’:

Systems of Communication

However, by doing the opposite of Comparative Common Description, we
can divide them into their comparative parts by giving them Comparative

77
Uncommon Descriptions.

Pencil Lead Paper
Pen Ink Paper
Keyboard Pixel Color Computer Monitor
Voice Sound Waves Speaker

Thus, ‘Systems of Communication’, was something that we knew, but
there are things within it that can be comparatively divided. This is done by
notifying their Comparative Uncommon Descriptions.

Kinds Main Parts
Within any given spectrum of kinds, we can group and divide them into
main kinds.

During the perception of a spectrum of kinds, we have the ability to group
those kinds into main kinds, main types, or Kinds Main Parts.

For example:

Main Kinds of Measurements:

There is a spectrum of the many kinds of measurements in the Universe.
However, of that entire spectrum we can group them all into a finite number of
main types and give them such descriptions as:

Mass
Motion
Time
Space

Although there is a large spectrum of differences of the kinds of measurements,
we can group them into a smaller number of main kinds.

Main Kinds of Foods

There is a spectrum of many kinds of food in the Universe. However, of that
entire spectrum of distinct things, we can group them into a smaller number of
main types and give them such descriptions as:

Deserts
Fruits
Vegetables
Meats

78
Wheat and Grains
Nuts
Beans

Although there is a large spectrum of differences of the kinds of food, we
grouped them into a smaller number of main kinds.

Main Kinds of Matter

There is a spectrum of many kinds of matter in the Universe. However, of that
entire spectrum of distinct things, we can group them into a smaller number of
main types and give them descriptions such as:

Gases
Solids
Liquids
Plasma

Although there is a large spectrum of differences of the kinds of matter, we can
group them into a smaller number of many kinds.

Main Kinds of Clothing

There is a spectrum of many kinds of clothing in the Universe. However, of that
entire spectrum of distinct things, we can group them into a smaller number of
main types and give them such descriptions as:

Foot Wear
Leg Wear
Upper Body Wear
Hand Wear
Head Wear
And Decorative Wear

Although there is a large spectrum of differences of the kinds of clothing, we can
group them into a smaller number of many kinds.

Main Kinds of Plants

There is a spectrum of many kinds of plants in the Universe. However, of that
entire spectrum of distinct things, we can group them into a smaller number of
main types and give them such descriptions as:

Herbs
Shrubs

79
Trees

Although there is a large spectrum of differences of the kinds of plants, we can
group them into a smaller number of many kinds.

Main Kinds of Seasons

There is a spectrum of many days of weather. However, for simplicity, of that
entire spectrum we can group them into a smaller number of main types and give
them descriptions such as.

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

Although there is a large spectrum of differences of the kinds of weather of each
day, we can group them into a smaller number of many kinds.

Relations Main Parts
Within any given form of relations, we can group and divide them into main
parts.

Relations also have Relations Main Parts. When we perceive a given
group of relations, for simplicity, we can always divide that form, or group, into
main parts.

Examples include:

A car can be divided into main parts such as: wheels, windows, cover,
engine, seats, and so on. Even though the car is composed of much
more, for simplicity we group the main ones.

A fruit can be divided into main parts such as: stem, seeds, the fruit itself.
Even though the fruit is composed of much more, for simplicity we group
the main ones.

A song can be divided into main parts such as: beginning, middle, and
end. Even though the song is composed of much more, for simplicity we
group the main ones.

A hand can be divided into main parts such as: fingernails, fingers,

80
knuckles, palm, and back of hand. Even though the hand is composed of
much more, for simplicity we group the main ones.

An atom can be divided into main parts such as: electrons, protons, and
neurons. Even though an atom is composed of much more, for simplicity
we group the main ones.

Comparative Main Parts
Within any given unit of comparatives, we can group and divide them into
main parts.

Comparative Units also have Comparative Main Parts. When we group
and divide spectrums of kinds into smaller numbers, or descriptions, we are also
determining portions of the main parts of a Comparative Unit. Likewise, when we
group and divide forms of relations into smaller numbers, or descriptions, we are
also determining portions of the main parts of a Comparative Unit. Kinds are
organized vertically within Comparative Space, thus when we determine their
main parts, we're also determining potions of Comparative Space. On the other
end, relations are organized horizontally, thus, when we determine their main
parts, we're also determining main parts of the Comparative Unit. The
Comparative Main Parts of a Comparative Unit is a combination of the main parts
of Kinds and Relations Space.

The World of Comparative Units
Within any given comparative unit, kinds are perpendicular to relations.

The structure of the Comparative Unit is that kinds are organized vertically
and relations horizontally; but more so that they are perpendicular to each other.
Together, they create comparatives within a Comparative Unit:

Difference Relates to Difference

One of the most fundamental principles of comparative knowledge is that

81
Difference Relates to Difference. In fact, this describes everything in the
Universe. Kinds Space involves perceive noticing the things of the universe as
different. However, each of them is also proportionally related to something
different as well. Also, the difference measurement of kinds is equal to the
difference measurement of the Kind-Relations. Difference relates to difference.

Examples:

There are many kinds of plants on earth. Each plant is unique. This determines
their difference. However, each plant has its own environment. Some are in
deserts, some in jungles, some in lakes, some in forests, and some on mountain
tops. Thus, different plants come from different environments. Difference relates
to difference.

Each of those different environments is on different places on earth.
Difference relates to difference. And on those difference places on earth,
they each experience different patterns of seasons. Difference relates to
difference.

Every unique person has come from their unique place at their unique
time, by their unique parents. Each of their unique parents came from
correspondingly unique parents, and so on. As we can see, difference
relates to difference.

Different types of clouds produce at different times of the day.

Different kinds of plant produce at different times of the year.

Different kinds of shoes are produce by different kinds of factories.

Different kinds of factories are produced by different kinds of people.

Different kinds of thoughts are produced, not for the same reason or the
same cause, but for different reasons and causes.

Different kinds of planets are in different places in space.

Different types of stars have different amounts of energy.

Different types of elements have different colors.

Different types of inventions have come from different kinds of people.

Different types of books are written from different types of people, in which
have come from different places and times.

82
Different kinds of emotions are produced by different kinds of experiences,
and each of those different kinds of experiences are produced from
different things, and each of those things from different things and so on.

Difference Relates to Difference.

At different times in history there were different people and events.
People wore different clothing and had different means of transportation.

Different planets with different mass each contain different quantities of
gravitational pull.

Black holes are different from stars; therefore, they cause different affects.

The principles of physics are all different, thus they are described
differently and explain something different.

Planets with different amounts of mass experience different times.

For every different thing, it is related to something different. Difference
relates to difference.

Similarity Relates to Similarity

The proportionally but inverse of, "Difference relates to difference," is that
Similarity Relates to Similarity. This also describes everything in the Universe.
Kinds Space involves perceive noticing the things of the universe as similar.
Furthermore, each of them is also proportionally related to something similar as
well. Also, the similarity measurement of kinds is equal to the similarity
measurement of the Kind-Relations. Similarity relates to similarity.

Examples:

There are many kinds of plants on earth. Each plant has a degree of
similarity to another. Similar plants have similar environments. Similar
types of plants occupy deserts, similar types occupy jungles, similar types
occupy lakes, similar types occupy forests, and similar types occupy
mountain tops. Thus, alike plants come from alike environments.
Similarity relates to similarity.

Children with the same parents will have similar traits. Each of their
parents came from correspondingly similar parents, and so on.

Similar types of clouds produce at similar times of the day.

Similar kinds of plant produce at similar times of the year.

83
Similar kinds of shoes are produce by similar kinds of factories.

Similar kinds of factories are produced by similar kinds of people.

Similar kinds of thoughts are produced for similar reasons and causes.
.
For every similar thing, it is related to something similar. Similarity relates
to similarity.

Divisions are kind to divisions.

Another one of the most fundamental principles of knowledge is that the
parts of relations each belong to their own equally divided spectrum of kinds.
Although this is the inverse of "Difference relates to difference," new knowledge
can also be gained.
The earth is a group of relations. It is composed of clouds, water,
continents, land animals, water animals, and air animals. Inside is composed the
mantle and core. However, of all those parts they each belong to equally divided
spectrums of kinds. This means that there are many other places in the Universe
that have planets that are very similar to earth which fade away in difference like
the colors of a rainbow. Each of the ‘earths’ are different; and there are an
infinite of them, and their divided parts belong to divided spectrums.

Connections are kind to connections.

The proportionally but inverse that "Divisions are kinds to divisions" is that
Connections are kind to Connections. The connections of relations each belong
to their own equally connected spectrum of kinds.
The human form contains relations. The nervous system, skeletal system,
respiratory system, cardiovascular system, digestive system, urinary system,
endocrine system, skin, immune system, muscular system, and nervous system
are all connected. However, each of those connections belongs to equally
connected spectrums of kinds. This means that there are many other forms that
have systems very similar to ours. Furthermore, each of those distinct systems
is kind to the other connections; their connected parts belong to connected
spectrums.

What applies to one spectrum of kinds applies to all spectrums of kinds,
but differently according to their relative difference.

Another one of the most important principles is that what applies to each
spectrum, or the things related to it, also applies to other spectrums of kinds as
well.

84
It can be thought of that spectrums of kinds are kinds to spectrum of kinds,
in which they are. One of the rules of kinds is that if two or more things are kinds
and one has an extra relation, then there exist corresponding relations to the
remain kinds. Thus we can conclude, since spectrums of kinds are kinds, then
what applies to one spectrum applies to all spectrums, but differently according
to their relative difference.
For example, in the life spectrum, we know we can divide them into
groups. Therefore, within any spectrum we should be able divide them into
groups as well. What applies to one spectrum applies to all spectrums.

What applies to the light spectrum applies to the matter spectrum

What applies to the matter spectrum applies to the emotional spectrum

What applies to the emotional spectrum applies to the life spectrum

What applies to the life spectrum applies to the star spectrum

What applies to the star spectrum applies to the planes of existence
spectrum

What applies to the planes of existence spectrum applies to the silverware
spectrum

What applies to the silverware spectrum applies to the movie spectrum

But all of these differently: according to their relative difference.

So as we can see, spectrums of kinds all share similar properties. This
can be noted by the principle that what applies to one spectrum applies to all the
spectrums, but differently according to their relative difference.

What applies to one form of relations applies to all forms of relations, but
differently according to their relative difference.

Similarly, as with the spectrum of kinds so also forms of relations.
Whatever we come to associate with a given form of relations, we can conclude
that it also applies to all relations, however, differently according to their relative
difference.

If we know a stove is a group of relations and we that the stove was
created, therefore we can conclude that all relations forms are created.

If we know that the earth is a group of relations and that it takes up space,
therefore, not only does that form of relations take up space, but so also
do all the other planets. So also events take up space within time. So also

85
do all things we consider as relations.

If we were to think of a form of relations such as an entire day, we know
that within the entire day it is composed of smaller units. Thus, we can
conclude that with all forms of relations.

Water is a group of relations. We know that water can be split, therefore,
so also other relations integrations, but differently according to their
relative difference.

If two or more things are kinds and one has an extra relation, then there
exists corresponding relations to the remaining kinds. The relationship
between the relations of each of the corresponding Kind-Relations is equal.

We know that everything belongs to an infinite space of kinds. We know
that everything belongs to an infinite space of relations. However, many times in
life we encounter a group of kinds that have extra relations than the other kinds.
This shows the future evolution of new relations to kinds.

For example, we know that animals are a spectrum of kinds.

We have animals such as

Fish
Land Animals
Birds

Now according to the principle, “If two or more things are kinds, and one
has an extra relation, then there exists corresponding relations to the remaining
kinds,” then if we know that fish have fins, then we can automatically conclude
that land animals have a sort of ‘fins’ for their environment. In this case, we call
them 'legs'. And for birds, we call them 'wings'.
Furthermore, if fish, land animals, and birds are kinds, and fish have a
medium, or environment, in which they are able to move by their fins, then we
can automatically conclude by the principle that there must be land animals that
are to something as fish are to their environment. In the case of fish, we call it
water; in the case of land animals, we call it earth. And the same goes for the
birds in which we call their environment 'sky'.
Also, what about such kinds as the functions of the human body? We
know that since we can give them all a kinds common description ('functions'),
then they are kinds. Therefore, what we know from one function of the human
body, we can know to all the others, but differently.
For example, we know that there are things that affect certain bodily
functions. We know that there are other functions of the human body that are
kind to such functions. Thus, since they are kind, we can conclude that if one

86
food or chemical does something to one function of the body, then so also will
there be different foods and chemicals for all the remaining functions of the body.
Thus, we have the spectrum of human bodily functions. And we have the
food/chemical spectrum. Since "if two or more things are kinds and if one has an
extra relation that there exists corresponding relations to the remaining kinds,"
then we can conclude that if a specific thing does for one function of the human
body, then so also will something different to the remaining different functions.
What about other things related to the functions of the human body? We
know the eye is function. It belongs to the kinds. What things do we know that
are related to the eye? We know that the telescope is related to the eye.
Thus, we know that the five senses are kind to the eye; therefore, we can
automatically conclude that since they are kind to it, and eye is related to the
telescope (or has an extra relation), that for all the senses we can conclude that
there exists a kind of telescope. Thus, there is a telescope for the ear; a
telescope for the nose, the hands, the tongue, and so on.
We can also conclude it to larger portions of the spectrum as well.

If two or more things are relations and one has an extra kind, then there
exists corresponding kinds to the remaining relations. The relationship
between the kinds of each of the corresponding Relation-Kinds is equal.

Similarly, if two or more things are relations, and one has an extra kind,
then there exist corresponding kinds to the remaining relations. And as a result,
their relationships will remain equal:
If we know that earth contains life, then we can automatically conclude
that it is possible to create life on other planets as well.

Earth and Life are Relations:

Earth Life

The other planets/celestial bodies are kinds, so earth has extra kinds than
do earth life:

87
Thus based on the previous comparative unit, the principle states that
there exists a way to create kinds of life on other planets such as Mercury,
Venus, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune, Uranus, the celestial body Pluto and any
others that are different from life on earth according to their planetary relative
difference. It states that just as earth comes in many kinds, such as the planets,
so ‘Earth Life’ comes in corresponding kinds. Thus we can conclude that there
exists a way for different kinds of life to survive on all the different kinds of
planets as do earth. The principle states that there are beings to Mercury, as
there are Beings to Earth. That there are Beings to Venus, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter,
and all the remaining planets/celestial bodies as Earth life is to earth.
If two or more things are relations, and one has an extra kind(s), then
there exist corresponding kinds to the remaining relations.

Comparative units can always be completed.

As we can see, based on the previous two principles concerning finding
corresponding relations and kinds, comparative units can always be completed.
Whether we are attempting to find corresponding relations, or whether we are
attempting to find corresponding kinds, each, in either case, can complete the
comparative unit.

The greater the distance between kinds the more work is needed to find
their corresponding relations.

With this principle, during the process of comparing kinds on farther sides
of the spectrum, it gets harder to find all their corresponding relations.
For example, matter is composed of solids, liquids, gases, and plasma.
Now as previously explained, each of those states of matter is composed of more
states of matter but for simplicities sake we divide them into 4 main kinds.
If we were to look at liquids, we know that there are many kinds such as:

88
water, oil, gasoline, and so on. The principle states that it should be easier for us
to find the corresponding relations between the water’s relations, the oil’s
relations, and the gasoline’s relations, than to find the relations of the liquids to
solids.
We know that there’s water evaporation, therefore, since oil and gasoline
are kinds, then evaporation exists for them as well but it will be different
according to each of their relative difference. However, if we look at solids, since
they are kind to liquids, then there exists evaporation within the solids realm as
well. However, since when have we noticed or labeled any type of solid
evaporation as water does? Usually, if we don’t mentally group them together,
we give them different names.

So what would be an example of evaporation in the realm of solids?

Well, we know that water evaporates only at certain hot enough
temperatures. Therefore, since solid is of greater density than water, we can
conclude that at much hotter temperatures there is solid evaporation.
However, it is easier to compare liquid evaporation to other, closer, and
more alike liquid evaporations, but as we move farther out into the spectrum it
requires more effort to find the corresponding relations.
Even such forms as a star, and if we try to compare them to the forms of
plants, it can be done but would take more effort since they are on farther
portions of the spectrum. Basically, the more different they are, the harder it is to
compare them, but they are comparable. For if we tried to rather compare plants
to animals then it would be easier since they are on closer portions of the
spectrum.
A star is formed usually by gravitational collapse and receives from its
environment by gravitational pull. A plant is formed, usually by receiving from the
sun, water, and minerals in the soil. An animal is formed usually by receiving
from the environment in the form of food.

So we have:

Star Food Star Growth
Animal Food Animal Growth
Plant Food Plant Growth

Some things we know about plants are:

They give forth fruit.
Animals come and partake of it.
The attraction it receives is dependent upon the amount of fruit they emit.
There’s a force that keeps its form together, and other forces, such as the
wind try to take it apart.

Some things we know about animals are:

89
They give forth flesh to other animals that eat them.
Other animals come and partake of it.
The attraction it receives is dependent upon the amount of flesh they emit.
There’s a force that keeps its form together, and other forces, such as
other animals try to take it apart.

Now with stars, the system should be the same, but slightly different
according to their difference. But since, stars are more diverse than plants and
animals, finding their corresponding relations could easily be done, but more
effort is required than if it were things that are more alike.

Some things we know about stars are:

They emit light
Planets revolve around them.
They have a larger gravitational field than most planets that revolve
around them
There’s a force that keeps it together, and other forces that try to take it
apart.

In any case, and in the case of the kind-relations above, the greater the
difference of any given kinds, the more effort is needed to find their
corresponding relations.

The greater the distance between relations the more work is needed to find
their corresponding kinds.

Similarly, the greater the distance between relations, the more work is
needed to find their corresponding kinds.
If we consider such distant things as our earth we know that it is related to
its core. We also know it is related to its clouds in the atmosphere.
Therefore, according to relations transitivity, the earth’s clouds are related
to the earth’s core. Now we know that each of them belongs to their own
spectrum of kinds. For example, we know that the core of the earth is kind to
other types of core in other planets. Now since "if two or more things are
relations, and one has an extra kind, then there exists corresponding kinds to the
remaining relations," then we can conclude that as earth core is to other planets’
cores, so is earth clouds to other planets clouds.
Now concerning the distance between the relations, we know that they are
more diverse, thus, comparing the other planet’s cores to determine their kind of
atmosphere to that of the core of the earth to its atmosphere would require more
effort compared to attempting just to compare each of their temperatures to their
distance from the sun, since those are more easily to see as related.

90
Corresponding relations of Kind-Relations are spectrums of kinds.

When we deduce the corresponding relations of a given number of kinds,
even Kind-Relations, they turn out to be a spectrum of kinds.

Consider the following Kind-Relations:

Fish is to Water
As:
Snake is to Ground
As:
Bird it to Air

The fish, snake, and bird are kinds. The water, ground, and air, are the
corresponding relations of those kinds. However, we can clearly see that they are
also of their own spectrums of kinds.

Corresponding kinds of Relation-Kinds are forms of relations.

Likewise, when we deduce the corresponding kinds of a given number of
relations, even Relation-Kinds, they turn out to be their own form of relations.

If we take related-kinds such as:

Fish is to Snake is to Bird
As
Water is to Ground is to Air.

The Fish and Water are relations. The snake and ground and bird and are
the corresponding kinds. We can clearly see that they two are of their own form
of relations.

91
Spectrums of kinds can be divided into Kind-Relations

In order to divide spectrums of kinds in to Kind-Relations, it is important to
know and understand the inner relations, or relations compositions. Each thing
can be divided into relations, or is composed of relations; so also with the kinds
within a spectrum. They can be divided into Kinds-Relations.
If we consider a group of kinds such as Triangle, Square, and Circle. We
can divide them in to Kind-Relations by determining their inner relations parts
and corresponding inner parts.

Kinds:

Triangle
Square
Circle

Divided into Kind-Relations

Three Points Three Sides Three Angles
Four Points Four Sides Four Angles
Infinite Points Infinite Sides Infinite Angles

Forms of relations can be divided into Relation-Kinds

In order to divide forms of relations into related-kinds, it is important to
know and understand the inner kinds, or kinds compositions. As we know, each
thing can be divided into kinds, or is composed of kinds; so also with the relations
within a comparative unit. We can divide each of them into related-kinds.
If we consider a group of relations such as: “The points of Shapes”, “The
Sides of Shapes,” and “The Angles of Shapes,” we can divide them in to related-
kinds by determining their inner kinds parts and corresponding inner parts.

92
Relations:

The Points of Shapes The Sides of Shapes The Angles of Shapes

Divide into Related-Kinds:

Three Points Three Sides Three Angles
Four Points Four Sides Four Angles
Infinite Points Infinite Sides Infinite Angles

Of any given comparative unit, the number of kinds of each of its Relation-
Kinds is equal to the number of Kind-Relations.

Observing the quantities of the comparative unit, allows us to see
corresponding relationships of the kinds of Related-Kinds and Kind-Relations.
Thus we have:

In the previous example we have two spectrums of kinds that are related
to each other. Each spectrum is composed of five kinds. Therefore, we have the
quantity of the kinds of each of the related-kinds.

In that example, we have five forms of relations that are kind to each
other. We can also see that the quantity is five.

93
Thus concerning comparative units, the number of kinds of each of
Related-Kinds is equal to the number of Kind-Relations.

Of any given comparative unit, the number of relations of each of its Kind-
Relations is equal to the number of Relation-Kinds.

By observing the quantities of the comparative unit, we can see
corresponding relationships of the relations of Kind-Relations and that of
Related-Kinds. Thus have:

In the previous example, there are five forms of relations that are kind to
each other. Each form has a quantity of two relations. Thus we have the
quantity of relations of each Kind-Relation.

94
With this example, we have only two spectrums of kinds that are related to
each other. Therefore, as we can see, the number of relations of each Kind-
Relation is equal to the number of Related-Kinds.

Comparative units can be related to other comparative units.

Throughout the sections of this book, we’ve observed relations being
organized horizontally and kinds organized vertically. Concerning relations, in
the previous examples, we’ve explained how single relations can be related to
each other. However, within comparative space, even comparative units
themselves can be related to each other. Comparative units that are horizontal
as relations are related to each other:

Comparative units can be kind to other comparative units.

As different things can be kind to each other in Kinds Space, comparative
units can also be kind each other. As long as comparative units are vertical each
other, then they are as kinds in a spectrum. Therefore, we can say comparative
units can also come in spectrums of kinds, as with regular kinds. The following
illustration is an example how comparative units can be kind to other comparative
units:

95
Comparative units can be comparative to other comparative units.

As comparatives are organized in comparative space, comparative units
themselves can be organized in comparative space. We’ve learned that
Comparative Units can be related to each other. We’ve learned that they can be
kind to each other. Comparative units can also be comparative each other.
In the following example, we can see an example of comparative-
comparative units: or comparative units that are comparative to each other.

Every word is a comparative unit.

The word ‘soup’ is composed of kinds and relations; therefore, it must be
composed of comparatives. In fact, not only is that word a comparative
unit, but all words and all forms of description are a portion of Comparative
Space.

The word ‘the’ applies to a given number of relations of and kinds of 'the'.
Therefore, the word ‘the’ is a description of a given portion of Comparative
Space.

The word ‘car’ applies to a given number of relations and number of
different kinds of 'cars'. Therefore, the word ‘car’ is a description of a given
portion of Comparative Space.

The word ‘extension’ applies to a given number of relations and number of
different kinds of 'extensions'. Therefore, the word ‘extension’ is a
description of a given portion of Comparative Space.

The word ‘description’ applies to a given number of relations and number
of different kinds of 'descriptions'. Therefore, the word ‘description’ is a
description of a given portion of Comparative Space.

96
The word ‘world’ applies to a given number of relations and number of
different kinds of 'worlds'. Therefore, the word ‘world’ is a description of a
given portion of Comparative Space.

Every word, every description, or form of symbolization explain something
is an expression of a mind. And each word, description, or symbolization is a
Comparative Unit.

All knowledge can be organized into a comparative unit.

As was previously illustrated, distinct and divided comparative units can
connect to each other. However, I suspect that this applies to all comparative
units that are created and organized. Just as a group of molecules can become
large and larger, creating more massive structures of organization, so I suspect
that all knowledge that we humans currently possess can connect together
perfectly into a much larger comparative unit.
However, once this is done, as evolution proceeds, new kinds of things
will be birthed and old kinds of things will diminish. We will have to keep
updating the Universal Comparative Unit to maintain with the proceeds of
evolution and change. New names and descriptions would have to apply to new
things that are created each moment.
Our current humanity knowledge only has but so many words,
descriptions, and names. However, all this knowledge, and even knowledge of
years to come, can be organized into one comparative unit. Although our
perception is finite at any given time, the comparative unit can always grow and
maintain the relationships of its' self.

The descriptions of Kind-Relations have common Relations Integration
description and an uncommon Relations Division description.

The descriptions of Relation-Kinds have common Kinds Integration
description and an uncommon Kinds Division description.

One of the most important things we can know with Comparative
Understanding is that we can group together things that are alike and give them
a common description but also, at the same time, divide each of their relations
apart to give uncommon descriptions to create or determine Relation–Kinds.
When we think of the word ‘story’, we mean a great number of different
things or different kind of stories. Each of those stories is different, but with
Kinds Integration we group them together and give them a common description.
However, in order to create Relation–Kinds, or to compare them, we have to see
differences within them at the same time as well. We know they are all stories,
but in order to divide them into comparative space, we need to find the related
differences. So how do we do so?
We know there are many kinds of stories: there are dramatic stories, there

97
are action stories, there are science fiction stories, there are fantasy stories, and
there are scary stories, and so on.
Now if you look carefully at what was just done, I’ve not only group them
together, but I’ve divide them apart as well. When we do this, at the same time,
we are able to create Relation-Kinds.
We know that every story has a corresponding writer. So the story writer
is related to the story itself. Story writer and Story teller are relations.
Now to create Relation-Kinds, we have to group them together, by giving
them a common description, and at the same time, divide them apart. By giving
two or more things a common relation description such as Story Teller and Story
Writer, in that case the common relation description is Story, and the uncommon
relations description is Teller and Writer. Teller and Writer are relations and we
simplify that by giving them a common togetherness relations description, which
is story.
On the other end, by dividing the story concept into its kinds: science
fiction, fantasy, scary, dramatic, we normally give its common kind description to
the left:

Science Fiction Story
Fantasy Story
Scary Story
Dramatic Story

Thus by giving them a common kind description we notify that we’ve
mentally grouped them together into kinds.

Now if we combine the two we get:

Science Fiction Story
Science Fiction Story Writer
Fantasy Story
Fantasy Story Writer
Scary Story
Scary Story Writer
Dramatic Story
Dramatic Story Writer

Or we can group them into a comparative Unit as follows:

Science Fiction Story Science Fiction Story Writer
Fantasy Story Fantasy Story Writer
Scary Story Scary Story Writer
Dramatic Story Dramatic Story Writer

So as we can see, we created Relation-Kinds by giving their different
kinds a common kinds description to group them together and a uncommon

98
kinds description to divide them apart., and their relations a common relations
description to group them together and an uncommon relations description to
divide them apart.
Another way to look at created comparative description is to know that
there are really only 4 ways our minds can see things: by Kinds Integration and
Kinds Division, and by Relations Integration and Relations Division. And thus
only 4 descriptions: Kinds Integration description, Kinds Division description,
Relations Integration description, and Relations Division description.

Expanding Principles, Laws, and Formations
The Selection Concept

One of the principles of Physics is that with the states of matter their
varying colors are a result of their varying reflection and absorption of the various
wavelengths of light.
For example, a red material appears to be 'red' because it absorbs all the
frequencies of light except that color. A yellow material, such as a banana, is
yellow because it absorbs all of the frequencies of light except yellow.
So now, based on one of the principles that "everything belongs to an
infinite spectrum of kinds," that concept should appear in other realms of
knowledge just like a plant form appears to be a tree form but slightly different.
What are some examples of the same concept of physics appearing in
other realms of knowledge?

Objects absorb certain colors of light and reflect certain others

Mass Light Selection Wavelengths of Light

People absorb certain events in their life and reflect certain others

Mass Light Selection Wavelengths of Light
People Event Selection Types of Events

99
Our ears are only sensitive to certain frequencies of sound and it reflects the
frequency of its ability

Mass Light Selection Wavelengths of Light
People Event Selection Types of Events
Ears Sound Selection Wavelengths of Sound

Our eyes are only sensitive to certain frequencies of light and it reflects the
frequency of its ability

Mass Light Selection Wavelengths of Light
People Event Selection Types of Events
Ears Sound Selection Wavelengths of Sound
Eye Light Selection Wavelengths of Light

When people go to a grocery story, the select only the things they need and repel
the rest

Mass Light Selection Wavelengths of Light
People Event Selection Types of Events
Ears Sound Selection Wavelengths of Sound
Eye Light Selection Wavelengths of Light
People Food Selection Kinds of Food

An entire person’s life is selective in the choices he or she can make

Mass Light Selection Wavelengths of Light
People Event Selection Types of Events
Ears Sound Selection Wavelengths of Sound
Eye Light Selection Wavelengths of Light
People Food Selection Kinds of Food
Decisions Choice Selection Kinds of Choices

100
As is apparent, the selection concept of physics can be expanded to other
realms of knowledge. By finding more relations for any one of them,
corresponding relations of the remaining can be discovered. Also, just as the
colors of the spectrum, there are an infinite realms of knowledge in which this
selection concept appears. Finding the limit within our human perception could
be done just by building simple comparative units.

Expanding Physics Laws

One of the most beneficial things of building comparative units is the
ability for them to show the corresponding relations or kinds of relations or kinds.
By building comparative units, we can mentally integrate and conclude
automatically that has not been before.
If we take the concept of gravity, we know based on one of the
comparative principles that it belongs to an infinite form of relations, so what are
some of the relations associated with gravity?

Gravity acts at a distance by gravitational fields:
Gravity is dependent upon the masses of objects by gravity charge:

Gravity Gravity Charge Gravity Field

We can go on for long periods of time to determine all the outer and inner
relations associated with gravity. Previously, I’ve pointed out 2 of the main ones.
Now according to the principle, “If two or more things are kinds, and one
has an extra relation, then there exist corresponding relations to the remaining
kinds,” then the same thing must apply to all the other known forces in the
universe, but differently according to their relative difference.

They must have their own fields and charges:

Within the finite portion of the spectrum, we know of three main other
forces: electromagnetic, weak, and strong force.
Now we can find the corresponding relations of each in relation to the
relations of that of gravity:
What things are involved with the electromagnetic force as the things
we’ve associated with the gravity force?
What things are involved with the weak force as the things we’ve associated with
the gravity force?
What things are involved with the strong force as the things we’ve
associated with the gravity force?

Gravity Gravity Charge Gravity Field

101
Electromagnetic Electric Charge Electric Field
Weak Weak Charge Weak Field
Strong Strong Charge Strong Field

Thus since, the electromagnetic, weak, and strong force are kind to
gravity, then we can conclude that there is a sort of force charge and field for
each one, but different according to their relative difference.
Even more relations can be added to the comparative unit. For example,
we know there are a lot more relations about the electromagnetic force. We
know of a phenomenon call electromagnetic induction. This is a process that
involves the separation of electric charges of specific objects when moved
through a magnetic field.
By this principle, discovered by Michael Faraday, it made possible the
production of electricity. Now what have we learned? We’ve learned that
difference is related to difference. We learned that if things are kinds, and one
has relations to it, then so also do the remaining kinds.
Therefore, since electromagnetism has a thing called 'electricity' that
involves the motion of electrons, then we can conclude that there exists a
'gravitricity'; that there exists a way to generate means of energy into weak
‘electricity’; and strong ‘electricity’, and if other forces are discovered, then to
them as well. Finding such corresponding relations and building such devices
and inventions for the converting of energy into the new types of electricity would
be simple by just finding and inferring the corresponding relations.

Gravity Gravity Charge Gravity Field
Electromagnetic Electric Charge Electric Field Electricity
Weak Weak Charge Weak Field
Strong Strong Charge Strong Field

Thus:

Gravity Gravity Charge Gravity Field Gravitricity
Electromagnetic Electric Charge Electric Field Electricity
Weak Weak Charge Weak Field Weaktricity
Strong Strong Charge Strong Field Strongtricity

Furthermore, what about such things as light? We know that light is an
electromagnetic wave. Therefore, once again placing it within the comparative
Unit:

Gravity
Electromagnetic Electromagnetic Wave
Weak
Strong

102
Thus, the principle states that there exists a form of energy to the gravity,
weak, and the strong force, as our currently knowledge of light is to the
electromagnetic force. It states, that there is a sort of 'gravity light', that there is a
sort of 'weak light', and a 'strong light'.

Gravity Gravitational Wave
Electromagnetic Electromagnetic Wave
Weak Weak Wave
Strong Strong Wave

Now since gravity is known to be the most diverse or weak force, and that
it involves much greater distances than that of the other forces, I suspect that the
gravitational wave, or light, would also be of great divergence to the other waves.
We also know that there is medium in which our current light, or
electromagnetic energy, travels in which we call 'space'. Thus, we can place
them as relations to the electromagnetic wave:

Gravity Gravitational Wave
Electromagnetic Electromagnetic Wave Medium for Electromagnetic Wave
Weak Weak Wave
Strong Strong Wave

Thus:

Gravity Gravitational Wave Medium for Gravitation Wave
Electromagnetic Electromagnetic Wave Medium for Electromagnetic Wave
Weak Weak Wave Medium for Weak Wave
Strong Strong Wave Medium for Strong Wave

Thus, in this example, we can see that just as our current light has its
medium of space, so also of that of the other forces. And once again, since the
forces are diverse, so also will be their mediums for which their kinds of waves
travel.
We know that the speed of light is constant in relation to mass, space, and
time. Thus, we can conclude that similar things can result for the other kinds of
light. Even such equations as E=MC^2, which involves the velocity of
electromagnetic radiation as a constant, I suspect that such similar equations can
be created with the other kinds of light in relation to their forces and quantities.
Such things as finding corresponding relations can be done with all things
known and to all realms of physics in which we are able to expand all its
principles, to all realms of biology, to all realms of neuroscience, engineering,
inventions, and beyond. And in doing so, we are able to make new mental
connections of things not once known before.

103
Connecting Comparative Units

We can even connect comparative units, when we see two or more shares
relations or kinds. In the case of the previous examples, we can see how the
comparative unit with the senses and the comparative unit with the force related
to one another.

As gravitation forces of particles, we can unite the comparative unit
together into a much larger comparative unit.

Thus, I suspect once we begin to have large portions of our knowledge
within comparative space, we will come to find that all the comparative units will
begin to connect together perfectly like pieces of a puzzle.

The Circulation Concept

Moons revolve around planets.
Planets revolve around the sun.
The wind goes around continually throughout the face of the earth.
The water goes around continually throughout the earth.
Plants rise and fall continually through time.
Our blood vessels carry blood in a circuit through our heart.

Now we can organize them into a comparative unit:

Moons Revolve Planets

104
Planets Revolve Sun
Wind Circulate Earth
Water Circulate Earth
Plants Rise and Fall Time
Blood Circulate Heart

Now, as we can clearly see, those are kinds. There are infinitely many
more kinds we can compare with them, but we’ll just use the six for now. Now,
one of the fundamental principles is that difference relates to difference.
Therefore, as we can see, moons are different from planets, wind, water,
plant growth, and blood. Therefore they must relate to something different.
Moons relate to planets by revolving around them.
Planets are different from the rest, therefore we can conclude therefore we
can conclude that they are related to something proportionally different.

The Storage Concept

We know that such things as 'storing foods into our cabinets' is a concept
in which we can expand.
Here are other realms of knowledge in which the ‘storage’ concept
appears:

Storing Food in a Refrigerator
Storing Money in a Safe
Storing Memory in a Computer Chip
Storing Words on Paper
Storing Water in Cup
Storing Clothes in drawer
Storing Songs on Music Disk
Storing Information on Computer Disk
Storing Memories in Brain

Now we can organize it into a comparative unit and common descriptions:

Refrigerator Storing Refrigerator Food
Safe Storing Safe Food
Computer Storing Computer Food
Paper Storing Paper Food
Cup Storing Cup Food
Drawer Storing Drawer Food
Music Disk Storing Music Food
Computer Disk Storing Computer Food
Brian Storing Brain Food

105
Now as we can see, this is a group of kinds. We’ve given them all
together a common kinds and relations description calling it ‘the storage
concept’.
By giving them all a common description to the left it increases our kinds
integration of each of its relations.
We can also expand groups of relations by finding other things related to
it. Let's consider the brain. What other things, or relations, do we know about
the brain?

Let’s see:

We know that the brain stores memories, so we can add 'brain memory' to
the relations.

We know that the brain also requires perception in order to store those
memories. Thus, we can add to the form of relations 'brain perception'.

And even more can be added to 'brain perception' and 'brain memory', in
which will also corresponding to their other remaining kinds, but differently
according to their relative difference.

The Evaporation Concept

Water evaporates into the sky, and the rains falls down continually. This
is the evaporation concept. What would be an example of this concept appearing
in other realms of knowledge?

Gases Evaporate in to other forms at certain temperatures
Liquids Evaporates in to another form a certain temperatures.
Solids Evaporate into other forms at certain temperatures.
Therefore, Plasma Evaporate into other forms at certain temperatures.

Gases normally turn into lesser dense states of matter.
Liquid normally turn into lesser dense states of matter.
Solids normal turn into less dense states of matter.
Therefore, plasma evaporates into lesser dense states of matter at certain
temperatures.

Kinds

Gases
Liquids
Solids
Plasma

106
Adding Relations with Kinds Common Description

Gases Evaporate At Certain Temperatures
Liquids Evaporate At Certain Temperatures
Solids Evaporate At Certain Temperatures
Plasma Evaporate At Certain Temperatures

Kinds Relations –Description Comparative Unit

Gas Gas Evaporation Gas Evaporation Temperature
Liquids Liquid Evaporation Liquid Evaporation Temperature
Solids Solid Evaporation Solid Evaporation Temperature
Plasma Plasma Evaporation Plasma Evaporation Temperature

The Evaporation Concept is also part of the Evolution Concept

Gases change in relation to its environment temperature.
Liquids change in relation to its environment temperature.
Solids change in relation to its environment temperature.
Plasma changes in relation to its environment temperature.
Animals' bodies change in relation to their environmental circumstances.

The Evaporation Concept is a Part of the Gravity Concept just on distant parts of
a much larger spectrum.

When a unit of matter with a specific amount of mass is taken to another
planet with different mass, the gravitational attraction between the mass and that
planet changes. Thus, just like the evolution concept, and the evaporation
concept, it changes to its environment. We can see that just like distinct plants
on earth, so also are concepts. They may appear to be different, but concepts
can be expanded to other realms of knowledge.

The Conversion Concept

A common description that applies to a large portion of the spectrum of
knowledge would be The Conversion Concept.

We know that energy converts from one form to another:

When we push a bowling ball, we convert energy from us into the form of
the motion of the ball.

When we sleep we convert energy of the mind to other forms and
dimensions.

107
When we read books, we convert the energy of knowledge into our mind
as understanding.

When we jump we convert the energy of our leg muscles into the form of
rising in the air.

When we attempt to think, energy from our energy bank is converted into
the form of thought.

When we go to buy things at our local grocery story, we convert the
energy of our money into the form of goods.

The Quantity Concept

Another concept that applies to large portions of difference is the quantity
concept. Almost all things can be thought of as quantity: energy, time, space,
motion, etc.
If we were to think of all things in the Universe is just a plane invisible
black quantity of things. We can clearly see that it applies to larger portions of
difference than most descriptions.

Space Quantity
Time Quantity
Motion Quantity
Force Quantity
Mass Quantity
Intention Quantity

With such large Kinds Common Descriptions, such as ‘quantity’, we can
not only see how things are kind, but also, that on much larger scales, the kinds
can become related. I suspect that just as there are such equations to unite
mass to force and so forth, so also there are equations to unit space, time, mass,
motion, force, and so on.

Building Comparative Units
Now with building comparative units, we can start off with anything known,
or anything that can be explained or describe using words, numbers, or any other
form of symbolization. In the case of this comparative unit we are going to build,
we will work with the color ‘red’. We’ll then compute it within comparative space
as follows:

Red

108
Now what things are kind to red? Within the comparative unit, we know
that kinds are vertical each other. We can place the color orange, most kind to it,
to begin creating a spectrum.

Red
Orange

We continue the process: what is kind to orange?

Red
Orange
Yellow

What things are kind to yellow? And so on…

Red
Orange
Yellow
Green
Blue
Purple

109
One of the principle states that not only does everything that can be
known belong to an infinite spectrum of kinds, but also an infinite form of
relations. So what things are related to any one of the kinds? What is something
we know that is related, or associated with the color red? We know apples are
red, so we can compute them within the comparative space:

Red Apple
Orange
Yellow
Green
Blue
Purple

Moving on, what is kind to apple, and at the same time, related to orange?
We know that the orange fruit fits within the comparative unit where it is related to
the color orange and of the same kind or spectrum of kinds as that of the apple.
Red is to Apple as Orange is to Orange or Orange is to Red as Orange is to
Apple.

Red Apple
Orange Orange
Yellow
Green
Blue
Purple

Now what is kind to orange and also related to the color yellow? We know
that apples are related to the color red. We know that oranges are related to the
color orange. We know that the color yellow is related to lemons.

Red Apple
Orange Orange
Yellow Lemon
Green
Blue
Purple

110
Thus we can compute the remaining corresponding relations.

Red Apple
Orange Orange
Yellow Lemon
Green Lime
Blue Berries
Purple Grapes

However, since we can only perceive a finite portion of kinds and relations
space, at any given time, we can always add to the comparative unit its relations
and kinds. Just as there are things that are related to the color red, what are
some things that are related to the fruit 'apple'? Apples are related to apple trees.

Red Apple Apple Tree
Orange Orange
Yellow Lemon
Green Lime
Blue Berries
Purple Grapes

Apple Trees are related to their own kind of seeds.

Red Apple Apple Tree Apple Tree Seeds
Orange Orange
Yellow Lemon
Green Lime
Blue Berries
Purple Grapes

Apple tree seeds are related to their own type of ground needed best for
them to grow.

Red Apple Apple Tree Apple Tree Seeds Apple Tree Seed Ground
Orange Orange
Yellow Lemon

111
Green Lime
Blue Berries
Purple Grapes

Now since comparative units can always be completed. We can fill in the
comparative unit with the corresponding relations and kinds. What is to orange
as apple tree is to apple?

Red Apple Apple Tree Apple Tree Seeds Apple Tree Seed Ground
Orange Orange Orange Tree
Yellow Lemon
Green Lime
Blue Berries
Purple Grapes

What is to Orange tree as apple tree seeds are to apple trees?

Red Apple Apple Tree Apple Tree Seeds Apple Tree Seed Ground
Orange Orange Orange Tree Orange Tree Seeds
Yellow Lemon
Green Lime
Blue Berries
Purple Grapes

What is to Orange Tree Seeds as Apple tree seed grounds is to apple tree
seeds?

Red Apple Apple Tree Apple Tree Seeds Apple Tree Seed Ground
Orange Orange Orange Tree Orange Tree Seeds Orange Tree Seed Ground
Yellow Lemon
Green Lime
Blue Berries
Purple Grapes

What are the remaining kinds of the tree spectrum that are corresponding
relations of the remaining kinds of the fruit spectrum?

112
Red Apple Apple Tree Apple Tree Seeds Apple Tree Seed Ground
Orange Orange Orange Tree Orange Tree Seeds Orange Tree Seed Ground
Yellow Lemon Lemon Tree
Green Lime Lime Tree
Blue Berries Berry Tree
Purple Grapes Grape Tree

Red Apple Apple Tree Apple Tree Seeds Apple Tree Seed Ground
Orange Orange Orange Tree Orange Tree Seeds Orange Tree Seed Ground
Yellow Lemon Lemon Tree Lemon Tree Seeds Lemon Tree Seed Ground
Green Lime Lime Tree Lime Tree Seeds Lime Tree Seed Ground
Blue Berries Berry Tree Berry Tree Seeds Berry Tree Seed Ground
Purple Grapes Grape Tree Grape Tree Seeds Grape Tree Seed Ground

113
For systems of the human body, we can start off with the kinds of
receiving our body undergoes:

With the previous comparative unit, we started off with the kinds of
receiving:

We receive by eating, perception, absorbing, and grabbing.

Eating food allows us to receive by eating.

Observing events allows us to receive by perception.

Inhaling air allows us to receive by breathing.

Picking up objects allows us to receive by grabbing.

114
The law states, that if two or more things are kind, and one has an extra
relation(s) then there exists corresponding relations to the remaining kinds.
Therefore, if we know that the food digestive system has various organs and
parts undergoing the process, we can automatically conclude that there is a
system but a different kind of system that undergoes fairly the same thing:

We can conclude that there’s a kind of digestive system after observing
events with our perception.

We can conclude that there’s a kind of digestive system after inhaling air
with our breathing

We can conclude that there’s a kind of digestive system after we pick up
objects with our grabbing.

We can conclude that there’s a kind of digestive system after we perceive
events with our perception

More Comparative Units

We can start off with anything known:

Ghosts

Now what spectrum of kinds does ‘ghosts’ belong to? It belongs to the
spectrum such as mysterious things, thus we can add some of things that are
kind to it – that are also mysterious things:

Ghosts
Fairies
Angles
Aliens

What things do we know of that are related to ghosts? We know that
people have ghost experiences:

115
Ghosts Ghost Experiences
Fairies
Angles
Aliens

What are some things we know that are related to ‘ghost experiences’?
We know that people take ghosts pictures:

Ghosts Ghost Experiences Ghost Pictures
Fairies
Angles
Aliens

What are some things related to ‘ghost pictures’? We know that there
must be ghost worlds: And we can go on and on to find all the relations related
to ghost and organize them within the comparative unit:

Ghosts Ghost Experiences Ghost Pictures Ghost World
Fairies
Angles
Aliens

Now since comparative units can always be completed, and since if two or
more things are kind and one has extra relation(s) then there exists
corresponding relations to the remaining kinds, thus, we can conclude that there
are fairy experiences; that there are angel experiences; and that there are alien
experiences. We can conclude that there must be some form of fairy pictures;
some form of angle pictures; and some form of alien pictures. We can also
conclude that there must be some form of fairy world; angel world; and alien
worlds.
With this comparative unit, by just simply keeping the left descriptions of
the vertical units common and keeping the right descriptions of horizontal units
common, we can create descriptions of the corresponding relations of the
comparative unit:

Ghosts Ghost Experiences Ghost Pictures Ghost World
Fairies Fairy Experiences Fairy Pictures Fairy World
Angles Angels Experiences Angle Pictures Angel World
Aliens Alien Experiences Alien Pictures Alien World

116
However, since we only perceive a finite portion of comparative space,
there are many more mysterious creatures, experiences, and worlds;
nonetheless, we perceive only a finite portion at any given time.
We can also give each form of relations a common togetherness
description:

Ghosts Relations
Fairies Relations
Angel Relations
Aliens Relations

And we can divide them apart into some of their relations:

Ghosts Ghost Experiences Ghost Pictures Ghost World
Fairies Fairy Experiences Fairy Pictures Fairy World
Angles Angels Experiences Angle Pictures Angel World
Aliens Alien Experiences Alien Pictures Alien World

We can also group each spectrum with a common description

Mysterious Beings Mysterious Experiences Mysterious Pictures Mysterious Worlds

And as with relations we can divide each relation into some of there kinds:

Ghosts Ghost Experiences Ghost Pictures Ghost World
Fairies Fairy Experiences Fairy Pictures Fairy World
Angles Angels Experiences Angle Pictures Angel World
Aliens Alien Experiences Alien Pictures Alien World

More comparative units:

Step 1:

Earthquakes

Step 2:

117
Earthquakes
Volcanoes

Step 3:

Earthquakes
Volcanoes
Hurricanes

Step 4:

Earthquakes
Volcanoes
Hurricanes
Tornadoes

Step 5:

Earthquakes Earthquake Places
Volcanoes
Hurricanes
Tornadoes

Step 6 and 7:

Earthquakes Earthquake Places Earthquake Eruption Earthquake Cause
Volcanoes
Hurricanes
Tornadoes

Step 10:

Earthquakes Earthquake Places Earthquake Eruption Earthquake Cause
Volcanoes Volcanoes Places
Hurricanes Hurricane Places
Tornadoes Tornado Places

Step 11:

118
Earthquakes Earthquake Places Earthquake Eruption Earthquake Cause
Volcanoes Volcanoes Places Volcano Eruptions
Hurricanes Hurricane Places
Tornadoes Tornado Places

Step 12 and 13:

Earthquakes Earthquake Places Earthquake Eruption Earthquake Cause
Volcanoes Volcanoes Places Volcano Eruptions
Hurricanes Hurricane Places Hurricane Eruptions
Tornadoes Tornado Places Tornado Eruptions

Step 16:

Earthquakes Earthquake Places Earthquake Eruption Earthquake Cause
Volcanoes Volcanoes Places Volcano Eruptions Volcano Cause
Hurricanes Hurricane Places Hurricane Eruptions Hurricane Cause
Tornadoes Tornado Places Tornado Eruptions Tornado Cause

Step 1:

Telephone

Step 4:

Telephone
Radio
Television
Internet

Step 6:

Telephone
Radio
Television Television Shows Television Inventor
Internet

Step 7:

119
Telephone
Radio Radio Inventor
Television Television Shows Television Inventor
Internet

Step 9:

Telephone Telephone Inventor
Radio Radio Inventor
Television Television Shows Television Inventor
Internet Internet Inventors

Step 10:

Telephone Telephone Inventor
Radio Radio Inventor Radio Sizes
Television Television Shows Television Inventor
Internet Internet Inventors

Step 13:

Telephone Telephone Inventor Telephone Sizes
Radio Radio Inventor Radio Sizes
Television Television Shows Television Inventor Television Sizes
Internet Internet Inventors Internet Sizes

Step 16:

Telephone Telephone Shows Telephone Inventor Telephone Sizes
Radio Radio Shows Radio Inventor Radio Sizes
Television Television Shows Television Inventor Television Sizes
Internet Internet Shows Internet Inventors Internet Sizes

120
Step 1:

Boat

Step 4:

Boat
Car
Airplane
Rocket

Step 7:

Boat Water Fish Swimming
Car
Airplane
Rocket

Step 16:

Boat Water Fish Swimming
Car Ground Deer Running
Airplane Air Birds Flying
Rocket Space Asteroids Floating

Step 1:

Fire Fighter

121
Step 5:

Fire Fighter
Detective
Police Officer
Doctor
Lawyer

Step 7:

Fire Fighter
Detective
Police Officer
Doctor
Lawyer Lawyer Tools Lawyer Offices

Step 15:

Fire Fighter Fire Fighter Tools Fire Fighter Offices
Detective Detective Tools Detective Offices
Police Officer Police Tools Police Offices
Doctor Doctor Tools Doctor Offices
Lawyer Lawyer Tools Lawyer Offices

Step 17:

122
Step 21:

Step 1:

Ants

123
Step 4:

Ants
Spiders
Crickets
Roaches

Step 5:

Ants
Spiders
Crickets Cricket Legs
Roaches

Step 10:

Ants Ant Legs
Spiders Spider Legs
Crickets Cricket Legs Cricket Constructions
Roaches Roach Legs

Step 15:

Ants Ant Legs Ant Constructions
Spiders Spider Legs Spider Constructions
Crickets Cricket Legs Cricket Constructions
Roaches Roach Legs Roach Constructions

124
Step 1:

K

Step 8:

K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R

125
Step 10:

K Eleventh Letter of Alphabet Kite
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R

Step 17:

K Eleventh Letter of Alphabet Kite
L Twelfth Letter of Alphabet
M Thirteenth Letter of Alphabet
N Fourteenth Letter of Alphabet
O Fifteenth Letter of Alphabet
P Sixteenth Letter of Alphabet
Q Seventeenth Letter of Alphabet
R Eighteenth Letter of Alphabet

Step 24:

K Eleventh Letter of Alphabet Kite
L Twelfth Letter of Alphabet Load
M Thirteenth Letter of Alphabet More
N Fourteenth Letter of Alphabet Note
O Fifteenth Letter of Alphabet Open
P Sixteenth Letter of Alphabet Paint
Q Seventeenth Letter of Alphabet Quite
R Eighteenth Letter of Alphabet Road

Step 1:

Triangle

126
Step 7:

Triangle
Square
Pentagon
Hexagon
Heptagon
Octagon
Nonagon

Step 10:

Triangle 3 Sides Triangle Equations Triangle Forms
Square
Pentagon
Hexagon
Heptagon
Octagon
Nonagon

Step 21:

Triangle 3 Sides Triangle Equations Triangles Forms
Square 4 Sides Square Equations Squares Forms
Pentagon 5 Sides Pentagon Equations Pentagon Forms
Hexagon 6 Sides Hexagon Equations Hexagon Forms
Heptagon 7 Sides Heptagon Equations Heptagon Forms
Octagon 8 Sides Octagon Equations Octagon Forms
Nonagon 9 Sides Nonagon Equations Nonagon Forms

127
Step 1:

Shorts Makers

Step 4:

Shorts Makers
Pants Makers
Belt Makers
Shirt Makers

Step 7:

Shorts Makers Shorts Brands Shorts Stores
Pants Makers
Belt Makers
Shirt Makers

Step 12:

128
Shorts Makers Shorts Brands Shorts Stores
Pants Makers Pants Brands Pant Stores
Belt Makers Belt Brands Belt Stores
Shirt Makers Shirt Brands Shirt Stores

Placing Comparative Unit within Comparative Unit

Step 1:

Imagination

129
Step 8:

Imagination
Emotions
Intentions
Awareness
Reason
Belief
Hope
Faith

Step 11:

Imagination The World of Imagination The Purpose of Imagination Imagination Energy
Emotions
Intentions
Awareness
Reason
Belief
Hope
Faith

Step 32:

Imagination The World of Imagination The Purpose of Imagination Imagination Energy
Emotions The World of Emotions The Purpose of Emotions Emotion Energy
Intentions The World of Intentions The Purpose of Intentions Intention Energy
Awareness The World of Awareness The Purpose of Awareness Awareness Energy
Reason The World of Reasoning The Purpose of Reasoning Reason Energy
Belief The World of Believing The Purpose of Believing Belief Energy
Hope The World of Hoping The Purpose of Hoping Hope Energy
Faith The World of Faith The Purpose of Faith Faith Energy

130
Step 1:

Hand Bones

Step 5:

Hand Bones
Arm Bones
Leg Bones
Feet Bones
Back Bones

Step 6:

Hand Bones Hand Muscles
Arm Bones
Leg Bones
Feet Bones
Back Bones

Step 10:

Hand Bones Hand Muscles
Arm Bones Arm Muscles
Leg Bones Leg Muscles
Feet Bones Feet Muscles
Back Bones Back Muscles

Step 1:

Hand Skin

Step 5:

131
Hand Skin
Arm Skin
Leg Skin
Feet Skin
Back Skin

Step 6:

Hand Skin Hand Function
Arm Skin
Leg Skin
Feet Skin
Back Skin

Step 10:

Hand Skin Hand Function
Arm Skin Arm Function
Leg Skin Leg Function
Feet Skin Feet Function
Back Skin Back Function

Common Relations Descriptions:

Step 1:

Shoulder Bones

Step 5:

Shoulder Bones

132
Rib Bones
Heel Bones
Head Bones
Face Bones

Step 6:

Shoulder Bones Shoulder Muscles
Rib Bones
Heel Bones
Head Bones
Face Bones

Step 10:

Shoulder Bones Shoulder Muscles
Rib Bones Rib Muscles
Heel Bones Heel Muscles
Head Bones Head Muscles
Face Bones Face Muscles

Comparative Unit with Common Kinds Description:

Step 1:

Shoulder Skin

133
Step 5:

Shoulder Skin
Rib Skin
Heel Skin
Head Skin
Face Skin

Step 6:

Shoulder Skin Shoulder Function
Rib Skin
Heel Skin
Head Skin
Face Skin

Step 10:

Shoulder Skin Shoulder Function
Rib Skin Rib Function
Heel Skin Heel Function
Head Skin Head Function
Face Skin Face Function

134
Comparative-Comparative Units:
Comparative Units with Common Relations and Kinds Description

Hand Bones Hand Muscles Hand Skin Hand Function
Arm Bones Arm Muscles Arm Skin Arm Function
Leg Bones Leg Muscles Leg Skin Leg Function
Feet Bones Feet Muscles Feet Skin Feet Function
Back Bones Back Muscles Back Skin Back Function
Shoulder Bones Shoulder Muscles Shoulder Skin Shoulder Function
Rib Bones Rib Muscles Rib Skin Rib Function
Heel Bones Heel Muscles Heel Skin Heel Function
Head Bones Head Muscles Head Skin Head Function
Face Bones Face Muscles Face Skin Face Function

As we can see, everything that can be known or understood has its place
within comparative space. Experiments can be done with all realms of
understanding and even new knowledge that is to evolve years to come.
Also, as we can see, by building comparative units we can comparative
things we never could compare before without them. By building comparative
units, comparative knowledge is in one of its simplest forms.

135
The Warping of the Dimensions
Kinds are Relations.

Relations are Kinds.

Up until now, I have described kinds and relations as being separate
entities. Nevertheless, in this section I want to point out and make it clear that
kinds within Kinds Space are also relations and those relations within Relations
Space are also kinds.
For example, we have many kinds of systems of the human body. All
these systems are distinct, or different, and they all are similar. They all belong
to Kinds Space:

Kinds of the Human Body:

Skeletal System
Muscular System
Cardiovascular System
Nervous System
Immune System
Endocrine System
Skin System
Respiratory System
Urinary System
Digestive System

However, the important thing to understand is that they all are also
relations. They all also work together. Those kinds are also relations.

Relations of the Human Body:

Human Skeletal System
Human Muscular System
Human Cardiovascular System
Human Nervous System
Human Immune System
Human Endocrine System
Human Skin System
Human Respiratory System
Human Urinary System
Human Digestive System

So as we can see, even though things are kinds does not mean they are
not relations. For all things are kinds and relations. Likewise, even though

136
things are relations does not mean they are not kinds. For all things are relations
and kinds.

The way the human body is structured, where there are different and
similar things, but also those different and similar things work together is not
different than the Universe itself. Two cows on earth may be very similar, and
they may be on different sides of the globe, but they are still relations; they still
are part of the earth form. They still are part of the relations system. Likewise,
relations such as water and fish, may appear to not be kinds, but they are. They
are both distinct things in which we can give a Kinds Common Description
'energy'.
Kinds Space is a part of Relations Space, and Relations Space is a part of
Kinds Space. Even though Kinds space is the knowledge of differences and
similarities, all differences and similarities in the Universe are relations, no matter
how distinct or alike they are. Likewise, even though Relations Space is the
knowledge of interconnections and separations, those interconnections and
separations are distinct and similar; therefore, they also belong to Kinds Space.

Kinds can be physically mixed into Relations creating more complex
structures.

It is apparent that universally kinds are relations. However, many times
kinds are so far apart that to understand them as relations requires an individual
to have a much larger perspective of the whole. This individual may see that the
kinds are relations, but their relations relationship measurement could very slim
because they are very far apart. This is where the will of the human being comes
into play. We are able to physically make kinds more related by mixing them
closer together in space-time. We are able to mix kinds into relations to create
more complex structures, and to make them denser relative to how they were
when they were farther apart. This applies to all kinds that our minds are capable
of knowing, if indeed the kinds are not already dense enough for our mind to
comprehend them as relations.
The generation of new ideas can be achieved by knowing the four
fundamental rules of comparative space. Additionally, by knowing the law of
mixing of kinds new structures can also be generated in to the higher levels of
comparative space.
For example, if we consider the various types of shapes, in the following
illustration, the kinds (or any form of kinds) can be mixed together to create
greater forms of complexity:

137
Other examples include:

Consider all of the kinds of colors our human eye is capable of perceiving,
we get the following:

Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, and Purple

Since we are aware of them all as kinds, they can also be combined into
more complex structures as relations. We can have a color mix with the
following:

Red and Orange = A color that is a combination of Red and Orange

Yellow and Green = A color that is a combination of Yellow and Green

Blue and Purple = A color that is a combination of Blue and Purple

Likewise, we can even mix all of the colors and create a 'new' color
composed of the many kinds of colors.

Other kinds in which we can mix are kinds of electrical appliances:

Television, Computer, Refrigerator, Microwave, Radio, Telephone

138
Television and Computer = an appliance that is combination of a
Television and a Computer

Refrigerator and Microwave = an appliance that is a combination of a
Refrigerator and Microwave

Radio and Telephone = an appliance that is a combination of a Radio and
Telephone

Likewise, we can even mix all of those appliances and create a new
appliance composed of the many kinds of appliances.

Other kinds in which we can mix are kinds of transportation:

Cars, Airplanes, Submarines, Rockets

Cars and Airplane = A transportation that is a combination of a car and an
airplane

Submarine and Rocket = a transportation that is a combination of a
submarine and a rocket.

Likewise, all four of them can be mixed together to create a kind of
transportation that is a combination of a car, airplane, submarine, and rocket.

Other kinds in which we can mix are kinds of earth life:

Birds, Fish, Plants, Humans

Birds and Fish = A life form that is a combination of a bird and a fish.

Plants and Human = a life form that is a combination of a plant and an
animal.

Likewise, all four of them can be mixed together to create a kind of life
form that is a combination of a bird, fish, plant, and human.
As we can see, by combining the kinds within kinds space not only
mentally, but physically, we can create more complex structures as if they were
relations.

Our minds have the ability to understand how one thing is a combination of
two or more distinct kinds.

In the previous contents of this book, the normal Kinds Integration and
Division refers to the simple process of perceiving two or more things as alike or
distinct. On the other hand, the Kinds-as-Relations Awareness involves another
ability of our mind to comprehend how one thing is a combination, or mixture, of

139
two or more distinct kinds.
For example, if we consider the various types of shapes, in the following
illustration, if kinds (or any form of kinds) are mixed together we are capable of
perceiving the form as a combination of two or more distinct kinds.

Other examples include:

If we were to pour apple juice and orange juice into a cup, stir and mix
them together, and if we give this cup to an individual to drink, this
individual would be able to tell it is a mixture of those specific types of
juice. Furthermore, if we add another juice, for example, grape juice, this
individual would also be able to perceive it is a mixture of the three juices.

If we were to press two distinct notes on an instrument simultaneously, an
individual who is trained in the various types of musical notes will be able
to tell it is a mixture of those specific types of musical notes. Furthermore,
if we add another note, this individual would also be able to perceive it is a
mixture of the three notes.

If two famous authors were to collaborate on a story, an individual who
knows the qualities and characteristics of the authors' stories would be
able to tell that the story is also a combination of the two authors'.
Furthermore, if we add another author, this individual would also be able
to perceive it is a mixture of the three authors.

If two parents produce an offspring, an individual who is aware of the
qualities of the two parents would perceive the child as a combination of

140
the two parents. Furthermore, if this person knew more distant relatives of
this child, the person would also be able to tell any other relatives the child
is a mixture of.

When kinds are physically combined, we also give new or combine their
descriptions.

In the previous examples, we use the kinds of shapes, colors,
transportation, appliances, and earth life. We have showed how they can be
physically mixed to create more complex structures of comparative space. What
will happen to their description when we mix kinds?
In the illustration of the shapes we have the following:

Other examples include:

If we were to combine the color red and orange, then our minds are able
to see those distinct colors mixed together, and so we can call the color
'Red-Orange' or 'Orange-Red'

141
If we were to combine the color blue and purple, then our minds are able
to see those distinct things mixed together, and so we can call the color
'Blue-Purple' or 'Purple Blue'.

If we were to combine the appliances Television and Computer, then our
minds are able to see those distinct things mixed together, and so we can
call it a 'Television Computer', or a 'Computer Television'.

If we were to combine the appliances Refrigerator and Microwave, then
our minds are able to see those distinct things mixed together, and so we
can call it a 'Refrigerator Microwave' or a 'Microwave Refrigerator'

If we were to combine the transportations Car and Airplane, then our
minds are able to see those distinct things mixed together, and so we can
call it a 'Car Airplane' or an 'Airplane Car'.

If we were to combine the transportations Submarine and Rocket, then our
minds are able to see those distinct things as mixed together, and so we
can call it a 'Submarine Rocket' or a 'Rocket Submarine'

If we were to combine the life forms Bird and Fish, then our minds are able
to see those distinct things as mixed together, and so we can call it a 'Bird
Fish' or a 'Fish Bird'.

If we were to combine the life forms Human and Plant, then our minds are
able to see those distinct things as mixed together, and so we can call it a
'Human Plant' or a 'Plant Human'.

Not all the times do we only give them two word descriptions, but many
times we combine the two words together to create one word. For example,
instead, of 'Red Orange' we would say 'Rorange'; or instead of 'Refrigerator
Microwave' we would say, 'Refrigerwave'. Also, in many cases, we give them a
completely new word separate from the two. In either case, our minds are
capable of mixing corresponding descriptions of kinds that are physically mixed
into relations.

Relations can be physically separated into Kinds creating less complex
structures.

It is apparent that universally relations are kinds. However, many times
relations are so close together that to understand them as kinds require an
individual to have a more detailed perspective of the whole. This individual may
see that the relations are kinds, but their kinds relationship measurement could
be very slim. This is where the will of the human being comes into play. We are
able to physically turn relations into kinds by separating them farther apart in

142
space-time. We are able to separate relations into kinds to create less complex
structures, and to make them less dense relative to how they were when they
were closer together. This applies to all relations that our minds are capable of
knowing, if indeed the relations are not already less dense enough for our mind
to comprehend them as kinds.
The generation of new understanding can be achieved by knowing the
four fundamental rules of comparative space. Additionally, by knowing the law of
separating of relations into kinds new understanding of the parts can be
achieved.
If we take, for example, a car - all its parts are relations. Even thou we
can mentally divided them apart and mentally see how they are connected; we
can physically divide them apart and perceive them as kinds. The separated
parts of a car can be turned into kinds:

Car Relations (physically connected):

Engine, Tire, Window, Driver, Street

Car Relations into Kinds (physically separated):

Engine
Tire
Window
Driver
Street

Human bodies we can mentally divide apart and mentally see how all its
parts are all connected; furthermore, we can physically divide them apart and
perceive them as kinds.

A computer we can mentally divide apart and mentally see how all its
parts are connected, furthermore, we can physically divide the computer
parts and perceive them as kinds.

A building we can mentally divide apart and mentally see how all its parts
are connected, furthermore, we can physically divide the building parts
and perceive them as kinds.

An airplane we can mentally divide apart and mentally see how all its parts
are connected, furthermore, we can physically divide the airplane parts
and perceive them as kinds.

As we can see, by separating the relations within relations space, not only
mentally but physically, we can create less complex structures and perceive
them as kinds.

143
Our minds have the ability to understand how many things could be a
separation of one form of relations.

In the previous contents of this book, the normal Relations Integration and
Division refers to the simple process of perceiving two or more things as
connected or separated On the other hand, Relations-as-Kinds Awareness
involves another ability of our mind to comprehend how many things could be a
separation of one form of relations.
For example, if we separate the parts of a car, even though those relations
are no longer connected we are still capable of understanding them as relations.
When they are separated they become more viewable as kinds. However, we
are still capable of understanding how the separated parts, or kinds, can be
made into one form of relations.

If we take apart a computer, even though those relations are no longer
connected, we are still capable of understanding them as relations.
Whether it is the monitor, mouse, keyboard, speakers, pc, scanner, or
printer, we are can view them as kinds, but can also see how they could
be a separation of one form of relations.

If we take apart a human being, even though those relations are no longer
connected, we are still capable of understanding them as relations.
Whether it is the heart, liver, intestines, brain, arms, legs, bones, and
muscles, we can view them as kinds, but can also see how they could be
a separation of one form of relations.

If we take apart a house, even though those relations are no longer
connected, we are still capable of understanding them as relations.
Whether it is the bricks, windows, pipes, nails, wood, carpet, paint, or
furnace, we can view them as kinds, but can also see how they could be a
separation of one form of relations.

When relations are physically separated, we also give new or separate their
descriptions.

In the previous examples of car, computer, human, and house, they all are
one word description of the given form of relations. However, when relations are
physically separated, they are no longer one form of relations, therefore, we also
separated their descriptions.

The separated parts of a car are no longer called a 'car'. They are called
engine, tires, windows, seatbelts, steering wheel, transmission, gas tank,
bolts, and so on. When we physically separate them, we also separate
their descriptions.

144
The separated parts of a computer are no longer called 'computer'. They
are called monitor, mouse, keyboard, speakers, pc, scanner, printer, and
so on. When we physically separate the 'computer', we also separate and
give them new descriptions.

The separated parts of a human being are no longer called 'human being'.
They are called heart, liver, intestines, brain, arms, legs, bones, muscles,
and so on. When we physically separate the 'human being', we also
separate and give them new descriptions.

The separated parts of a house are no longer called 'house'. They are
called bricks, windows, pipes, nails, wood, carpet, paint, furnace, and so
on. When we physically separate the 'house', we also separate and give
them new descriptions.

Rotating Comparative Units
The dimensions of Kinds Space and Relations Space are interchangeable
by rotating the comparative unit.

Therefore, this means that the words within a Comparative Unit, can be
organized either vertically or horizontally. It just depends on how all the others
are ordered. If we were to rotate a comparative unit, such that the kinds are
horizontal and the relations are vertical, we get the following:

Normal Comparative Unit:

This states:

Boat is to Water is to Fish as:
Car is to Ground is to Human as:
Airplane is to Air is to Bird.

Rotating Comparative Unit 1:

145
Even thou this Comparative Unit was Rotated, the ordered remained
constant: thus, the logic associated with each to other in their relative locations
remains constant as well:

Airplane is to Car is to Boat as:
Air is to Ground is to Water as:
Bird is to Human is to Fish

Even thou this may be hard for our minds to comprehend, the previous
statement is true. The order remained the same as in the first comparative unit.
The only difference is the rotation:

Rotating Comparative Unit 2:

Even thou this Comparative Unit was Rotated, the ordered remained
constant: thus, the logic associated with each to other in their relative locations
remains constant as well:

Bird is to Air is to Airplane as:
Human is to Ground is to Car as:
Fish is to Water is to Boat:

Rotating Comparative Unit 3:

146
Even thou this Comparative Unit was Rotated, the ordered remained
constant: thus, the logic associated with each to other in their relative locations
remains constant as well:

Fish is to Human is to Bird as:
Water is to Ground is to Air as:
Boat is to Car is to Airplane

Even thou this may be hard for our minds to comprehend, the previous
statement is true. The order remained the same as in the first comparative unit.
The only difference is the rotation:
So as we can see, Kinds are Relations and Relations are Kinds. The
Kinds within a Kinds Integration can be made into Relations within a Relations
Integration and the Relations within a Relations Integration can be made into
Kinds within a Kinds Integration. This is because all things are relations and
kinds.

147
Comparative Locative Correspondence
New logic can be gained by the correspondence of the information within
the cells of comparative space.

Within any given comparative unit, a comparative to any other comparative,
either horizontally or vertically, is equal to any other comparative to one
with the same corresponding distance and direction as the previous two
comparatives.

Book Writer Reader
Song Singer Listener
Picture Painter Viewer
Food Cooker Eater

With the previous Comparative Unit, or any one for that matter, new logic
can be gained by the correspondence of the information within the cells. All
words within each of the cells are comparatives. Each word is unique. Each
word is divided. Each word is similar. Each word is connected.
The organization of the Comparative Unit is 'that is to that as that is to
that'. When the Comparative Unit is longer, it is 'that is to that is to that as that is
to that is to that as that is to that is to that…" Nevertheless, the cells within the
Comparative Space have an 'is to as' logic not only from left to right and down,
but also from right to left and down; from up to down and right, and from down
and up to right. In the previous Comparative Unit, we know that Book is to Writer
as Song is to Singer. Their distance and direction (Book to Writer and Song to
Singer) within the cellular Comparative Space is equal. Also Book to Song and
Writer to Singer have equal distance and direction.
In this Comparative Unit, the comparatives are also highlighted. Even
though they are at distant portions of the comparative space, they still are
corresponding in distance and direction; therefore, their logic associated with
them can be achieved.

Book Writer Reader
Song Singer Listener
Picture Painter Viewer
Food Cooker Eater

Normally, we say that Book is to Reader as Food is to Eater, but also:

Reader is to Book as:
Eater is to Food.

Food is to Book as:

148
Eater is to Reader.

Book is to Food as:
Reader is to Eater.

Eater is to Reader as:
Food is to Book.

Our mind does not have the potential to figure out Food is to Book as
Eater is to Reader without Comparative Units. This is how we are able to gain
the new logic associated with them because of the comparative locative
correspondence. As long as their distance and direction is equal, then they are
corresponding.

Deductive Certainty and Uncertainty
Our minds are programmed to conclude the order of past memories as
remaining the same in the present. There exists a degree of deductive
certainty and uncertainty.

"Everything stays exactly the same as it was before?"

We compare every new and unique moment to similar experiences of the
past. Thus, if we perceive portions of a very similar experience, we immediately
deduce the corresponding, past relations. However, not all the time do events
follow the same order as our past experiences.
In order to understand why our mind automatically makes conclusions in
specific situations it is important to point out that the reason for this is that deep
down in our subconscious mind, we think the order of things in the past will
always remain the same for the present moment.
Say you go to a house to visit a group of friends. Within the house, there
are twelve. Each is all sitting down in the living room watching television. To
you, when you enter into the room, automatically your mind will store that
information. It will store the information of the entire order of that place: where
each person is sitting; what each person is wearing; where each picture is
located; and where everything is located within that space, our mind
automatically programs that into our memory.
Now say for only a few minutes you had to leave from that place for a
specific reason. When you leave, in the memory bank, that specific order is
stored in the mind as a constant. Thus now when you return back to the room,
and then enter the room, you will immediately think that everyone should be in
the exact same location as before. The pictures should be in the same location,
the same people should have on their unique shoes, and so forth. However, not

149
always is that the case. This is the reason for the Automatic Comparative
Inference of corresponding relations of our minds.
If you were to close your eyes and randomly visit the rooms within the
house, all you need to do is perceive only a specific portion of the room, and
immediately, you automatically infer the remaining comparatives. Why? This is
because deep within our subconscious we are programmed to compare our past
memories to similar present and future experiences. However, in reality, nothing
really stays exactly as the way we remember it.
For example, if you were to take four friends that you know really well,
such that: you know their voice; what they look like, what they wear, and so forth,
in your mind you have them stored as previously perceived relations. Now let’s
say you had to play a game to see how well you knew each of them. You had to
close your eyes to everything except you were allowed to see each of their
hands. Would you be able to tell which person it is? Of course. Just by seeing a
portion of the total form we have stored in our memories, we can deduce the
remaining comparatives as if it would be the same in the present moment as
before.
However, what if you had one of them speak or say something to you for
you to determine which person it is? Based on your past memories, you can
immediately determine from which person the voice is being portrayed.
Immediately you determine or create a picture in your mind based on your past
experiences, that, "He/she is the same as before." Even just by looking at each
of their shoes you would be able to determine the rest of the body the shoe
belongs to. Why? This is because we have the order of relations of past
experiences stored as constant in our memories.
However, although most of the times the order from the past is close to
constant, there are many times in our life in which we experience things in which
we make false conclusions.
For example, in the case of your four friends, if you, not knowing who they
were, had three of them leave, and had the remaining person speak to you, by
his or her voice you would be able to deduce who it is. But what if the voice you
heard was actually someone playing a recording on a tape? Thus, in that case
we assumed the order of relations of past experience will be exactly the same
now as it was before. However, although most of the times it is, but in that time,
it was not.
Even if one of your friends had to switch shoes for some odd reason, if
you were to attempt to guess the person based on their shoes, based on your
memory from the order of relations in the past, you would think one was the other
and initiate false deduction.
Many times, this occurs in life but very rarely. I suspect there exists a
percentage, but more than likely the idea that the order of relations of past
experiences is constant in the back of our mind is usually correct but many times
it isn't. It is that idea that causes that automatic comparative inference of our
minds in specific situations in our life, however there exists a degree of
comparative uncertainty of the deductive inference.

150
Explaining Itself
Relations Space and Kinds Space are Relations and Kinds

All the contents of the book up until now, I've explained the elements of
Kinds Space, Relations Space, and Comparative Space and described their
working system as being the fundamental analogy of the Universe. However, if
they are to describe everything that is known, then their description must also
apply to their self. Therefore, I am going to discuss the ideas of the kinds of
intellectual space and show how they not only describe everything that can be
known, but also their self in relation to each other.
Let's say we were to create a comparative unit of kinds and relations. We
know that we can distinguish the two dimensions, and we know that we can
relate the two dimensions.

Relations Space is the intellectual space in which things that we know
work together or are interdependent of each other in some connected
way.

Kinds Space is the intellectual space in which things that we know are
unique, or different, or distinct of each other in some way or form.

Therefore, if they both are to explain their self, we can denote Relations
Space and Kinds Space as Kinds space. We can arrange them horizontally:
Kinds Space
Relations Space

However, we know that not only are they of the same kind, but they both
are related to each other. Thus, we can organize them horizontally in Relations
Space:

Kinds Space Relations Space

Since they are both kinds and relations, we can organize them into a
comparative unit within their self:

151
This states that Kinds Space is related to Relations Space as Relations
Space is related to Kinds Space and that Kinds Space is kind to Relations Space
as Relations Space is kind to Kinds Space.

As with colors, there are kinds: so with the dimensions of human
reasoning.

And as with forms, there are parts: so with the dimensions of human
reasoning.

Both of them together explaining their self as their self create comparative
space.

The principles explain the principles.

Another aspect of this system being able to explain itself is the ability of
the principles to explain the principles. For example, the principle, "Everything is
different," also applies to all of the principles being different. Furthermore,
"Everything is similar," also applies to all of the principles being similar.
Additionally, all of the principles are also divided in space-time, in which they
were created and discovered at different times, and they also are connected in
space-time as they all work together to form this system called Comparative
Space. They even are all given Kinds and Relations Common and Uncommon
Descriptions, and are also comparatives, as some principles are more or less
similar and related than others. Each of the principles explains something
different according to their relative difference, and they all belong to Comparative
Space. We can consider all of the principles and come to notice that they also
explain their self, instead of only the things they appear to be outside them.

The Law of Comparative Wholeness and the 4
Fundamental Rules of the Comparative Space
The principles of comparative thinking reveal a new law or principle that
coincides with every aspect of all the principles already determined. This
fundamental law, or truth, is called The Law of Comparative Wholeness.
Comparative Space seeks to become whole in all its aspects. There are three
defining aspects to the Law of Comparative Wholeness.
First, Comparative Units seek to become whole by equalizing its number
of Kinds and Relations. This is concerned with the Symmetry of Comparative
Space. When the number of relations is not equal to the number of kinds, then
the comparative Unit is said to be asymmetrical. However, when the
Comparative Units have an equal number of kinds and relations, then the
Comparative Unit is symmetrical. This is the Comparative Symmetrical

152
Wholeness.
Second, Comparative Units seek to become whole by order. This is
concerning the organization of the Comparative Unit. When the relationship
measurements between the relations of Kind-Relations or the kinds of Relation-
Kinds are not constant, or equal, then the Comparative Units is not whole is
order. However, when the comparatives within comparative are organized, such
that there are corresponding relations and kinds, then the Comparative Unit is
organized. This is the Comparative Organizational Wholeness.
Third, Comparative Units seek to become whole by expansion, or growth.
This is concerning the infinite inward and outward. Kinds Space expands
indefinitely, including inwardly and outwardly. Relations Space expands
indefinitely, including inwardly and outwardly. Comparative Space seeks to
expand indefinitely inwardly and outwardly. Comparative Space also seeks to
expand in levels. Even thou a Comparative Unit may be finite, it is still not whole,
because there are other things known which expands indefinitely. This is the
Comparative Expansive Wholeness.
However, the Law of Comparative Wholeness can be explained in its
simplest form. There are four main rules associated with it, in which are called
the four fundamental rules of Comparative Space. Although these rules are
taken from the previous list of principles, I have come to notice that they are the
main ones, and describe the Symmetrical, Organizational, and Expansive
Wholeness of Comparative Space. As Sir Isaac Newton's describe the
mechanical aspects of the Universe with his three laws of motion, so with this
new law we can describe the fundamental aspects of Comparative Space. The
following are the four fundamental rules of Comparative Space:

1. Everything belongs to an infinite space of kinds.
2. Everything belongs to an infinite space of relations.
3. If two or more things are kind and one has an extra relation(s), then there
exits corresponding relations to the remaining kinds.
4. If two or more things are related and one has an extra kind(s), then there
exists corresponding kinds to the remaining relations.

With these four rules, we can compare to all knowledge in the Universe.
We can conclude that everything that can be known; everything that can be
described; everything that can be understood or comprehended has its place
within Comparative Space. This is the fundamental analogy of the Universe,
emphasized by the Law of Comparative Wholeness, and is the source in which
we are able to compare to all knowledge in our Universe.

153
Absolute Comparative Space
The principles are reversed in Absolute Comparative Space.

Throughout the contents of the book, it is apparent that Comparative
Space and its structure are as particles in the real world. Particles in the real
world have density, quantity, and organization. Particles also exist within our
regular space-time continuum. However, during course of the book, I've
explained comparative space and the things within it in relative, quantitative, and
extended manner. Nonetheless, underlying all 'things' in our physical world exist
the possibly of things not particularly 'occupying' space and/or time but is space
and/or time. These are called absolutes and reveal the fact the possibility of the
nonduality of Comparative Space.
As previously explained in the earlier sections of the book, a human with
finite perception can only perceive but so much of space-time on the higher and
lower levels. However, what about a being with infinite perception? Also, what
about a being with the perception of itself? The Universe only appears to be
extending in differences and distances because we as humans use a means of
finite detection. Nonetheless, if we had infinite perception, we would perceive no
difference or distances and if we were to observe ourselves, our essence, there
would be no difference or distances. If we had infinite perception, everything
would appear to be exactly alike: there would be no Kinds Quantity. If we had
infinite perception, everything would appear to be in the exact same location:
there would be no Relations Quantity.
The Principles of the Absoluteness of Comparative Space are preferably
opposite than the principles of the physical Comparative Space as described
within this book. In Absolute Comparative Space, everything is exactly alike and
everything is exactly connected. There is no 'more than one', but only one, and it
is non-relative.
Therefore, concerning the underlying structure, if the normal comparative
principles relate to our material physical world, where underlying the physical
material world everything seems to be reversed. Such things as 'things being
divided' are in the material world, but in the inner structures of the universe, all
things are connected. Thus we can see that it is quite the opposite. In our
material world we know that everything is different, however, in the inner
structures of existence, since everything is connected, everything must be alike.
We can see that such comparative principles are reversed, to explain the zero
and infinite world, than the 1 and more than one material world.
We can go through all the principles and see them as reversed to create
corresponding descriptions of what the world is like on the lowest levels:
For example, since in this physical world our minds focus together things
that are different and divide as if they were alike and connected. I suspect that
for the quantum world, where everything is alike and connected, that there are
mind that simply do the opposite. We, for example, focus the universe into finite
descriptions; they, however, since everything is connected and alike, divide the
universe by descriptions.

154
I suspect that the zero infinite mind creates by dividing things that are
connected, and making things different that are alike. Thus I suspect that just as
our ecosystem is composed of creatures with life that are interdependent. That
as we give off the kind of air plants need and they give off the kind we need, I
suspect that is also with the world of nothingness and infiniteness and the world
of 1 and n+1. As the zero infinite minds divide nothing into divisions in space and
time and into the differences of quantity and quality, we are able to focus those
divisions and differences into finite descriptions.
Now concerning all the other principles, I suspect that applies to each of
them as well. Both the zero and infinite and 1 and N+1 world will be kind to each
other within the comparative space, as the relationships between each of their
selves and their world's remains constant.
As we continue our understanding of the fundamental constituents of the
physical Universe that will correspond to the fundamental constituents of
Comparative Space, and from there we can create the opposite principles and
come to understand the Absoluteness of Comparative Space.

155
Glossary
Relations Space – the extension and dimension of comparative space where
things are related to each other in an interdependent connected way
Relations – things known or understood that are thought of as connected,
working together, or interdependent.
Relations Awareness – the amount of perceived relations space of any given
form of relations
Relations Levels of Composition – the inner and outer structures of forms of
relations
Relations Integration – the mental grouping of things together that are divided as
if they work together or are interdependent of each other.
Relations Division – the mental dividing of things apart that are connected as if
they were not as one
Relations Relationship Measurement – the measure of the relatedness and
apartness of two or more relations
Relations Common Description – when a group of relations have common
togetherness descriptions to denote relations integration
Relations Uncommon Description – when a group of relations have uncommon
descriptions to denote relations division
Relations Order – the organization of relations where those most related are
closest together
Relations Quantity – the number of distinct relations
Relations Density – the number of distinct relations per unit of relations
awareness
Relations Nested Patterns – state in which the order and structure of relations
within relations space form nested patterns
Relations Transitivity – property of the distant interconnectivity of relations within
relations space
Related-Kinds – spectrums of kinds that are related to other spectrums of kinds
Related-Comparative Units – comparative units that are related to other
comparative units
Kinds Space – the extension and dimension of human knowledge where things
are unique and alike in characteristics
Kinds – things known or understood that are thought of as being alike or similar
in some way.
Kinds Awareness – the amount of perceived kinds space of any give spectrum of
kinds
Kinds Levels of Composition – the inner and outer structures of spectrums of
kinds
Kinds Integration – then mental grouping of things together that are distinct as if
they were alike or similar in some way or form
Kinds Division – the mental dividing of things apart as if they were different
Kinds Relationship Measurement – the measure of similarity and difference of
two or more kinds

156
Kinds Common Description – when a group of kinds share a common description
to denote kinds integration
Kinds Uncommon Description – when a group of kinds have uncommon
descriptions to denote
Kinds Order – the organization of kinds where those most alike closest together
Kinds Quantity – the number of distinct kinds
Kinds Density – the number of distinct kinds per unit of kinds awareness
Kinds Nested Patterns – state in which the order and structure of relations within
relations space form nested patterns
Kinds Transitivity – property of the distant interconnectivity of kinds within kinds
space
Kind-Relations – forms of relations that are kind to other forms of relations
Kind-Comparative Units – comparative units that are kind to other comparative
units
Comparative Space – the extension of human reasoning where we can compare
things
Comparative Unit – units knowledge arranged in groups of cells where kinds are
ordered vertically and relations horizontally
Comparative Awareness – the amount of perceived comparative space of any
given unit of comparatives
Comparative Levels of Composition – the inner and outer structure of
comparative units
Comparatives – things know or understood that are thought of as being alike or
similar and related or interdependent
Comparative Integration – the mental grouping of things together that are distinct
as if they were comparatives
Comparative Division – the mental dividing of things apart that are comparatives
as if they were distinct
Comparative Relationship Measurement – the measure of the similarity,
difference; relatedness and apartness of 4 or more comparatives
Comparative Common Description – when a group of comparatives share a
common description
Comparative Uncommon Description – when a group of comparatives have
uncommon descriptions
Comparative Order – the organization of comparatives where those most alike
and related are closest together
Comparative Quantity – the number of distinct comparatives
Comparative Unit Density – the number of distinct comparatives per unit of
comparative awareness
Comparative Nested Patterns – state in which the order and structure of
comparatives within comparatives space form nested patterns
Comparative Transitivity – property of the distant interconnectivity of
comparatives within comparative space
Comparative-Comparative Units – comparative units that are comparatives to
other comparative units
Comparative Plane – the infinite extension of comparative space

157
Automatic Comparative Inference – process of the mind in which one
automatically deduces the corresponding relations or kinds of a given
comparative unit.
Comparative Locative Correspondence: - property of comparative space stating
the correspondence of comparatives at distant, but proportional locations within
comparative space
Deductive Certainty - the certain inferences based on the remembrance of the
order of things in the past
Deductive Uncertainty - the uncertain inferences based on the remembrance of
the order of things in the past.
The Law of Comparative Wholeness – law emphasized by the four fundamental
rules of comparative space explaining the infinite and symmetrical expansion of
comparative space.

158
List of Principles
There exist two dimensions of human reasoning that work together to create
comparative space: Kinds space and Relations space.

Kinds Space times Relations Space is Equal to Comparative Space.

The dimensions are interchangeable.

Anything that we can know or understand we can give a corresponding
description using symbolic forms.

Everything is different.

Everything is similar.

Everything is divided.

Everything is connected.

Everything being unique and alike, divided and related creates Comparative
Space.

Our mind has the ability to group together things that are unique as if they were
alike.

Our mind has the ability to group together things that are divided as if they were
related.
Our mind has the ability to group together things that are distinct and divided into
comparatives.

Our mind has the ability to divide apart things that are alike as if they were
distinct.

Our mind has the ability to divide apart things that appear to be connected as if
they were divided.

Our mind has the ability to divide apart things that appear to be alike and
connected as if they were distinct and divided.

At any given time, we can perceive only a finite portion of Kinds Space. Kinds
Space extends indefinitely.

159
The Kinds Awareness of any given spectrum of kinds can be increased to larger
portions of the spectrum.

At any given time, we can perceive only a finite portion of Relations Space.
Relations space extends indefinitely.

The Relations Awareness of any given form of relations can be increased to
larger portions of the Relations Space.

At any given time, we can perceive only a finite portion of comparative space.
Comparative space extends indefinitely.

The comparative awareness of any given unit of comparatives can be increased
to larger portions of the comparative unit.

Everything belongs to an infinite space of kinds.

Everything is composed of kinds.

Everything belongs to an infinite space of relations.

Everything is composed of relations.

Everything has its place within comparative space.

Everything is composed of comparatives.

The kinds within the infinite expansion of Kinds Space form nested patterns.

The relations within the infinite expansion of relations space form nested
patterns.

The comparatives within the infinite expansion of comparative space form nested
patterns.

If two or more things are kind, then they each are kind to each of their kinds.

If two or more things are related, then they each are related to each of their
relations.

If four or more things are comparative, then they each are comparative to each of
their comparatives.

The more alike are two or more kinds, the greater their kinds relationship
measurement.

160
The more related are two or more relations, the greater their relations
relationship measurement.

The more alike and related are four or more comparatives, the greater their
comparative relationship measurement.

Spectrums of kinds must maintain a specific order for understanding, where
those that are most alike are closest together and those least alike farthest apart.

Forms of relations must maintain a specific order for understanding, where those
that are most related are closest together and those least related farthest apart.

Comparatives within a comparative unit must maintain a specific order for
understanding, where those that are most alike and related are closest together
and those least alike and related farthest apart.

Within any given spectrum of kinds, there exists a specific Kinds Quantity.

Within any given form of relations, there exists a specific relations quantity.

Within any given unit of comparatives, there exists a specific comparative
quantity.

The greater the number of kinds within a given portion of kinds space, the greater
the kinds density.

The greater the number of relations within a given portion of relations space, the
greater the relations density.

The greater the number of comparatives within any given portions of comparative
space, the greater the comparative density.

Those things we group together as if they were alike, we give common
descriptions.

Within a Comparative Unit, the Kinds Common Description comes after the Kinds
Uncommon Descriptions; the Kinds Uncommon Descriptions come before the
Kinds Common Description.

Applying common kinds descriptions to uncommon kind descriptions and
uncommon kinds descriptions to common kinds descriptions increases our kinds
integration and division of the kinds.

Every corresponding description applies to more than one thing we consider as
alike.

161
Those things we group together as if they were related, we give a common
description.

Within a Comparative Unit, the Relations Common Description comes before the
Relations Uncommon Descriptions; the Relations Uncommon Descriptions come
after the Relations Common Description.

Applying common relations descriptions to uncommon relations descriptions and
uncommon relations descriptions to common relations descriptions increases our
relations integration and division of the relations.

Every corresponding description applies to more than one thing we consider as
related.

Those things we group together as if they were comparatives, we give a common
description.

Applying common comparative descriptions to uncommon comparative
descriptions and uncommon comparative descriptions to common comparative
descriptions increases our comparative integration and division of the
comparative parts.

Every corresponding description applies to more than one thing we consider as
comparative.

Those things we divide apart as if they were distinct, we give uncommon
descriptions.

The relations we separate as if they were divided, we give uncommon
descriptions.

Those things we divide apart as if they were separate and distinct, we give
uncommon descriptions.

Within any given spectrum of kinds, we can group and divide them into main
kinds.

Within any given form of relations, we can group and divide them into main parts.

Within any given unit of comparatives, we can group and divide them into main
parts.

Within any given comparative unit, kinds are perpendicular to relations. Kinds are
organized vertically. Relations are organized horizontally.

Difference Relates to Difference

162
Similarity Relates to Similarity

Divisions are kind to divisions.

Connections are kind to connections.

What applies to one spectrum of kinds applies to all spectrums of kinds, but
differently according to their relative difference.

What applies to one form of relations applies to all forms of relations, but
differently according to their relative difference.

If two or more things are kinds and one has an extra relation, then there exists
corresponding relations to the remaining kinds. The relationship between the
relations of each of the corresponding Kind-Relations is equal.

If two or more things are relations and one has an extra kind, then there exists
corresponding kinds to the remaining relations. The relationship between the
kinds of each of the corresponding Relation-Kinds is equal.

Comparative units can always be completed.

The greater the distance between kinds the more work is needed to find their
corresponding relations.

The greater the distance between relations the more work is needed to find their
corresponding kinds.

Corresponding relations of Kind-Relations are spectrums of kinds.

Corresponding kinds of Relation-Kinds are forms of relations.

Spectrums of kinds can be divided into Kind-Relations

Forms of relations can be divided into Relation-Kinds

Of any given comparative unit, the number of kinds of each of its Relation-Kinds
is equal to the number of Kind-Relations.

Of any given comparative unit, the number of relations of each of its Kind-
Relations is equal to the number of Relation-Kinds.

Comparative units can be related to other comparative units.

Comparative units can be kind to other comparative units.

163
Comparative units can be comparative to other comparative units.

Every word is a comparative unit.

All knowledge can be organized into a comparative unit.

The descriptions of Kind-Relations have common Relations Integration
description and an uncommon Relations Division description.

The descriptions of Relation-Kinds have common Kinds Integration description
and an uncommon Kinds Division description.

Kinds are Relations.

Relations are Kinds.

Kinds can be physically mixed into relations creating more complex structures.

Our minds have the ability to understand how one thing is a combination of two
or more distinct kinds.

When kinds are physically combined, we also give new or combine their
descriptions.

Relations can be physically separated into kinds creating less complex
structures.

Our minds have the ability to understand how many things could be a separation
of one form of relations.

When relations are physically separated, we also give new or separate their
descriptions.

Kinds Space and Relations Space can be made interchangeable by rotating
comparative units.

New logic can be gained by the locative correspondence of the information within
the cells of comparative space.

Within any given comparative unit, a comparative to any other comparative,
either horizontally or vertically, is equal to any other comparative to one with the
same corresponding distance and direction as the previous two comparatives.

164
Our minds are programmed to conclude the order of past memories as remaining
the same in the present. There exists a degree of deductive certainty and
uncertainty.

Relations Space and Kinds Space are Relations and Kinds

The principles explain the principles

The principles are reversed in Absolute Comparative Space.

165
Appendix

Elements of the Comparative Unit

166
Quantitative Relationships of Comparative Unit

CU = Comparative Unit
KR = Kind-Relations
RK = Related-Kinds
C = Comparatives of CU
R = Relations of each KR
K = Kinds of each RK
CU = C
C = CU
K = KR
KR = K
R = RK
RK = R

KR X RK = C
RK X KR = C
KR X RK = CU
RK X KR = CU
C / KR = RK
C / RK = KR
CU / KR = RK
CU / RK = KR
RXK=C
KXR=C

167
R X K = CU
K X R = CU
C/K=R
C/R=K
CU / K = R
CU / R = K

The Comparative Plane

As length and width creates a two dimensional plane in geometrical
mathematics, comparative space can be thought of as a two dimensional plane
that extends indefinitely in all four directions: up, down, left, and right.
We know that kinds are ordered vertically, and relations are ordered
horizontally, or at least perpendicular to each other.
Concerning the spectrums of each comparative plane, there are an infinite
of them, or to more easily put it, there are an infinite of relations of spectrums of
kinds, which go left and right. And on the other end, there are an infinite of kinds
of relations, which go up and down.
Thus of the comparative plane, there are an infinite spectrum of kinds, and
there are an infinite form of relations. Within each spectrum there are an infinite
of kinds, but within each comparative plane, there are an infinite of spectrum of
kinds. Within each form of relations, there are an infinite relations, but within
each comparative plane, there are an infinite of each of the form of relations.
The infinite spectrums are infinite relations. And the infinite relations are infinite
spectrums.
We can use those measurements to determine the number of
comparatives within the comparative plane. Since we know that there are an
infinite of kinds in each spectrum and infinite of relations in each form of relation,
then we can conclude that the number of comparatives within the comparative
plane, considering it is divided into infinite parts, would result in an infinite infinite
of comparatives. Or simply put:

The number of kinds within each spectrum is infinite.
The number of spectrums within each comparative plane is infinite.
The number of relations within each form is infinite
The number of form of relations within each comparative is infinite.
The number of comparatives within each comparative plane is infinite 2

Dividing the Dimensions of Human Reasoning into 4,
8, 12, 24…Dimensions of Comparative Space

168
We can also divide the dimensions of human reasoning into ‘sub’
dimensions. Throughout the years I’ve come to notice within the dimensions of
kinds, there is that of quality and quantity.

And within the dimension of relations, there’s that of space and time.

Kinds Space
Quantitative Differences and Similarities
Qualitative Differences and Similarities

Relations Space
Spatial Distances and Proximities
Time Distances and Proximities

We can organize them into a sort of comparative unit. However, it matters
little how we arrange them since they are comparatives themselves:

Quantity Space

Quality Time

I also suspect that just as we divided kinds into quality and quantity and
relations into space and time, I suspect we could divide each of the four as well
in to even more sub dimensions; and the same for each of those divisions, and
so on. In which we create infinite divisions of the comparative space.

Left and Right Brian and Relations and Kinds
As we know, the majority of the people on the earth are right handed.
Similarly, I come to notice that such understanding of the principles of the
comparative unit involving relations and kinds seem to be very similar. Most are
more aware of the relations of things than as the kinds of things. Finding
corresponding kinds to remaining kinds of kind-relations seem to be what we are
mentally already programmed to do, however, finding corresponding relations to
the remaining relations of related-kinds, which is inverse seems to require more
effort and seems to be less of what we used to do before.
But both of them are equally executable, like that of our right and left
hands, but many times, when it comes to the mind, something things are more
dominant than others. This seems to be as relations and kinds as well.

169
Evolution of New Dimensions of Human Reasoning
As we know, the process of evolution continuously undergoes as new
developments of various portions of species are created.
Concerning our evolution, certain parts of our brain developed over the
years. And thus as new parts developed, we were able to understand and do
more things.
I suspect this will be also with the dimensions of human reasoning. We
currently are aware of two, and the sub dimensions, but as the evolution of new
parts of the brain are developed, based upon the laws of evolution, so also the
evolution of new dimensions of human reasoning.
I suspect that just as concerning the evolution of the new parts of the
brain, that they all relate to each other, thus so also will the new dimensions of
human reasoning.

Alien Species and Multiple Dimensions of Human
Reasoning
Such species as that of the worm, has not much complex environment
purposes as that of such higher levels species as walking animals. The worm’s
brain makeup is not required to be as complex for its environment and purposes.
However, concerning species on higher levels of the chain, and concerning
species with more complex environmental conditions, so also evolution of the
brains of the species in proportion to their environments and purposes.
Just as there are species more complex than other species on the levels
of evolution of the earth, I suspect that there are species more complex than our
current homosapien species. As previously noted, our homosapien species
contains two dimensions of human reasoning, however, with such alien species,
or species with more complex conditions and purposes than our own, I suspect
to have multiple dimensions of human reasoning. Some species have not only
just two dimensions for two dimensional comparative space, but that of three
dimensions, and perhaps even of four and five and beyond. The relationships
between the dimensions of their human reasoning would be the same though
however but just a more complex and iterated version of our human reasoning.

The Universe as a Wave within Comparative Space
We know that the Universe is constantly undergoing change. We know
that as new kinds of things are created, and constantly older things die off. New
species come into existence, and other species become extinct.
If we were to think of the universe as comparative space, or more
precisely, considering it as finite, but comparative space infinite, we can imagine
the Universe as a wave within the comparative space: as new kinds are created

170
old kinds dies off simultaneously. As new relations are added, new spectrums
are formed and older relations die off.
In the previous example, considering the highlighted portion of
comparative space as the universe, as the wave proceeds as a whole to partake
of new portions of that comparative space, specific portions are highlight and
simultaneously its opposite portions vanish. And thus as a whole, continuously,
the universe as a wave travels through comparative space.

171
Measuring Knowledge
As previously discussed in the contents of this book, such things as
applying common descriptions to a number of distinct or divided things in
Universe, we can sort of focus the knowledge within the description, adding that
we understand its meaning. However, certain common descriptions apply to
much larger awareness of distinct and divide things in our universe.
However, as with such large things that take up great portions of space
not always mean that it has a great quantity. Such great dense objects as black
holes, having great density but such smaller area can be equivalent to such
things as great area as but with small density.
Likewise, considering measuring knowledge and the common descriptions
of greater awareness, just because a description applies to a great relations and
kinds spatial awareness of things, doesn't mean it has high relations or kinds
density. Or just because it applies to a smaller portion of relations and kinds
space, doesn't mean it has low relations or kinds density. As with the mass,
area, and density of objects within space that we can measure and determine the
quantity of the mass, so also with the relations and kinds density, the relations
and kinds space, we can determine the amount of knowledge within a given
description. Such thing as memory of detail applies to the amount of knowledge
of a description. The more memory of detail, within a given description, the more
knowledge we could say that it possesses.

172
For example, we can say, "Everything", but mentally, not remember or
have in memory the detail of everything. I suspect to accurately measure
knowledge, the density of the descriptions within each description, and the level
of awareness it applies to would have to with doing so.

Human Inventions, Evolution, and Comparative
Completion
If you have noticed, throughout the many sections of this book, concerning
comparative units, such descriptions in the comparative unit corresponding to
things that already do exist. However, there are many things, when it comes to
building comparative unit, that don’t yet exist. This has to do with human
inventions, and evolution.
As we know, the process of evolution is constantly undergoing change.
However, with the building of comparative units, we are able to go much faster,
at least at the current rate of evolution as it is now.
Many times, when we begin to build comparative units, the new
determined relations and kinds are predictions of the future of evolution. When
we build comparative units concerning things that we as humans have invented
and created, we are selves must also create the new kinds of the corresponding
relations of the comparative unit. However, concerning evolution itself, outside of
human consciousness, there are things that it has created on its own, but so
also, with the building of comparative units, we find many times, new kinds or
relations, that evolution hasn’t yet created.
I suspect that with comparative completion, our mind evolves faster than
the rate of current evolution, and that of human inventions, once we reach the
levels of comparative knowledge in its highest forms, will have to take its place.

Shifting Realities and Comparative Space
Such things as dreams, we can think of as being kind to our physical
awakening world. Many psychologists and dream interpreters come to conclude
such things as dream dictionaries of symbols in dreams corresponding to the
things in our everyday life.
I suspect that when undergoing symbolic dreams our mind simply just
shifts to a lower or higher spectrum of reality. And thus, just as with colors, even
though they can shift, the relationships to their self remain the same, so also with
that of our reality and dreams.
I suspect that dreams are in reality, the same reality we live in our every
day awakening world, but it is just that everything is shifted and appears different.
Everything shifts in proportion such that the entire world around us and within us
changes, similar to like the red shift of frequencies of colors of light. The

173
relationships of all the relations of our environment remain the same, concerning
each reality; we just shift to higher or lower levels of the spectrum.
And as with the finite perceptions of any given spectrum, thus more than
likely it applies to all realities. If we ever shift to realities on higher or lower levels
of the spectrum, in reality, they are all the same reality we live in everyday, it's
just that everything undergoes a shift in portions, such that all relationships
remain the same.
All realities, or dimensions in the Universe, are as kind-relations of
comparative space. Every different reality, or world, to itself and everything else
surrounding it is equal to all other different worlds to their self and everything else
around each of them.

Finite Description, Comparative Space; Physical
Reality and Comparative Creating
Throughout the contents of the book, I’ve explained, the two kinds of
human reasoning that work together to create comparative space. Within the
comparative space can be placed descriptions of the things we know in the
Universe, such descriptions as numbers, symbols, letters etc. However, as
previously explained in the earlier sections of the book, every description applies
to more than one thing in the physical world. Our mind focuses together the
quantity of the physical world into one and we give it a corresponding description.
Thus within that word, or description, contains a given number of physical space.
And thus with each description, concerning placing each of them within
comparative space, we can conclude that each symbol within it, isn’t exactly the
physical world, but a mental knowing of it.
Words describe our physical world, words, or more precisely, their
description, however, are not physical. So when we attempt to place things
known within comparative space, we are only doing so in part because of the
finite descriptions our minds are capable of undergoing.
However, our beings are not only capable of understanding the universe
but also, we are capable of creating. We are not only capable of absorbing the
knowledge of existence and placing it within finite words, but we are also capable
of building houses, creating plants, and all other forms of creation.
With our finite description and the two dimension of human reasoning, in
the actually physical world, there are multiple dimensions. As previously
discussed, the dimension of relations can be divided into space and time, and the
dimension of kinds into quantity and quality. And just as space can be divided
into its dimensions, I suspect so also with time, quantity and quality. And we can
keep on doing so all the way to infinite, or like the roots of a tree.
So what does this have to do with the physical world and finite
description?
Earlier in the sections of the book I’ve explained how such things as new
inventions can be thought out to exist, or that new kinds of species can

174
correspond to certain kind of environments just like our earth. But what is the
physical make up of these things thing that are deduced by the principles of
comparative thinking? As we can see, since our mind focuses large portions of
the universe, into finite descriptions, so we can say such things exists, by the
physical make up would still have to be created. In order to successfully
compute and compare the physical world like we’ve done within the finite world of
knowledge and words, I suspect we would have to conclude the multiple
dimensions of comparative space as well. So in a sense, kinds space and
relations space, are the two dimensions of reasoning, to create comparative
space. However, to create comparative forms in the real world would require
more complexity of the multiple and sub dimensions and of computational
creating rather than the organizing of finite words of knowledge within
informational comparative space.

The Warping of Kinds and Relations Space
Throughout this book, I’ve mainly dealt with comparative space as a two-
dimensional plane extending in the directions of relations and kinds. However, in
our physical 3 dimensional world, it has been thought that space itself could be
curved.
We know that as we stand on earth, looking straight ahead may appear to
be straight. Or walking forward may appear as if we’re walking on a 2
dimensional plane, but as we keep going, we will find out we’ll end up on the
opposite, and if we continue, back to where we started.
I suspect concerning comparative space, that such similar things can
occur. Concerning kinds and relations space that extend perpendicular in the
various directions, I suspect that on a large scale, kinds within kinds space that
are so diverse that they begin to become relations, and relations are so diverse
that they become kinds. If we consider it as curved, we can create comparative
space as follows:

175
As a force field:

As we can see, there exists the possibility of Kinds Space and Relations
Space looping unto each other. Such things as consider it as a circle, or similar
to a force field could show how it is able to do so. Also, showing them similar to
the form of a doughnut or other kinds of curving could yield some possibilities of
such spaces being curved.

Imaginary Comparative Units
For easy understanding, I have included this section with the idea of
building comparative units within imaginary comparative space. By doing so, one
can gain a more simple and precise understanding and learn the process of
comparative construction and completion:

176
________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

177
____________________________________________________________________

178
________________________________________________________________________

179
________________________________________________________________________

180
181
182
183