“interpretation latest”

(meta-data to aid understanding of the discourse data)

By Caesar Ogole

Caesar <cogole@gmail.com>
To:cogole@gmail.com
Mar 27, 2015 at 2:26 PM

[Note: The introductory note below is a draft, to help a reader understand better the events in
this chronology: It continues to be edited, modified, augmented… so, keep checking periodically.
The final version will be significantly different. When we get there, the document will be labeled
“final”. The update will affect only the introductory section]

"We already have, therefore, one distinction to start with: between the claim or conclusion whose
merits we are seeking to establish(C) and the facts we appeal to as a foundation for the claim - what I
shall refer to as data (D). If our challenger's question is, 'What have you got to go on?', producing the
data or information on which the claim is based may serve to answer him; but this is only one of the
ways on which our conclusion may be challenged. Even after we have produced our data, we may find
ourselves being asked further questions of another kind. We may now be required not to add more
factual information to that which we have already provided, but rather to indicate the bearing on our
conclusion of the data already provided. Colloquially, the question may now be, not, 'what have you
got to go on?', but 'how do you get there?' To present a particular set of data as the basis for some
specified conclusion commits us to a certain step; and the question is now one about the nature and
the justification of this step.”, Stephen Toulmin in his textbook, The Uses of Arguments. [Toulmin
(further) argues that “jurisprudence rather than mathematics should be the logician’s model in
analyzing rational procedures”].
Part 1: Looking at the phenomenon
positively from Humanities
Perspective: Refutation as a way of
teaching virtues?
A NOTE ABOUT SOPHISM or SOPHISTRY

 It is not by accident that I noted that these documents will help the reader “appreciate”
the job offered through sophism and all that extreme annoyance, anger, etc that we
experienced, for, what I gather and have to come to understand, is that people, since time
immemorial, have looked at sophists in different ways (just as my own experience over
the past two years has confirmed). On one side, this ordeal very badly interrupted my life
in America given that it came at a time I had to focus on some major transitional issues,
disorienting me completely than I had ever expected- but on the other side, it was a great
lesson that sometimes keep me laughing to myself, that keeps me entertained in my own
mind, that keeps me momentarily (and hopefully temporarily) moody or angry, and that
leaves me sometimes muttering to myself, “life is useless. F!”! As described in that thesis
by ( now) Assoc. Prof of Political Science David Corey), “sophists would be better
understood not as dangerous teachers, but rather as beneficial teachers of practical virtue:
“Their vocation was to train up youth for the duties, the pursuits, and the successes, of
active life, both private and pubic.” What they offered over the usual education was, in
general, “a larger range of knowledge,” combined with “more impressive powers of
composition and speech,” and a “considerable treasure of accumulated thought on moral
and political subjects, calculated to make their conversation very instructive. They were
in short, thought Grote, not only effective teachers but also tremendously useful people to
have around. And while, to be sure, the masses would be suspicious on the point of their
intellect, just as Plato would be hostile on the point of their practicality, the truth is that
Athenian society would have been far worse without them”.
More interesting: “The sophists taught wealthy elite how to rule over the masses and they
describe themselves in expressly elitist terms. The second theory is much more dramatic:
the sophists were essentially immoral—if they were not overtly immoral, then they were
covertly immoral or they were on a slippery slope to immorality—and Plato, perceiving
this, wanted to show his readers how wicked and dangerous they really were. Those who
take this view present the conflict between Plato and the sophists as an epochal battle
between order and disorder or as an eternal tension between “natural right” and
“vulgar conventionalism.” We saw vulgar and words such as “pissed” repeatedly used,
among the numerous ones...

Isn’t sophism outdated? Isn’t it illegal unless the

learner has consented to be ‘taught’ that way? Isn’t
it illegal in the context of non-profit…?

The thesis has this to say of “refutation”, the practice of refuting one’s comrades by
means of a question-and-answer style of conversation (or “negative energy”- we
commonly called in LAONA), a practice that characterized LAONA episodes here:

“The more one thinks about it, though, the more refutation—even Socratic refutation—
seems a rather odd way of teaching virtue. For one thing, it tends to make people angry
more often than it makes them gentle: “You are well advised not to leave Athens and live
abroad,” says the just-refuted Meno to Socrates, “for if you behaved like this as a
foreigner in another country, you would most likely be arrested as a sorcerer” (Meno
80b). In fact, when the question comes up at Socrates’ trial why so many people are
angry with him, Socrates points to just one thing: his practice of refutation. Socrates
recalls for his jury how he went around refuting the politicians and became hated
(apêxthomên) not only by them but also by everyone present. He tells how he moved on
to the poets and craftsmen, and again felt himself “becoming hated”. Finally, he relates
how certain youths tried to imitate his refutations by refuting others in a Socratic manner;
and Socrates became hated for this as well (23c8-9). Thus, far from rendering people
gentle, refutation seems to have systematically turned people against Socrates. Indeed
his elenchtic enterprise alone, according to his own testimony, produced a city full of
people so hostile towards him that they dragged him into court and sought to put an end
to his life. In the face of evidence like this, it is difficult to maintain that refutation can be
relied upon for a positive moral effect.”

The dangers or the evil of applying unconventional

methods indiscriminately…

Of course, unlike in the case described above, ours posed a real danger [to the minds of
the members, and their relationships, in general] and this stems from the constrainsts
imposed by forced closed and/or restricted (unhealthy) system of logic (or suppression of
freedom of speech, as it is known in everyday use) in the name of protocol (that
classifiers even Board members into members with voting rights, and those with super
voting rights), constitution (with stuffed up content such as Robert’s rules of order), by-
laws (some of the content being unnecessary redundancy), code of conduct laws (poorly
worded with some of the content being unnecessary redundancy) . For example, a part of
a proposed code of conduct read, “… where maximum respect is generally, not only
accorded to gender, age and political differences, but also highly encouraged.” What
does that mean? Given two adult people, male and female, according to the statement
above, would one be expected to accord a male more respect? Or accord female more
respect? Even before that, how can I ascertain that a person is male or female – in this
society with a growing number of transgender members (who must be treated with equal
respect)? All these are aggravated by rampant dishonesty or a web of deceptions and the
virtual social setting of the community- making it hard to verify facts. An exuberant
sceptic (critical thinker who follows the events closely) is more likely to take a right
course of action than an obsequious, gullible individual who wants to be seen as nice, for
example. Under such a setting, it is better to be adur (mean) rather than generous, for
example. It becomes a real problem. Not anymore well-intentioned, but rather a society
that seeks to destroy itself – and perhaps, in the best case, save a few people who
manipulated the virtue of trust and/or ignorance to their advantage! This is evil, in the
truest sense. It ceases to be teaching of virtues (as some sophists in the ancient times used
to do it.. ). Looked another way, this design is nothing but a cult, as some members
 observed in 2013. Its complex design makes it hard for most everyone to take the right
course of action (especially he who didn’t follow from the beginning or he who has
trouble comprehending a critical aspect of the phenomenon for one reason or the other).
Let’s hope this document (and the references provided) will help bring about that
understanding.
Of course, a case against sophism has been raised in some critiques. To that, I
summarize that a person who would gain the most is that person not only with good
intentions, but that person with immediate interest in the affairs, and must have the
resources (e.g. library) or support systems at disposal to unlock the potential. That
person, I should add, must already have some fair understanding of the language and
logic (at a minimum) and must be willing to learn more virtues (very aggressively) amid
the frustrations of refutations and negativities and all the risks associated with the
initiation, if you will.

Interlude... Highlighting the role of a scholar…

Sometimes, people mistakenly [and with a negative connotation] call such a person- a person
with “many degrees” or professions. That’s a misconception, of course. A scholar draws
inspiration from any field, as we have have exemplied in various sections of this document. A
scholar does not have to be paid a dime to do his job…

Some great excerpts from Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essay, “The American Scholar” -
highlighting a major part of the everchanging role

1. The scholar’s call to duty : “In this view of him, as Man Thinking, the theory of his
office is contained. Him nature solicits with all her placid, all her monitory pictures; him
the past instructs; him the future invites. Is not, indeed, every man a student, and do not
 all things exist for the student's behoof? And, finally, is not the true scholar the only true
master? But the old oracle said, ‘All things have two handles: beware of the wrong one.’
In life, too often, the scholar errs with mankind and forfeits his privilege. Let us see him
in his school, and consider him in reference to the main influences he receives.” –

2. The scholar is he of all men whom this spectacle most engages: “The first in time and
the first in importance of the influences upon the mind is that of nature. Every day, the
sun; and, after sunset, night and her stars. Ever the winds blow; ever the grass grows.
Every day, men and women, conversing, beholding and beholden. The scholar is he of all
men whom this spectacle most engages. He must settle its value in his mind. What is
nature to him? There is never a beginning, there is never an end, to the inexplicable
continuity of this web of God, but always circular power returning into itself. “,

3. A scholar should not hide his head like an ostrich… for he does not belong to the
protected class of women and children: In self-trust, all the virtues are comprehended.
Free should the scholar be, ⎯ free and brave. Free even to the definition of freedom,
“without any hindrance that does not arise out of his own constitution.” Brave; for fear
is a thing, which a scholar by his very function puts behind him. Fear always springs
from ignorance. It is a shame to him if his tranquillity, amid dangerous times, arise from
the presumption, that, like children and women, his is a protected class; or if he seeks a
temporary peace by the diversion of his thoughts from politics or vexed questions, hiding
his head like an ostrich in the flowering bushes, peeping into microscopes, and turning
rhymes, as a boy whistles to keep his courage up. So is the danger a danger still; so is the
fear worse. Manlike let him turn and face it. Let him look into its eye and search its
nature, inspect its origin, ⎯ see the whelping of this lion, ⎯ which lies no great way back;
he will then find in himself a perfect comprehension of its nature and extent; he will have
made his hands meet on the other side, and can henceforth defy it, and pass on superior.
The world is his, who can see through its pretension. What deafness, what stone-blind
custom, what overgrown error you behold, is there only by sufferance, ⎯ by your
sufferance. See it to be a lie, and you have already dealt it its mortal blow.
Part 2: Looking at the phenomenon
positively from Data Theory or rather,
a more scientific perspective

Defining what we mean by data, in our discourse.

Think of the pyramid above (commonly known as the Knowledge Hierarchy) as a triangle.
(Well, let’s have it reduced in that sense, from 3D to close to a linelander’s & flatlander’s
concept spaces– for simplicity, to cater for all types of audience). Data forms the “base” of the
triangle, the foundation of information (hence the term knowledge base or historical data), which
in turn serves as the foundation of knowledge, culminating into wisdom. Let’s hasten to clarify
that data in this case is analogous to what Emerson calls nature – being wary that "What we
observe is not nature itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning., as posited by
physicist and Nobel laureate Werner Heisenber. Or put another way, beauty is in the eye of the
beholder - right? Let us adopt the standard and classical definition: data are “facts and statistics
collected together for reference or analysis.” – which can be anything in nature drawn from:
science, philosophy, society, politics, history, and so on. Let’s not limit it to any field. Included,
for our purpose here is a rather recent, and a relatively new paradigm that is becoming very
widely accepted across disciplines. This field, that is becoming increasingly important addition
to known methods of science as a pursuit of objective truth is called non-local communication, or
intuition (See textbook The Ecstasy of Surrender: 12 Surprising Ways Letting Go Can Empower
Your Life by Judith Orloff - for a good easy to read description of the notion of intuition from a
medical science perspoective).

Wer i kin pwony

Additional notes on methods of interpretation of data, in our discourse.

Of course, transforming data through these stages requires some form of intelligent processing
(method of questioning) and being wary of instances where thinking goes wrong, and the ability
to deal with missing data, if any. [About missing data: It is NOT always the case that all the data
is needed in order to understand and resolve the phenomenon in question as long as the critical
data points (in the time space, in our example) is captured in the pool, but let’s enjoy the luxury
of having excess of data in this particular case. Data captured at a reasonable starting point is an
example of a critical data point! And we have that aspect fully taken care of in our universe of
discourse here]. Intelligent processing techniques vary from individual to individual, depending
on the goal, and resources available (which includes knowledge or methods of questioning that
the generation in question has afforded the student or analyst or whoever picks interest in
understanding the phenomonen). At a minimum, a good method usually follows some
conventions – though there are a few instances where great solution methods depart from
conventions.

In this knowledge and information-age, data acquisition (in most domains) has become much
easier given the pervasiveness of information technological platforms. This means, knowledge
acquisition (and even what, traditionally, used to be considered esoteric knowledge) can now be
“cracked” in a relatively short period of time. This new development challenges immensely the
conservative mind (e.g. he who believes in power grabbing the way our ancestors used to do in
the primitive days of tribal/clan wrangles through physical fist fights) for that type of primitive
mind still holds that knowledge (and wisdom, if you will) comes only with age. Of course, it still
holds true that the older one grows, the wiser he/she becomes – assuming the learner is
exploiting all that is available not only for the sake of acquiring (and/or storing in memory) but
also for the purpose of critically processing the gathered data. (And, dissemination of the results
of processing so that everyone is on the same page requires skillful mastery of language. To
language, we must add logic. Why? “1. Being logical presupposes our having sensitivity to
language and knack for its effective use, for language and logic are inseparable. 2. It also
presupposes our having a healthy respect for the firm factualness of the world in which we live,
for logic is about reality. 3. Finally, being logical presupposes a lively awareness of how the
facts that are our ideas relate to the facts that are the objects in the world, for logic is about
truth”- an excellent book, “Being Logical: A guide to good thinking” by D. Q McInerny. [This
book does not require one to be an expert in theoretical computer science or philosophy. An
example of how these three aspects are part of our everyday life is here]

 More importantly, it must be understood that logical and coherent arguments are not
quarrels! Rather, such arguments are a pursuit of objective truth. So, there is no excuse of
excusing oneself from any discussions or arguments on the pretext of wanting to be seen
as more civil.

Not everyone takes that route of being logical, because it is expensive,- expensive because those
methods of information acquisition and knowledge discovery have been refined and have been
[or are being] applied in a variety of disciplines for more productive purposes than mere glory-
hunting. Anyone who ignores or refuses to apply formal methods or extensions of it through so-
called “thinking outside the box” (as opposed to stubborn unreason, for example) is thus living a
life behind the educated contemporaries–and will soon find that it is not sustainable, however
much he/she might find it enjoyable at the moment.

The problem is that, be it that the discussions captured here were originally intended to develop
into serious intellectual arguments (for assessment for whatever reason, transforming [the reality
views] of some targets in the subject group, or just for fun), it goes wrong and turns into a fiasco
when every participant (new, old, known or hitherto unknown to any of the group members or to
the study undertakers) assumes authority consciously or unconsciously and switches to the
unreason mode- which just anyone can do (especially since it provides an easy route to escape
real intellectual stuff, or, looked another way – a public whoevercare of nectar for fools) – and
thereby causing the whole pursuit to become nothing but a stupidity game, if not just creating
more problems (e.g charlatans) than [it was] originally intended… Integrity, smartness, or
personal success (great attributes and virtues which many people have claimed to possess, while
failing to show understanding of the phenomomen in discourse- or failing to communicate it, at
least) cannot just be assumed… people need to see it in deeds, - or good acts done over time,
again and again… be it in private and in public. If we keep the secrets away, we are withholding
the truths, in most cases. That’s why I stand for public campaigns and making this kind of data
available to everyone, not because all the ideas expressed herein are the best; in fact, some of
them are plain misleading as well all know – but because, people can take it, critique it, make
improvements – or learn from mistakes… So it’s OK to critique this preamble as well.

A summary of recommendations for those who will continue to undertake this kind of
investigations

If the (assumed) Principal Investigators or luminaries in this case should feel that this study has
not been a great success (for whatever reason), then, I would advise them – in their future
refurbished attempts to look at two things:

1. Understand the data in the universe of discourse well, steering clear of unnatural
assumptions and identifying outliers before attempting to do any processing or
“transformation”. And again, data in this case, could be about people/subjects under
study. “You may wish to take a step back and understand individuals because it is a test
of your leadership potentials.”, once advised a member of this community. A book about
a Lango community called it “intelligent appreciation of nature”. (The page was taken
From the text book The Lango: A Nilotic Tribe of Uganda, by Jack Herbert Driberg
(1888–1946)). (A side note: Advancements of science and technology has seen
intelligent appreciation of nature refined and formalized in the fields such as machine
learning (neural networks, etc), for example, and the concepts extended from the simple
linelander’s and flatlanders’s (black or/and white) and 3-Der’s concept, to hundreds,
thousands, and millions of dimensions – in higher dimensional spaces, as they are called
– making it possible to gather these over 70% of our data over emails, for example. [This
is beyond the scope of this discussion. But for the curious mind, this sets the foundation
of prototype-based learning. An abstract of a basic variant is described here. Here we are
then reminded of one of the smartest sets of questions in 2013 (See Part 1 2013 for
details): here. Are the “luminaries” the baselines? How come?]
2. Understanding the data alone is not enough (as it is done in Artificial Intelligence). A
critical reason is that the teacher vector as it is called in the intuitive prototype-based
learning– or “professor” – in our case, must be exceptionally smart wholeroundedly and
ideally having good intentions for everyone – and must have proven track-record on the
global scale (or simply universe of discourse) – and, and to add to that, selection of the
teacher vector must take into account that that “smartness” is not done unfairly e.g.
based on irrelevant attributes such as nepotism, age, greed, and other personal interests).
So in that ideal situation, the dynamics of “prototypes”, “customers”, etc.. would look
something like this ]. [Note: Ideally, only one person can be the teacher vector and that
being cannot be man (reason, in simple terms, is that another feature vector in the pool
might be endowed enough to twist the direction of the whole pursuit); only God – the
Supreme Being can! But, let’s leave that at that- for simplicity.]

So, let’s assume there is such a person who wants to try acting as a super being for
whatever good reason: as the next step, we expect such a person to apply refined methods
of analyzing or transforming nature/data (prototypes, etc..) in order NOT to arrive at a
misleading conclusion or selection, by at a minimum improving methods of reasoning so
that it is not “mere random deductions or inductions” but by applying the correct methods
while incorporating backtracking to correct errors. The age of merely trying to stand out
by trying to [randomly] deduce and induct- or random guessing- which is 50-50 (as it
used to be done in the era when very few could hardly apply advanced reasoning and
without necessarily putting in efforts to consult facts) is gone. Such trial and error
approach is a waste of resources. At a minimum, there should be a mechanism to allow
backtracking. Backtracking, (as opposed to heresy or anecdotes or rumors), requires that
the data or premise or evidence used to arrive at any conclusions be available for re-
inspection. Data storage (complete with methods for easy retrieval) is thus important.
This line (of thinking) should justify why we have this repository, in the first place.
“Correction” could also be a settlement in a legal case, if it is not only for enlightened
clarification. Backtracking is expensive because we are dealing with human subjects
here, but carrying out the procedures effectively requires specialist knowledge and
 resources such as time. Backtracking in our case here equates to a burden of proof in a
legal pursuit where the services of a digital forensic expert, psychologist, among other
experts, would be consulted. [But these techniques are applied (even more rigorously) in
various ways and in various fields – for example, in natural language processing (or
computational linguistics, a “computer” distinguishes between a verb or a noun for a
word used in sentence by inspecting its prior context (which means inspecting the words
that precede it)… in its simplest form...]. So, in our realm, understanding prior context
may take a simple form of asking another person to provide details of what happened…
prior to rushing to make a comment or judgment...

Playing with human emotions, reputations, etc is a dangerous game, so an appreciable

amount of effort should be made to employ intelligent methods, for even so-called
“retroactive apology” as a corrective action is hard to accept when an error is already
made simply because the investigator is not adept at what he/she claims to be expert at.
Making reference to faith-based corrective approaches, for example, “my general humble
conclusion for fellow members based on the latest updates is that the attire of forgiveness
be worn by all - for up to 77 times. It’s the best way out, esp. for members who respect
our holy law books alongside our ‘to be’ approved Codes of Conduct.” - after making
grave mistakes is not acceptable in many cases.

So, I thought I had to add my voice – my voice in this quest which I have come to embrace as a
study, counting myself as The Global Scholar with regard to this risky undertaking of inquiry
that has seen me learn things that transcend conventions (e.g. working in heightened and mixed
emotional spaces caused by artificial realms or deceptions that did not spare me either) - and that
saw me sometimes getting weird labels as “prophet of doom” – when, in fact, inside me, I
(sometimes) found it fascinating that there is an appreciable body of literature that explains the
conditions under which precognition in humans, in fact, is possible. I saw such a set of
conditions (data or intermediate results) manifest itself in our narrative over the past two years.
In any case, the ability to have a realization of systems that work at detecting and even predicting
of failures (in the realms of machines), is not a thing that surprises me – for I was personally
exposed, at implementation level, to such projects at a world class technology research and
development laboratories. The machines are complex systems, with so many complex sub-
systems- so I can’t claim I am an expert at building the system, but I was directly engaged in a
small albeit challenging task/aspect of building an improved detection and prediction system in
machines based on historical data (normal or failure codes) and refined intelligent methods. With
enough historica data (about nature), the past instructs and the future invites- as Emerson wrote.

A beautiful book, among the many real books that I provided in the bibliography, “The Science
of Evil”, by Simon Baron-Cohen confirmed my long-held belief that evil is in fact, lack of
empathy. To that I add that it is a result of not applying the the tools of intelligent processing on
carefully chosen data (which now includes the non-local informations such as emotions).

To this end, after seeing all these issues where common people rush to invoke powers of the
above and applying mystic concepts such as “prophet or god(dess)” as explained by Philosopher
Stephen Law in his “Believing Bullshit”, I echo what one member of this community once said:
“Religion is a very personal matter with me and with many other people I know. Please keep
your own religion to yourself!” That does not mean I don’t believe in a Super being – or God.
It’s just that some people are too quick make uninformed conclusion or appeal to God, force or
noise before they appeal to reason and facts (a process which is usually difficult yet useful and
often require gathering operand/data tracing back to time and/or into the future and/or in
between time points)– thereby making faith, ideology and a host of other initiatives [such as that
in religion or politics- unfortunately] highly subjective and somewhat a personal thing.

Still, I believe there were some successes, whatever the principal investigators had in mind-
except that the new generation’s wisdom, as expected, is a little superior (modestly speaking,
more refined) than as we were made to believe in that famously quoted line by one of this
community’s members (Sun, Dec 30, 2012) [See Part 1- 2013]: “Wisdom sages say to put up a
100 storey building, one must construct 100 storeys downwards under the ground (which of
course is near impossible for the instant-gratification minded).” It goes back to the problem of
starting out with wrong initial assumptions, but sometimes, we can’t start without making some
assumptions – unfortunately. We swallow our pride, perhaps…? Yes, I believe the reality senses
of everyone were altered, for example, some people in the beginning held themselves in very
high regards- only to realize that reality might be somewhat different. Mindsets were changed,
somewhat. And for those who do not see the positive aspects yet, this document – Part 1 and Part
2 – comes in as a handy reference. For any beginner, it is worth reiterating that starting from
Page 1 (Part 1) helps to get the overall picture clear. I am emphasizing this not because I am
coming from the background of formal logic, but because this is the appropriate tool to employ
in understanding this phenomenon. I am one person who advocates for respect for ALL types of
occupations: music, computer science, linguistics, medical sciences, agriculture, economics,
janitory, physics, business, mathematics, etc-- they are ALL equally important! So I listen
critically when a specialist/authority in that area speaks out.

So going back to the wisdom sages, I posit that in the human realm, that sage’s wisdom (above in
particular) should not apply – for as you may notice, our data (arranged in time-order), in large
part, becomes of time-series in nature. (What this means is that a new member or just any one, at
any time, cannot just jump in and pass judgment on an input made by any other member at that
time step without (intelligently) inspecting a reasonable amount of prior input, and this mental
exercise in our case is not a trivial one as successfully understanding the phenomenon requires
learning a lot of information and distinguishing between what counts and what does not count as
relevant, the time intervals between input – e.g. to judge whether there was sufficient time
allowed to review a document before it was adopted, the qualifications of the reviewer, the
beliefs, desires and intentions of the actors (e.g. authors and reviewers), etc. That’s why the
email headers are just as important like any other piece of information in any email input
instance.

Well, just another opinion: everyone (who can) can now be elevated without the need to dumb
down another. [This does not mean the great cultural aspects extant yesterday will become
extinct. Those great aspects will be constants, unchanging across time]. The problem, from one
front, goes back to not thinking right (or not being logical)- but it also goes back to not
incorporating [or deliberately refusing to incorporate] emotional intelligence (so that rational
thinking is not obscured during objective discourses as a result of “tricks” by people who are
inclined to bending rules and thus effecting changes or promoting their ideologies by appealing
to emotions (e.g. by crying crocodile tears, flattery, seductive suggestions, laughing sardonically,
or responding wrly – during what is expected to be an objective discourse [not to say appropriate
and controlled emotions need not be expressed], etc); - so that we know when it is appropriate to
empathize, return a joke with a joke, fall in mutual love and avoid unnecessary conflict that
could potentially arise from rejection, etc), rather than applying analogies and other deceptive
persuasive methods – including a call to apply sage’s wisdom blindly, umbiguously or
indiscriminately- out of context, in brief – without considering time dimension (for example) of
the data/information/knowledge/wisdom. The human realm is very different – also speaking
from personal experience gained from this expedition! But the fight to bring this understanding
to all comes with huge sacrifices, and that’s why you may wonder why the author has to spend a
lot of time on this subject.

Give credit where it is due

 Do not attribute all these wealth to me, but to those who directly made the contributions,
in one way or the other. To me, I value this set of collective contributions to hundreds of
millions of dollars – a million times the regular contributions from community members!
Seriously. This set of contributions came at huge sacrifices, and so the user is expected to
make good use of it!

[Note: This introductory note above continues to be edited, modified, augumented… so, keep checking
periodically]

- Caesar Ogole, one of the Critical Founding Fathers of LAONA, one of the three Incorporation
Signatories and a Principal Creator of this data repository (Parts I and II).