Posted in article-link, pic | Leave a comment

Behavior/Substance Addictions are Really Sub-Addictions to the Inter-Subjectivity Addiction

Mind Games Don’t Trump Zoology

Posted in article-link, essays-mini-essays | Leave a comment

My Relationship Line in the Sand aka I No Longer Do Crazy

(Four paragraphs, ten one-liners, and four endnotes, copyleft July 2, 2016 by Peter Voluntaryistic Walker)

In order to be true to myself, I need to have a personal, i.e., not belonging to others for other than objective reasons, definition* of insanity.human4

There’s a medical definition and a legal definition; the main difference being medical professionals in most cases have the luxury of including shades of gray in their’s and legal professionals don’t — with the caveat that in law, the consequences for a crime can be mitigated. That said, I in relationship to myself have the luxury of my chosen/wordsmithed medical version, and I in self-discipline towards others choose to be bound by my chosen/wordsmithed legal definition. These two are my personal blending of what I found through and Psychology Today:

– Medical: Consistent unreason with severe consequences.

– Legal: Mental illness/uncontrollable impulsive behavior so severe the person can’t differ fantasy from reality or competently/morally conduct his or her life.

Technical Notes:

– I consider the legal version to be more severe than the medical version*.

– My personal legal definition applies to, in the words of several legends, my “line in the sand” for the two-way street of what I’ll permit to occur in my relationships.

– I consider a person willing to coerce his/her subjective beliefs/conclusions on another to be legally insane according to my personal set of laws; law in the context of behavior standards I choose for myself and those I relate to.

– There’s a difference between circular illogic and one definition* depending on another definition. An example of circular illogic from a children’s dictionary is calling a rope a “thick string” and calling a string a “thin rope”. By contrast, a valid and verifiable definition leads to related definitions in ways adding more knowledge ad infinitum for the same reason every answer/hypothesis/theory to questions such as “Where did I come from?” raises new questions.

– My medical and legal definitions of insane particularly depend on the contextual meaning of these key words:

— Competent: Able to reliably complete a duty*; e.g., a commercial airline pilot has a duty to fly a commercial aircraft to professional standards and a non-vegetative human has a duty to live independently if relying on him/herself alone and cooperatively if not.

— Moral: Having and following a win-win standard of behavior when participating in human relationships.

— Reason: Able to balance intuition and logic in order to be competent; i.e., competent beyond psychomotor-only skills.

— Reality: The ability to differ between the subjective and the objective; a textbook example being the Roman citizen Saul who later became the Christian Apostle/Saint Paul: Walking on the road to Damascus, he allegedly had a spiritual experience, but in such cases there is no way for one person prove it to another person. Maybe he did have a spiritual experience, maybe he had some kind of a psychological experience like a stroke, or maybe he just made up a story to scam people with. Thus it’s an objective fact the story was documented, but it’s only a subjective interpretation that a miracle occurred.

— Severe: Repeatedly placing the self or others in physical, mental, or economic harms way when there are less harmful options.


* “definition” – aka

* “medical version” – The term “clinically insane” is more slang than formal; in formal cases it refers to legalities based the testimony of medical professionals.

* “duty” – The above description applies to verbal behavior as much a physical; e.g., a person voluntarily entering an intellectual debate/discussion has a duty to remain reasonable as opposed to being blatantly emotional or sophist.

Also posted at

Posted in essays-mini-essays, fam-friends | Leave a comment


June 22 – Harmonic and Cognitive Dissonance aka Double-Think Compared

Posted in article-link, pic, vid | Leave a comment

QA Blast from the Past (example of my former life in the field)

I didn’t write this example and didn’t keep any of those I did because I was on others’ clocks; but this is an extremely similar example and one heck of a reference from I linked it following this sentence in case ASQ deletes it, restricts it to members, changes it, etc.: sample-quality-manual-service

Posted in doc-pdf, economics | Leave a comment

The Difference Between a Conclusion and an Opinion

I’m linking this here because it’s part of my core self:

Posted in article-link, essays-mini-essays, meme | Leave a comment

Some of My Past “Sins”

In reference to the lyrics of the linked video (, “Never gonna give you up; Never gonna let you down; Never gonna run around and desert you; Never gonna make you cry; Never gonna say goodbye; Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you” my first spouse and I did all the above to each other based on our empiric almost life-long immaturity and I 100% apologize for my part to whomever were collateral damage and the best I can now do is to make-restitution/pass-it-forward. This tune ( has a calming effect for all of us realizing we unwittingly participated in mans’ inhumanity to man.

Posted in fam-friends | 1 Comment

JFK and Free Speech Versus The Establishment

JFK and Free Speech Versus The Establishment

Posted in article-link, essays-mini-essays, history | Leave a comment

My Personal and Continually Evolving Philosophic Ideology

(About 16 short paragraphs plus endnotes, Revision Five, copyleft Peter Voluntaryistic Walker 06-04-2016)

I conclude most* of us individual humans are all to some extent Self-Refilling Poison Containers (SRPCs), ever instinctively attempting to overflow onto other people as a way of relieving emotional pain:

1.a. “Jiddu Krishnamurti … constantly stressed the need for a revolution in the psyche of every human being and emphasised that such revolution cannot be brought about by any external entity, be it religious, political, or social.” –

1.b. I partially agree with Jiddu but add we humans are an overwhelmingly instinctual social species and thus to remain extant can’t exclude the external entities of other people; Jiddu himself demonstrating this by being a life-long teacher. As a mostly non-SRPC *he did no further harm* as a teacher and to the contrary had an open agenda that *genuinely progressed* our species from the bottom-up rather than the condescending attempt to do so top-down.

1.c. I consider myself more non-SRPC than not because I’ve done much productive personal psyche overhaul work; my point being even Jiddu probably had a minuscule but nonetheless existing element of socially engineered poison remaining in him and thus none of us are above scrutiny in proportion to the amount of ideas we present for consideration by others. I observe many if not most people attracted to the social institution of politics are more SRPC than not and are thus oriented toward political agendas of win-lose rather than win-win:

1.d. Two examples from opposite ends of the traditional political spectrum are Ayn Rand at the right and Karl Marx at the left. Both said, to paraphrase, the win-win was the end goal, but the win-lose was the means to it:

1.d.1. Ayn presented the idea of the individual being the smallest minority and the most critical to protect, yet she agreed with the USA intervention in Vietnam to the point of giving the commencement speech saying so to the 1974 West Point graduating class.

1.d.2. Karl presented the idea that the ruling class/classes is/are a reality, but he also advised violence as a solution with the caveat to him, to paraphrase, the rulers had already initiated violence and thus he was advising violent self-defense rather than aggression. I disagree with the caveat because it was a false-flag claim and was top-down rather than bottom-up as I describe several paragraphs below.

1.d.3. I appreciate and agree with some of Ayn’s and Karl’s ideas, but not all of them. I have nothing against SRPCs *presenting* ideas; rather my problem is with such persons using hidden (even to themselves) agendas and non sequiturs (intentionally or unintentionally); and with others not catching the hidden agendas and non sequiturs. Additionally, Ayn and Karl presented ideas others with hidden agendas could easily twist such as Lenin lopping off the anarchy part of Marxism and those bankers/corporatists/politicians who are parasites; e.g., Alan Greenspan lopping off the voluntary part of Randian capitalism.

2. Despite strawman accusations, I personally belong to no group ideology/philosophy; rather my personal ideology is an eclectic collection continually evolving. One of my continually evolving foundations is a bottom-up approach to social issues; that is, an individual can’t *morally* advise/demand of others if the individual hasn’t mostly overcome his/her own hang-ups and therefore most people politically advising/demanding are doing so immorally. Other foundation parts include quality over quantity, do no further harm, self-ownership, and by extension of self-ownership, private property and the *non-initiation* of fraud/violence.

2.a. As this relates to politics, political science is finding win-win social solutions; political religion is the self-righteous false moral high ground of lose-win, I-can-only-win-when-others-lose.

2.a.1. Problems occur at symptom and root levels, and a key win-win word is “actionable” — the opposite of Orwellian Two Minutes Hate type activity traps such as the left-right paradigm. An example of being actionable at the symptom level is beginning charity at home and working outwards, donating labor to local charity activities, and donating money to organizations focused mostly on the win-win such as Amnesty International. I say “mostly” because due to the human condition of being imperfect, there’s no one person or organization with whom I completely agree.

2.a.2. I conclude root-cause level solutions to social issues are multi-generational because we as a species are presently evolving out of our inter-subjectivity phase into our inter-objectivity phase. To enable this next phase, root-level solutions include the social institutions of peaceful parenting, cohesive extended families, freed education, freed media, and cohesive communities extending to us as a species interdependent with all the others.

2.b. Once an individual has overcome his/her hang-ups, he/she will have educated him/herself in a sound philosophic and scientific grounding in critical thinking. The next step up is the practicing of healthy relationships in one’s own life. Thus win-win political scenarios begin with Robinson Crusoe and Friday type scenarios and work their way up to society levels, checking for hidden agendas and non sequiturs at each level. Most if not all SRPCs demonstrate ideologies beginning at the large society scenario level and working down to winner individuals forcing other individuals to be losers:

2.b.1. Karl objected to the Robinson Crusoe scenario, while Ayn claimed it but evidently it didn’t apply to Vietnamese children. Each SRPC has his or her personal motivations which may forever remain unknown even to him or herself, but the motivations probably include an incompetence/impatience to check for non sequiturs, using non sequiturs as one of other manipulative methods, or as in Lenin’s case, using non sequiturs to reinforce agreements with other SRPCs.

2.b.2. People more SRPC than not generally demonstrate a preoccupation with abstract labels such as those ending with ian, ism, ist, etc.; thus I now go by “Voluntaryistic” for my new middle name, but Facebook says I’ve changed my nickname too many times to update — an example of The Establishment resisting any individual from self-evolving.


This mini-essay posted at and

Title – “Philosophic Ideology” –

Paragraph 1.:

– “I conclude” –

– *“most” – Example exception are (1) persons raised in a counter-culture of peaceful parenting, cohesive extended families, freed education, freed media, and cohesive communities; and (2) persons who’ve reasonably repaired their psyche from the damage done by mainstream culture(s).

– “Self-Refilling” – I often hyphenate two words when together they create, according to me, a noteworthy third meaning.

Para 1.a. – “…”

– You probably already know three periods in a row are ellipses, meaning part of a quote exists but me or whomever as a repeater of the quote has for brevity or other reasons not included that part. I make this point to add I sometimes use ellipses to ensure I don’t misquote someone, and I sometimes write run-on sentences when I don’t want to be taken out of context because once one puts a period at the end of a sentence it becomes an independent statement. I’m not using ellipses in these endnotes because I’m not going to misquote myself.

– I sometimes write in third person for brevity; sometimes speakers/writers use it to intentionally omit information, set-up strawmen, etc., e.g., “It has been said…”

– I prefer plain text publishing format and thus rather than *bolding* or *italics* I use asterisks.

– “open agenda” – The other two types are automatic, i.e., subconscious, and hidden.

– “instinctual” –

– “genuinely progressed” – The word revolution often means to go in circles, whereas evolution usually means to steadily change in a direction that increases flourishing.

Para 1.c.:

– “productive work” – Or allegedly according to me productive; I continually update judgments about myself and constructive feedback is welcome.

– “socially engineered poison” – aka unhealthy culture aka social engineering aka The Matrix aka Pink Floyd’s The Wall aka L. Frank Baum’s The Man Behind the Curtain, etc.

Para 1.d.2.

– I often use slashes (/) when two or more words overlap in their individual meanings to communicate a multiple meaning or possibility.

– “Self-Refilling” – I often hyphenate two or more words when their combination creates one single meaning.

– “Self-Refilling Poison Container” –

– I consider myself SEBIR (pronounced seebeer, only a coincidence…): Socially Engineered But In Recovery.

Para 2.:

– “approach to social issues”:

— I conclude there are three core types (simple, complex, issues) and two core levels (symptom and root-level) of problems per aka

– “morally” – To me *moral* meaning without double-standards; i.e., I do my best to be considerate of others because I desire vice-versa.

– “mostly” – Because no human is perfect; my choice is perfection as a target to continually get closer to.

– “*non-initiation* of fraud/violence” – Fraud/violence in self-defense being moral; the caveat being the distinction between offense and defense in a world full of false-flags.

Para 2.a.2. – “intersubjectivity” –

Para 2.b. – “philosophic and scientific” – I conclude the two fields overlap and can no longer productively exist without each other as a check-and-balance.

– “peaceful parenting, cohesive extended families, freed education, freed media, and cohesive communities” – I’ve written an introductory mini-essay to the first ( aka and haven’t yet but will do the same for the others.

– “Voluntaryistic”:

— “My new middle name, eventually to be filed with my owners through the social institution of The State, is ‘Voluntaryistic’; to me meaning atheistic and anarchistic. I don’t have beliefs because I only have conclusions subject to change.” –

— aka

– “The Establishment” – I capitalize The Establishment, The State, etc. because they’re religions with agendas of maintaining inter-subjectivity and repressing inter-objectivity. I conclude most self-alleged theists, agnostics, and atheists in reality worship The State above anything or anyone else and I reject the social institution of Worship.

Posted in article-link, essays-mini-essays, meme, vid | Leave a comment

The Word “Philosophy” Versus the Word “Ideology”

I’m linking this here because it represents part of my core self.

The Word “Philosophy” Versus the Word “Ideology”

Posted in essays-mini-essays | Leave a comment