Knowledge itself is more than meets the eye, make no assumption, recognise the faults in the faculties and learn who and what not to follow.
By Jack Don McLovin - Multidiscplinarian -- Jack Has Been writing pages a day for the past 10 years under varying anonymous accounts, always drifting from place to place trying to gain popularity in a group, and start again, and repeat.
This is our plan for the future of Class A, what kinds of articles we have prepared based on prior research and acquired knowledge.
On launch date there will be at least 4 major articles, which can be sub-categorised into future articles, going further into the individual points raised with each particular article topic. These four articles are on: "logic", "mathematics", "circular definitions", "fossil fuels".
For one thing, logic, or what is referred to as logic, is actually itself a subcategory of logic, being only predicate logic, where we are told we must follow certain rules to distinguish between true and false. These certain rules come from certain axioms in which we assume each axioms to be both true and compatible with each other axiom in order to construct these rulesets. But I have criticisms of each axiom, counter arguments for the truth of the axioms using things we can intuitively know for ourselves based on the definitions of the words themselves used in the axioms. This has long gone overlooked by the majority, but there are others who have provided alternative systems of logic, and, so the following article referencing the first one is to go into the alternative systems of logic, so that when we challenge the education system we aren't left with nothing or no alternative way of making progress.
Future articles will include topics such as challenging certain notions in psychiatry, for example one article on challenging it's motivations in the past and it's rise to power, another on it's theoretical bases leading to it's assumed explanatory power in relation to the practical relevance of those theories, and another on certain types of mental illnesses which as notions have intrinsic flaws which can be known by definition of the terminology rather than needing to look at the correlatory justification. The alternative we will provide is a "true-psychiatry" in which we do not say there are mental diseases that needs healing, but, seeing as it is an immaterial incalculable non-physical domain, instead the lowest of the low are the basis and the origin point for all people who have not participated in any self-discipline, self-improvement, and self-awareness, in which we say "if you do not take action with your own mind on your own mind, you will be left with in-action in which you maintain at a baseline level no different to an amoeba or an infectious germ, thus for those who wish to see in the domain of true-psychiatry we see 'mental health as relative' in which it is those who have facilitated upon themselves so many internal habits that they believe has raised them up out of darkness in which those who have not done, or are not trying to do the same are lower than they are, in which case it is a self-perpetuating, self-fulfilling prophecy that is only true and valid to those who believe in it as an ultimate measure from an authority on high." Further, we will suggest that "the only true mental sickness is calling something in the mind other than this a sickness", as it stems from the legal notion of "freedom of belief/religion" which every religion and every nation and every jurisdiction has long supported. Now, this freedom is not free of consequences, however, you do not have to tell anyone what you believe or what your internal religion is, this this "true-psychiatry" is a door-way into a practice of secrecy, occlussion, mis-direction, game-theoretic-bluffing, no different to which most Non-Disclosure Agreements are signed, how secret societies operate, and how the greatest of the great in power all around the world operate, the secret services. Thus this true psychiatry, being a recognition of the basis of health in which we can only move upwards (before falling back down perhaps), we will be teaching the arts of secrecy, which will be deduced by the notions of mysticism, as mysticism is the study of mystery, and is thus capable of deducing the arts of secrecy, whereas those who only obey demands under legal threat of punishment to keep things a secret on behalf of others (as those mentioned prior) are themselves operating at a loss to themselves where there are always hierarchies of secrets in which even the past-revealed secrets can be change. Thus you cannot trust anyone enforcing you to keep things a secret for them from others. Instead, we will teach the arts of secrecy for yourselves, so you can learn how to keep your "true-psychiatry" a secret from ordinary psychiatrists, and your freedom of beliefs and religions a secret from those who want to control you, allowing you to pretend to be someone for the sake of your own success, just as I have pretended to take on the notions taught in the education system and ranked in the top of the nation for academic performance, which to me is just compliance.
That topic will take some time to delve into, as there is much to learn there, and much to challenge, which is why I gave you a larger outline at the start so you can see for yourself that it is complicated however justified, and is primarily used as a control mechanism by those who keep secrets from you compared to a control mechanism for you to keep secrets from them.
Then we have ideas like "global warming" / "climate change", we will look at the origin of the term, and what lead the discoverer to the discovery through his prior research, then we will learn that this research involved borrowing something known since the dawn of civilization (in sumeria/babylon), before actually going into detail the counter-arguments and counter-evidence for the mass-interpretations of these two terms, as well as the corporate influence for those that support these notions, in that they are being paid to promote it, as well as the futility of these actions. Some topics that will have to come first will involve "the law of entropy" and "the law of conservation of energy".
Some deeper, harder, less political notions include challenging things like "linear time", "one continuous shared past (and origin)", "abiogensis", "(non-micro) evolution theory", "the idea of a paradox" (as it is a false-dichotomy), "hard-boundaries on categorical distinctions", "big words == false intelligence", "light is a frequency/wave", "light has a constant speed", "the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe", "plack time / planck length" (the shortest possible time / length), "something that is false or doesn't exist shouldn't be believed in", "proof is required for knowledge/belief", "evidence is required for truth", "ionizing vs non-ionizing radiation", "non-duality means everything is one", "love everyone / don't hate", "all effects come from a cause". And the list goes on. These are things that I can invalidate, or provide counter-arguments for that are better than the arguments used to perpetuate these ideas.
In the future of Class A, of those who have paid for the highest tier of the program, and have referred enough people to the program to pay off the cost of their subscription, they will be granted access to a series of non-numerical, non-multi-choice assessment tasks, leading to those who perform well being able to join Class A as a teacher, once they have provided their own roadmap of what topics they would like to teach. And once they have written the article(s), they will not be published unless I personally endorse the message presented. Once Class A has a number of teachers working, we will begin to re-do all old and future written content also in the form of video content, which will involve podcast-style, without visible technology/equipment, in nature, with subtitles. Once that is in place and we have finalised all past content, we will begin translating all articles and subtitles into other languages, and create a language-selector for the main website.