As part of my guerilla ontology program I would liike to point out that AlexK is the only helpful participant on this forum aside from the so-called "LSC" staff. However, much of what he says sounds too good to be true. How many people here tend to experience the belief that they are benfitting enormously from this program? And don't just answer that impulsively. And no, that question was not a disguise for any disbelief/contempt for this program, it was a semantically/epistomologically correct question aimed at provoking analysis and clarifying a nagging question which I have. Furthermore, I don't know what Alex means when he says "until I deciphered my code". Does this mean you have one code, and that you found the one key? What does this code conceal? Now that you've "deciphered your code" where are you at? Do you consider yourself a Genius now? -some of those questions you answered in part but I just want more clarification. For all you guys know AlexK is just the name somebody at LSC uses to populate this board, in order that they might sell more products. Now I know that the last statement has provoked a lot of impulsive reactions in many of you reading this, ranging from amusement to the need to paternalize me in a post stating how ridiculous you think the idea is. The point is, I'm well aware of the implications of that statement, and I'm well aware also of the conditioned reflexes most of you still blind yourselves with, because I'm a genius. JK. Seriously, I have thought this through, I have liberated my thinking. The question you must ask is this: If this program makes geniuses- in any reasonable sense of that word, don't get hung up on that definition-- than why do we not hear about any important intellectual contributions coming from its alums, so to speak? With that in mind, might AlexK be a deceptive mask? Who knows, I don't, nothing is certain-- and, for the last time, that statement is NOT a contradiction of any sort, it accords perfectly with semantic meta-analysis regarding the order of abstraction and the relation of signifiers to the signified, i.e. words to the "reality" which people remain so obssessed with.

Now, one item remains to be dealt with: many of you, upon reading this post, perhaps reading it too quickly or because of evaluating it with a non-liberated, mammalion-emotional circuit, have the reaction that somehow I'm just trying to cause trouble, deal a "smack-down", or maybe that I'm just ego-tripping, entertaining some despicable arrogance. That may be true, whatever the phrase "is true" means. My intention, however, is to rephrase my major question-- the lack of geniuses around because of this system, which does not, by the way, mean that Wenger's techniques and beliefs are all wrong, that their is nothing to them-- and also to show how much impulsive reaction goes on when people read or think. The whole point of Zen Buddhism, General Semantics, and Deconstruction, as I realize them, "is" to show the fallacy of those sorts of reactions in formulating a text or a belief of any sort; they act as exercises in deconditioning among other things. I believe that proper study and training in these systems, with regard to the fact that they all inherently include a meta-critical orientation recognizing the limitation of any "system" as such, and thus making them immune to the fallacy of self-chauvinism as such, results in the best sort of improvement in thought possible. It goes way beyond any one technique, because it recognizes the nature, the Beingness, of thought as it manifests and functions, something which no amount of PRing can do. One test to see if you have liberated your own thinking involves looking at that last sentence and your reactions to it: did you think-feel that I was debunking PRing as such?

The ultimate verification of my above text would be if someone were to reply that either A) it was off-topic, B) they thought that I was arrogant, just on the basis of this post, C) They totally ignore my big question, D) They get hung up on my suggestion that AlexK may be "LSC-in-disguise", or E)they feel that I was only attacking certain beliefs just to be contrary, the "you're just a brat" reactions of authority figures everywhere.

I would, however, encourage anyone who wants to clarify some of my terminology to go to the general semantics website at: www.general-semantics.org

To be honest, if you still are reading this post than I offer you my greatest respect, you are part of the proud minority who actually bother with things they might not understand, or with things which they "feel" to be hostile. Thank you.

As In A Moment,
Kristoff "Dr.Faustus" Olafsson