TEXT: 1
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  Mental
  Relativity
  by
  Chris Huntley &
  Melanie Anne Phillips
  
  2
  M E N T A L   R E L A T I V I T Y
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  Mental Relativity
  All Rights Reserved
  Copyright © 1991 Chris Huntley & Melanie Anne Phillips
  No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted
  in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
  including photocopying, recording, or by any information
   storage and retrieval system, without permission in
  writing from the authors
  
  3
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  We all have a sense of self.  We know what it is like to be us.  But
  we cannot ever completely communicate the state of our own
  minds because that requires an inside perspective.  No one can
  completely understand what it is to be us without being us.
  We all know our own thoughts.  But where they come from
  and how we change them is invisible to us, because we cannot use
  our own thoughts to describe their nature.  No one can com-
  pletely understand his own mind without stepping outside
  himself.
  In short, we know that we are aware: we are Self-aware.  But
  we do not understand where that awareness comes from or the
  mechanism by which it operates.  This is because we are looking
  at ourselves with our own awareness.  This is much like trying to
  see ourselves without a mirror.  What we need is a mirror for the
  mind, an outside perspective of what is going on inside our own
  thoughts.  Mental Relativity provides that mirror.
  Mental Relativity is a method of understanding our own
  minds from that outside perspective.  More precisely, it is a
  description of the four basic elements that create awareness and
  how they are interrelated.  But to understand thinking, one must
  Preface
  
  4
  M E N T A L   R E L A T I V I T Y
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  USE thinking.  In other words, we need to use the process to
  describe itself.  This is much like using a word to define itself.
  Essentially, to understand thinking we must view the process we
  have only ever experienced from the inside from an outside
  perspective.  This requires an entirely new framework that is
  foreign and therefore unfamiliar and strange.  It is much like
  learning a second language.  When studying a new language, any
  similarities with the old hasten the process.  Therefore, we have
  attempted to find common ground with the traditional INSIDE
  perspective of awareness through the use of a variety of theoreti-
  cal models.
  However, the precise nature of Mental Relative can only be
  accurately expressed by an equation that shows the mathematical
  relationships of thought, knowledge, ability and desire from
  the outside perspective.  By exploring the equation, we can better
  understand how we think, what we think, and even why we think.
  Best of all, we can learn how to apply this information to our own
  lives (and the lives of others) to achieve results and obtain
  fulfillment.
  
  5
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  Above are two simple equations that describe the relationship
  between Thought (t), Knowledge (k), Desire (d), and Ability (a).
  Taken as a whole, each equation describes Mind, which is
  awareness.  Thought is the energy of the Mind, measured in
  direction and intensity.  Knowledge is the resistance to that
  energy, measured in quantity and degree.  Desire is a comparison
  between to conditions of Thought, before and after an observa-
  tion.  Ability is a comparison between two states of Knowledge,
  before and after an observation.
  The equations describe Mind from the unfamiliar outside
  perspective.  It is a functional arrangement of the four elements
  necessary for awareness.  For reasons we will see later, Thought
  and Knowledge must be on one side of the equation and Ability
  and Desire on the other.  Also, one side must divide and the other
  must multiply.
  The two equations represent two different kinds of minds.
  Since either equation is functional, some people have the left
  equation as their inside perspective and some have the right
  equation as their inside perspective.
  The selection is determined by biology.  However, famil-
  THE THEORY OF
  MENTAL RELATIVITY
  t / k = d ∗ a  and  k ∗ t =  d / a
  
  6
  M E N T A L   R E L A T I V I T Y
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  iarity with the exact biomechanics of the human brain are not
  essential to understanding Mental Relativity.  For clarity, then,
  we will describe the brain in overly simplistic terms.
  "THOUGHTON" –– THE BLACK BOX
  The physical functioning of the brain is still  not completely
  understood.  Theories of the relationship and purpose of the
  vaious materials and structures change as new information is
  discovered.  The Theory of Mental Relativity is not based, nor
  is it dependent upon current models of the actual physical
  mechanism of the brain, but rather is based upon the mechanism
  of the mind.
  In Mental Relativity, the mind rates observations and
  makes decisions by measuring the external universe and the sense
  of self in terms of QUANTITY and QUALITY.  Whatever the
  actual mechanism of the brain may turn out to be, we place that
  mechanism — the smallest physical unit that can hold data for
  both Quality and Quantity — in a black box.  We call this black
  box a “Thoughton”.
  
  7
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  Let’s start with a brand new brain, a brain with no thought and
  no knowledge.  There is nothing internal to begin the process of
  awareness, no fuel for the machine.  If left completely isolated
  from outside stimulation, awareness would never occur.  Now let
  us connect this new brain to nerves that monitor the environ-
  ment.  Information flows through the nerves and stimulates
  certain thoughtons.  (The precise mechanism by which the
  nerves carry information to the brain is unimportant to an
  understanding of Mental Relativity so for the remainder of this
  book we shall simply say that the brain is stimulated by an
  observation.)
  So an observation stimulates certain thoughtons.  But these
  thoughtons DO NOT FIRE IMMEDIATELY.  If there is a
  single concept that is most crucial to Mental Relativity it is this:
  Stimulated thoughtons do not fire immediately.  Rather, each
  thoughton has a capacity to absorb repeated stimulation, raising
  it to a new level of energy, building up a charge and making it less
  stable.  But the thoughton will not fire as it still has more
  potential to absorb.
  Now this concept can be seen several ways.  We might
  The Left Side of the Equation:
  THOUGHT AND KNOWLEDGE
  
  8
  M E N T A L   R E L A T I V I T Y
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  describe thoughtons as not firing until they reach a certain level
  of energy from repeated stimulation.  Or we might say thoughtons
  won’t fire until stimulated a certain number of times.  We could
  view thoughtons as firing immediately, but only with an energy
  equal to the effect of repeated stimulation, or firing immediately,
  but affecting a number of surrounding thoughtons equal to the
  effect of repeated stimulation.
  Each of these models has merit and each has drawbacks in
  describing the mechanism of the black box we call a thoughton,
  but we have found the concept that the thoughton will build up
  a charge before firing to have the most touch points with our
  traditional view and therefore is the most efficient jumping off
  point for a new view.
  So, in our example, an observation has stimulated certain
  thoughtons, raising each to a higher energy level and making
  each slightly more unstable.  A second observation, identical to
  the first, stimulates the same thoughtons.  They are all raised to
  the next level of energy, building up a greater charge and
  becoming even more unstable or closer to firing.
  Observations continue until the stimulated thoughtons
  have reached their maximum capacity to absorb energy.  At this
  point, each thoughton is at its highest energy level and its greatest
  instability.
  Another identical observation stimulates the same
  thoughtons.  Since they can hold no more energy, each thoughton
  fires, shedding itself of the excess energy and stimulating the
  other thoughtons it is connected to.  Each of these new thoughtons
  now absorbs the energy of this second-generation stimulation
  raising to the next energy level, and duplicating the pattern of the
  ongoing observations.
  But all observations are not identical.  Some thoughtons
  will be stimulated by every observation, some never; most will be
  stimulated to varying degrees as observation continues.
  Return to the empty brain.  As different dissimilar obser-
  vations stimulate the immediate thoughtons, some will eventu-
  ally reach the firing point before others.  At this time, even a
  
  9
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  homogeneous observation will cause only those most unstable
  thoughtons to fire.  The others will continue to absorb energy.
  When the fully charged thoughtons fire, the only second-
  generation thoughtons to be stimulated will be those directly
  connected to the firing thoughtons.  Effectively, the homoge-
  neous observation has now been altered and a different pattern
  emerges at the second generation.
  This pattern is representative of the accumulated energy
  levels of repeated stimulation by different observations.  Effec-
  tively, this pattern is learned knowledge, and the first generation
  of thoughtons has acted to filter an observation based on
  accumulated Knowledge.
  The pattern and the process of filtering can be described in
  several different ways.  The rising energy levels of a thoughton
  might be seen in electrical terminology as decreasing the resis-
  tance of that thoughton to the flow of current.  This casts
  thoughtons in the role of transistors with a very important
  difference:  unlike transistors, each thoughton requires MANY
  stimulations to “open the gate”.  This gives added weight to
  repeated stimulation and much more significance to the ulti-
  mate firing.
  Another perspective is to see Knowledge as a “weighted
  pattern” not reflecting any specific observation, but the accumu-
  lated weight of many observations.  It is significant that this
  “weighting” is not an average as once a single thoughton has
  reached its maximum level, it will fire regardless if all the other
  thoughtons in the pattern are at their highest or lowest levels.
  Refining the model:  As progressive generations of
  thoughtons become stimulated, paths or channels are created
  along those connections from generation to generation.  A single
  observation might have portions that are absorbed at the first
  generation, others that continue far through the brain, and
  others that continue all the way to the final generation where
  nerves are stimulated causing muscles to contract and altering
  the environment in turn.
  So, Knowledge may be seen not merely as a simple cross-
  
  10
  M E N T A L   R E L A T I V I T Y
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  sectional filter, but as a three dimensional pattern of channels
  leading into the brain to various depths.  A single observation
  might “lodge” at any number of levels resembling icicles of
  various lengths hanging from a roof (Figure 1).
  The icicle example illustrates the pattern of repeated stimu-
  lation in its cross-section and the degree of repetition in its depth.
  “Depth” is not a truly accurate description for in the three
  dimensional matrix of the brain, the paths of stimulation can
  assume any pattern:  spiral, zigzags, or even double back on itself
  crossing its own path.  In these cases, a single thoughton may
  serve multiple duty as a variable at different stages of processing.
  This creates the opportunity for complex “processing”, but still
  can be understood as the linear progression of observation-
  driven stimulation channeled by accumulated knowledge.
  So far we have dealt with the brain receiving one observa-
  tion at a time.  But the brain receives many simultaneous
  stimulations in a variety of physical areas.  As these paths of
  stimulation cross, they can add to or subtract from other paths.
  They might also be redirected or cut off and halted entirely.  Any
  form of interaction is possible.  The important concept to
  remember is that all these complexities are the result of the
  simple stimulation of thoughtons weighted by the pattern of
  stability due to repeated observation.
  Degree of Repetition
  Pattern of Stimulation
  Figure 1
  
  11
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  Obviously, if no mechanism existed for the lowering of
  energy levels, eventually every thoughton would be at maxi-
  mum.  Knowledge would be at 100%, but Thought would
  completely cease.  Since all four components of the equation,
  t / k = d ∗ a are required for Mind, Mind or awareness could not
  exist.
  Fortunately, a mechanism for thoughtons to return to
  lower energy levels functions spontaneously.  That mechanism
  is instability.
  As we have seen, when a thoughton’s energy level raises, it
  eventually reaches a level at which it will fire when further
  stimulated.  But if left alone, the thoughton will fire spontane-
  ously, lowering its energy to a more stable level.  The higher the
  level, the more quickly the spontaneous firing.
  As unstimulated thoughtons fire, they create patterns that
  reflect the greatest stored degree of repeated stimulation.  These
  internally generated patterns move through the generations as if
  they were caused by observed stimulation.  And they can modify
  other paths in the same manner.
  So, internally generated patterns could channel, alter, add
  to or halt a path of stimulation cause by a direct observation.
  It is clear that incredibly complex paths can be created by
  these simple means.  As these complex paths of potential
  resistance represent Knowledge, the flow of energy through
  these paths represents Thought.  The subtle nuances of Thought
  are due to the cosmic scale of the complexity of the paths and the
  relationship between direct and indirect stimulation.
  It is also clear that both of these components are a result of
  cause and effect, both with observation and with each other.  An
  observation can flow directly thought the brain to nerve endings,
  triggering an immediate response such as a reflex action.  Or, it
  might cross a path and trigger additional thought or the release
  of pre-existing patterns that alter thought or trigger a series of
  complex actions.
  
  12
  M E N T A L   R E L A T I V I T Y
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  
  13
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  The process of Thought applies an observation to existing
  Knowledge.  Thought and Knowledge merely respond to stimu-
  lation initially created by observation.  This describes a passive
  system that simply accepts stimulation and allows itself to be
  altered by that stimulation.
  This works fine if the system is presented with one static
  observation at a time.  But observations are not static, and the
  information they contain alters with the passage of time.  Fur-
  ther, the environment presents a number of available observa-
  tions that exceeds the capacity of the brain to assimilate.
  Therefore, the brain must make a choice as to which
  observation it wishes to continue monitoring at the expense of
  others.  The brain that gathers new information more efficiently
  has an obvious survival advantage.  But new information, the
  unknown, also contains the greatest risk.  So a process whereby
  the brain can estimate the potential risk versus the potential gain
  in Knowledge would aid in survival.  The mechanism for making
  this selection is described by the right side of the equation,
  Ability and Desire.
  Ability rates the potential risk, by determining how much
  The Right Side of the Equation:
  ABILITY AND DESIRE
  
  14
  M E N T A L   R E L A T I V I T Y
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  of an observation we have experienced before.  Desire rates the
  potential increase of Knowledge by determining how familiar we
  are with the portions we have experienced before.
  ABILITY
  Ability to do something can only be judged by comparing what
  we know to what we don’t know.  In that manner we can
  determine the risk involved in any given endeavor.  But how can
  we determine what we don’t know?  That can only be done by
  comparing our existing knowledge to an outside observation.
  This observation may be a complex scenario or a simple pattern.
  Regardless of its complexity, it is made up of simple parts.  If we
  see how many of those parts match our existing Knowledge, we
  can compare that sum to the total parts in the observation and
  determine what percentage of the observation we don’t know
  anything about.  The smaller the unknown, the greater the
  Ability.
  For example, suppose we walk into a store that sells a variety
  of board games.  We want to rate our Ability to play all the games
  in the store.  We look at an inventory of the store.  If we have
  played any given game before, we can say we are able to play it.
  If we have not played it before, we are not able.  This says nothing
  about our ability to LEARN to play, but simply states that as of
  this moment, we either know how to play a specific game or we
  don’t.  So our Ability of being able to play all the games in the
  store  can be measured as the percentage of the total number of
  games in the store that we have played before.
  From this perspective we can see that Ability is a sliding
  scale.  If we were to learn how to play another game, our
  percentage of Ability would increase.  If we were to forget how
  to play a game, our Ability would diminish.
  
  15
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  DESIRE
  Now in this example we were only concerned with how many
  games we could play, but not with how well we could play them.
  We were concerned with quantity, not quality.
  Returning to the game store, we have played some games
  many times before so we can play them very well, others we have
  only played once and cannot play well at all.  In fact, each game
  could be rated by how well we can play it.  Obviously, the better
  we can play the game, the more enjoyment we can get from it.
  So our Desire to play a game is actually a rating of how well we
  can play it.
  If we averaged this rating for all the games in the store, we
  would have a rating of how well we can play all the games in the
  store.
  DESIRABILITY
  Taken together, the percentage of games we can play multiplied
  by the rating of how well we play them, gives us our overall
  Desirability to play all the games.
  So when rating an observation, Ability tells us what
  percentage we are at all familiar with (inferring the ability to learn
  and increase our Knowledge).  We have no idea what the
  unknown parts of the observation may contain, so they pose the
  greatest risk.  Therefore, Ability, as a percentage of the parts we
  have some familiarity with, compared to the total number of
  parts rates the risk factor of the entire observation.
  Desire tells us just how familiar we are with the observa-
  tion as a whole (inferring the desire to learn more and increase
  our Knowledge).  We have a good idea of how often we have seen
  each part of the observation before, so we can rate the potential
  of the observation as a whole for increasing our knowledge.
  Now these two factors can describe the number of wines in
  
  16
  M E N T A L   R E L A T I V I T Y
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  a cellar and what vintage they are, the number of coins in a
  collection and how rare they are, the number of people in an
  audience and how entertained they are; in fact, anything at all
  can be measured in this manner.  But the essential relationship
  of Ability and Desire is this: one rates QUANTITY and the other
  QUALITY.
  The relationship between these two measurements is the
  primary relationship of Mental Relativity.
  QUANTITY & QUALITY
  When you define something, whatever it may be, you are
  effectively putting limits on its extent.  You may define it by what
  it is or what it is not, by what it includes or what it excludes.  In
  effect, by defining something you are creating a border or
  enclosure that describes only one of the defined item.  Once
  enclosed, this item is seen in the singular: one tree, one day, one
  thought.
  Any singular item can be divided into many components
  (smaller definitions) — a tree has leaves, a trunk, roots, bark, etc.
  But once the definition has been made, that group of compo-
  nents is seen as a singular item:  one tree.  An, of course, you can
  count the trees and determine their QUANTITY.
  However, you may see big trees and small trees and many
  different sizes in between.  You may find dead trees and live trees
  and trees woth some dead branches and some live.  Once an item
  has been defined as a singular unit, that unit may then have its
  qualities compared to other similar units.  As long as the aspect
  to be measured from one item to the next is consistent, within
  that aspect each unit may be measured against the others in terms
  of QUALITY.
  Effectively, Quantity defines a unit tells us “how many”,
  and Quality defines an aspect of the nature of each unit and tells
  us “to what degree”.
  
  17
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  Mathematically, quantity and quality describe two axes
  on a graph.  Any measurements on Quantity and Quality can be
  graphed between these two axes.  If quantity is defined as a point,
  quality could be the length of a line from the point.  If quantity
  is defined as a line, quality could be the width of the line.  If
  quantity is defined as a plane, quality could be the depth of the
  plane, and so on.  In a sense, each measurement is a separate
  dimension.
  Returning to the icicle model, Knowledge has both a
  quantity and a quality represented by the number of icicles and
  their various lengths.  At any given point on the roof there is or
  is not an icicle (quantity).  If there is, it has a variable length
  (quality).  Knowledge will exist if deposited by even a single
  observation, but becomes less resistive to the flow of observation
  with repeated observation.
  This can be described many ways:  a bank of light bulbs that
  are either on or off, but also vary in brightness; a group of
  thoughtons that either fire or don’t, but also require varying
  lengths of time observing to fire.  Regardless, it is clear that
  Knowledge is only completely described when both its status and
  degree are considered.
  Ability is the percentage of an observation that has been
  observed before.  The greater the percentage match, the less is
  completely unknown, the less opportunity for risk and the
  greater the perceived Ability.  If existing Knowledge matches an
  observation completely, Ability is seen to be 100%.  If there is no
  match at all, Ability is zero.
  Desire is the degree to which an observation has been
  previously monitored.  The less an observation has been seen
  before, the greater the opportunity to increase Knowledge and
  the greater the perceived Desire.  If there is no existing Knowl-
  edge at all compared to an observation, the fixed value is zero and
  Desire is 100%.  If Knowledge is 100% fixed, Desire is zero.
  Notice that in this instance, Desire seems to measure a
  negative.  It measures how tenuous Knowledge is.  But it is really
  measuring the potential for INCREASING Knowledge, and
  
  18
  M E N T A L   R E L A T I V I T Y
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  THAT is a positive.
  Imagine three chess boards suspended directly above each
  other.  The squares on the boards are all little trap doors.  Some
  squares will have a chip, others will not.  The top board
  represents an Observation, the middle board represents Knowl-
  edge, and the bottom board is the process of measuring Desire
  and Ability.
  Observation
  Knowledge
  Ability/Desire
  Picture an observation as a pattern of white poker chips on
  the top of the chess board.  The little trap doors open and allow
  the chips to fall to the board below recreating the exact pattern
  in Knowledge.
  Observation
  Knowledge
  Ability/Desire
  The trap doors close and this time a different pattern of
  observation is laid out on the top board.
  
  19
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  Second Observation
  Knowledge
  Ability/Desire
  Trap doors open and THAT pattern falls through to
  Knowledge.  THIS time, the observation is not accurately
  recreated in Knowledge.  On squares where chips were located
  in both observations, there will be two chips on the correspond-
  ing Knowledge square.  If there was a chip in one observation and
  not in the other, only one chip will be on that square in
  Knowledge.  And if there were no chips in either observation,
  there will be no Knowledge.
  Observation
  Accumulated Knowledge
  Ability/Desire
  As the process of observation continues, a pattern of
  Knowledge emerges that shows both if a square is covered or not
  and also how many chips are stacked there.
  Now suppose that each trap door on the Knowledge board
  will hold up only ten chips.  If an eleventh chip lands on a stack,
  that trap door will open just long enough to drop one chip to the
  board below, then close, continuing to hold the remaining ten
  chips — its maximum.
  
  20
  M E N T A L   R E L A T I V I T Y
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  Observation
  Knowledge
  Ability/Desire
  Eventually one observation will deposit on some stacks an
  eleventh chip and a corresponding chip from each of those stacks
  will fall to the board below creating a new pattern.  For that
  specific observation, some chips will have been effectively “ab-
  sorbed” or “learned” by Knowledge and others will become the
  eleventh chip and fall through.  This creates a pattern on the
  lowest board that reflects the effect of  “filtering” or “comparing”
  an observation against existing knowledge.
  Observation
  Knowledge
  Ability/Desire
  Alter the model slightly to allow for monitoring an obser-
  vation over a period of time.  Think of the top board as a buffer
  that fills during the monitoring of observation.  Assume the
  observation board will not dump its chips until one of the stacks
  reaches the eleventh chip, then all squares dump at the same
  time.
  
  21
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  As observation continues, each square will have between
  zero and ten chips.  When any stack reaches the eleventh chip,
  the observation buffer dumps the entire board to the Knowledge
  board below.
  Looking at this model in greater detail:  Suppose a given
  stack of observation contains ten chips.  If it matches a knowl-
  edge stack of ten chips, all ten observation chips will fall through
  into a new stack on the Desire/Ability board.  If the Knowledge
  stack has zero chips, all ten observation chips will be absorbed
  and none will fall through.
  Ability/Desire
  Depending on the number of chips in Knowledge and
  observation, one to ten chips may accumulate in the Desire/
  Ability stack.  If there is at least one chip, it can be seen that there
  has been at least some degree of previous exposure to that portion
  of the observation.  Ability for that stack will be positive,
  meaning simply that some previous knowledge exists about that
  portion of the observation.
  The number of stacks on the Desire/Ability board com-
  pared to the number of stacks in the observation determines
  Ability.  In other words, Ability is the percentage of the compo-
  nents of an observation that have been previously observed.
  Ability/Desire
  Observation
  
  22
  M E N T A L   R E L A T I V I T Y
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  Each stack on the Desire/Ability board also has a specific
  height.  The greater the number of chips in the stack, the more
  prior observation it has.
  The total number chips in the stacks on the Desire/Ability
  board deducted from the total number of chips in the observa-
  tion determines Desire.  In other words, Desire is the magnitude
  of potential between an observation and a previous observation.
  In summary, Ability measures the potential risk, Desire
  measures the potential increase of Knowledge.
  
  23
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  From our model we have gained an introductory (albeit broadly
  drawn) understanding of the basic concepts of Mental Relativity
  from the outside perspective.  Armed with this background, we
  can now relate these concepts in terms of our internal perspec-
  tive.
  t / k = d ∗ a  and  k ∗ t =  d / a
  So far we have looked at both sides of the equations in terms
  of the variables and what they represent.  The key to Mental
  Relativity, however is the way in which these elements relate or
  interact.  Relativity means that each element of the four is
  influenced and defined by the other three.  When one changes,
  the other three change in response.
  But what do they really represent to us, to our own minds?
  Thought and Knowledge describe Reasoning and Reason.
  From our internal perspective, Knowledge represents the
  way things are, the state of Reality as we see it.  Thought then,
  MENTAL RELATIVITY:
  THE INTERNAL
  PERSPECTIVE
  
  24
  M E N T A L   R E L A T I V I T Y
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  is how that reality is changing.  Remember, this is our INTER-
  NAL view of reality.  From the OUTSIDE perspective, Thought
  is the change in our own Knowledge caused by observation,
  caused by reality.
  But all we know of reality is what we have already observed,
  in other words, our existing Knowledge.  So, once again, from
  our internal perspective, Knowledge is our personal reality.
  Of course we cannot within our finite brains hold enough
  Knowledge to describe the entire universe.  Therefore, observa-
  tion frequently conflicts with our existing Knowledge and alters
  it to match the new pattern through Thought.  Altering Knowl-
  edge is the process of Reasoning and the result of that alteration,
  (new Knowledge) is Reason.
  The other two variables, Desire and Ability describe Feel-
  ing and Emotion from the INTERNAL perspective.  Feeling
  and Emotion are two different things.  One is a process and the
  other is the result, just like Reasoning and Reason, just like
  Thought and Knowledge.  Emotion describes our condition AT
  THE MOMENT and Feeling is the process of altering that
  condition to a new condition.
  Emotion is the internal perspective of Ability.  From the
  outside perspective Ability is determined by comparing two
  states of Knowledge at different moments.  The RESULT of this
  comparison is Ability.  At any given moment, the result exists.
  But as Knowledge is continually altered by Thought, the result,
  Ability will keep changing.  So Emotion, the internal perspective
  of Ability is a momentary value that keeps changing.
  If we only had one pattern of Thought, we would have only
  one Emotion, since Ability would be always altering in the same
  direction with the same intensity; the momentary value would
  remain unchanged because the difference between each two
  moments of Knowledge would have the same value.  That is,
  Knowledge would always change in the same direction at the
  same rate.
  But we have many patterns of Thought and so, the direc-
  
  25
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  tion and rate of change of Knowledge is constantly shifting as the
  patterns of Thought shift.  The process of changing the pattern
  of Thought is Feeling.  The result of changing that pattern is a
  new Emotion.
  Again, from the outside perspective, Desire is the difference
  in direction and intensity of the pattern of Thought: the differ-
  ence between two moments of Thought.  From the inside
  perspective, Feeling is the process of changing the direction and
  intensity of Thought.
  So as we Feel, we are altering our Thoughts and our
  Knowledge to achieve a new Emotion.
  It is clear why Thought and Knowledge are on one side of
  the equation and Desire and Ability on the other.  Thought is the
  process of altering Knowledge and Desire is the process of
  shifting Ability.  Knowledge is the resistance that shifts Thought.
  Ability is the inertia that moderates Desire.
  Thought and Knowledge are measured at given moments.
  At any one time, the nature of the brain will contain a value of
  Thought and a value of Knowledge.  But Desire and Ability are
  measured OVER time and cannot be measured at all at a single
  moment.  Therefore, we can never understand our Feeling and
  Emotion with our Thought or Knowledge and we can never
  empathize our Thought and Knowledge with our Feeling or
  Emotion.  One set deals with the moment, the other over period
  of time.
  The left side of the equation gives us our understanding, the
  right side gives us our motivation.  Each side of the equation is
  just as strong, just as valid, and just as important to self
  awareness.  If any one of the four variables were missing,
  awareness could not exist.
  
  26
  M E N T A L   R E L A T I V I T Y
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  PERCEPTION AND REALITY
  What is awareness?  By analogy, awareness is a yardstick for
  measuring ourselves and our environment.  The equation de-
  scribes a system measured from the outside, as if we had removed
  our awareness from our own minds and were looking at what was
  left from the outside, measuring the functioning of the mind by
  an outside yardstick.  But we are each INSIDE our own system.
  In order to measure the functioning of a system from within that
  system, there must be some fixed INTERNAL yardstick against
  which to gauge changes in the elements of that system.
  As we have shown, all four elements of Mental Relativity
  are mutually altering by the very nature of the process.  From a
  perspective outside the mind we can clearly see all four elements
  changing simultaneously.  However, as we mentioned earlier, we
  have no way of stepping outside our own mental processes to
  describe our own minds.  That is because in order to perceive the
  functioning of our own minds, in order to be aware, we must
  have some way of monitoring our own minds from the inside.
  To do this we must freeze one of these variables so we can observe
  changes in the others.  In effect, we thereby create an apparently
  unchanging yardstick with which to measure the other three
  variables.
  Notice that we said an APPARENTLY unchanging yard-
  stick, for it is not truly possible to freeze any of the variables and
  still maintain awareness.  Rather, the inner perspective we select
  determines which variable appears constant and therefore the
  other three that appear to change.
  As a model, imagine yourself on a carousel.  You might sit
  on a horse that moves up and down while the carousel spins or
  you might sit on a bench that goes forward and backward on the
  floor of the carousel.  First you sit on the bench.  From your
  perspective, the carousel does not appear to move.  Rather, the
  scenery appears to move past you.  But due to the back and forth
  movement of the bench, sometimes the scenery moves ahead
  
  27
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  very quickly, sometimes it appears to stand still and sometimes
  it even seems to move backward.  You look at the horse and see
  it as moving up and down.  You look at the carousel and it
  appears to move back and forth.  Finally you look at the bench
  where you sit and it appears to be unmoving.
  Next, you mount the horse.  Now the scenery appears to
  move past you, never stopping or backward,  but seems to move
  up and down as well, relative to your new position.  You look
  at the bench and it seems also to be moving up and down and
  forward and backward at the same time.  The carousel looks as
  if is going up and down, but your horse seems to be unmoving.
  You then stand on the floor of the carousel itself.  The
  horse moves up and down, the bench moves forward and back,
  the scenery moves past you.
  Finally, you step off the carousel and watch it from the
  ground.  The horse moves up and down and around.  The bench
  moves forward, backward and sometimes stops.  The carousel
  goes around.  For the first time the scenery appears stationary.
  It becomes clear that identical minds differing only in the
  variable they hold constant could see an identical observation in
  completely different manners.  Decisions of whether and how
  to act could be made differently even though processed through
  identical existing knowledge, depending upon the perspective.
  The differing views created by specific selection of which
  variable to hold constant is the cause of the difference between
  Perception and Reality.
  
  28
  M E N T A L   R E L A T I V I T Y
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  Differences in Left/Right Functioning
  The way either mind makes a constant is to multiply the variables
  on one side of the equation.  In a conceptual sense, two factors
  have now been combined into one, leaving room at that empty
  fourth place to hold awareness which can monitor the remaining
  three positions.
  Again, conceptually, Awareness can look across the equal
  sign and clearly monitor the other side - the dividing side.  But
  the multiplied variable on the same side is unclear.  In effect, the
  side of the equation that divides defines the Conscious and the
  side that multiplies defines the Subconscious.
  In this sense, for the left equation, both Ability and Desire
  have ceased to exist as independent variables and have become a
  new variable, Desirability, which resides in the subconscious.
  From the outside perspective, we can see that as Ability and
  Desire change, Desirability changes, but from the internal
  perspective of awareness, any given Desirability cannot be
  separated into its component parts, there is simply nowhere to
  put them without displacing awareness.  From this perspective,
  a Left Minded individual will experience Desirability, but will be
  unable to break that down into separate it into the proper
  proportions of Desire and Ability.
  For example, if the Desirability variable is mid-intensity, is
  that a high Ability and a low Desire or a high Desire and a low
  Ability or a medium Ability with a medium Desire?  From this
  perspective, it is impossible to tell.
  Therefore a Left Minded individual will consciously make
  decisions based on Thought and Knowledge (Reasoning and
  Reason) which he can consider independently.  Desirability
  (Feeling and Emotion) will influence him from his subcon-
  scious.
  In contrast, a Right Mind will easily be able to separate
  Ability from Desire.  The Right Minded individual will con-
  sciously make decisions based on Feeling and Emotion.  It will
  
  29
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  be influenced through the subconscious by Logic, the unclear
  product of t∗k (Reasoning and Reason).  Logic is the Right
  Minded equivalent of Desirability, the difference being that a
  Right Minded individual cannot determine what the respective
  Thought and Knowledge contents are within Logic.
  Whichever Mind you are, one of the above examples
  should make perfect sense to you and the other may almost seem
  wrong.  This simply serves to illustrate the incredible difference
  between the two perspectives.
  How can these two approaches have any common frame of
  reference?  Because Mental Relativity states that all four elements
  are mutually altering.  Therefore, even if two are combined,
  something of their nature can be seen by their effect on the other
  single variables.  In this manner, we all have an indication of all
  four elements, some more clearly than others.
  Returning to the chess board model, Knowledge contains
  within it aspects of both Ability and Desire.  A given Chess board
  square either has chips or not, but also contains a number of
  chips equal to the frequency of stimulation.  As Thought moves
  through Knowledge, it is being altered by Ability and Desire,
  even as the process of Reasoning occurs.  The two processes,
  Reasoning and Feeling happen simultaneously.
  The process of Feeling alters the process of Reasoning and
  vice versa.  Each one alters the flow and existence of the other
  simultaneously.  So the result of either process, in a practical sense,
  is the altering of the other process.
  As Thought flows through the system, it leaves new Knowl-
  edge deposited in its wake.  And it leaves this new Knowledge
  because the existing Knowledge saps energy from Thought to
  create it.  So they are mutually altering.  Since Knowledge when
  changed determines Ability and Thought when changed deter-
  mines Desire, those are altered as Thought and Knowledge are
  altered and they alter Though and Knowledge as Thought is
  sapped to created new Knowledge.
  In effect, both processes and both results are occurring simul-
  taneously, and each of the four continuously alters and is altered
  
  30
  M E N T A L   R E L A T I V I T Y
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  by the other three.  This is the heart of Mental Relativity and the
  basis for the structure of the Equation.
  So the Left Minded person makes his Conscious decisions
  based on Reasoning and Reason.  He employs Thought and
  Knowledge, which he can clearly see as separate factors, to alter
  the other.  The subconscious influence for the Left Minded will
  come from his Feelings and Emotions which will be unclear and
  unfathomable as it is generated by the blurring of Ability and
  Desire.
  The Right Minded very clearly seeing Ability and Desire as
  separate factors will make Conscious decisions based on Feelings
  and Emotion, using each to alter the other.  His Subconscious
  influence will come from Reasoning and Reason which will be
  unmotivated and unempathizable as they are generated by
  Thought and Knowledge which are blurred together.
  Since the left side of either equation deals with the vectors
  of change and the current state of the brain, the left side deals
  with frozen moments.  Since the right side of the equation in
  either equation deals with change in the vectors of change, and
  the difference between two states of the brain, the right side deals
  with progression.
  So the Left Minded individual will make Conscious deci-
  sions based on goals.  The Right Minded individual will make
  Conscious decisions based on processes.
  The Left Minded person will look at his situation and strive
  to better it, achieving an improved situation.  The Right Minded
  person will look at his condition and strive to better it, creating
  an improved condition.
  The Left Minded person will be outcome oriented, the
  Right Minded person will be process oriented.  Both Minds are
  happy if an enjoyable process most efficiently achieves a specific
  outcome.  But Left Mind will at least be content if an unpleasant
  process leads to a desired outcome.  Right Mind would be
  unhappy in that scenario, but would be content if an enjoyable
  process led nowhere.  Left Mind would be unhappy in that
  scenario.
  
  31
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  For another viewpoint of Left and Right Minds we return
  to the model holding one variable as a constant to provide a
  yardstick to measure changes in the other three.
  This model seems to suggest that there are four possible
  minds, not two, but that is not the case.  Thought is already a
  constant - a frozen moment - as is Knowledge.  So there are only
  two other variables we might hold constant.
  Since Ability is the difference between two states of Knowl-
  edge, holding Ability as a constant will simply create another
  view of Knowledge.  Changes in Ability will not be seen and will
  play no role in making decisions.  The only measure of the
  change in the mind that is caused by observation will be Desire.
  So Desire will become the dominant factor in the awareness of
  that individual.
  The other individual holding Desire as a constant will not
  see the changes in Thought caused by observation.  His only
  rating of the change in his internal state is the change in
  Knowledge, Ability.  So Ability will become the dominant factor
  in the awareness of that individual.
  Ability differs in a crucial way from Desire.  Ability
  measures the difference between two states of Knowledge, two
  situations.  Desire measures the difference between two natures
  of Thought, two conditions.
  Obviously if Ability were never to be measured, a person
  would make decisions in complete ignorance of the risk in-
  volved.  And if Desire were never to be measured, a person would
  make decisions in complete ignorance of the potential gain.
  The key to this dilemma is to ALTERNATE which variable
  is held constant.  If we hold Ability constant only long enough
  to measure Desire, we can then hold Desire constant long
  enough to measure Ability.  In this manner, awareness can be
  maintained while giving the mind its best information on the
  risk and potential of an observation.
  When the mind alternates that view between Ability and
  Desire, either Ability or Desire might be measured first.  The
  observation is either first seen as how many points match with
  
  32
  M E N T A L   R E L A T I V I T Y
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  Knowledge and then how much potential it contains for increas-
  ing Knowledge or in the reverse order.
  Returning to our chess board model, suppose Ability is
  measured first.  The very process of measuring is to deduct
  existing Knowledge from the observation. If we are holding
  Desire as a constant, only the patterns of Knowledge and
  observation are measured, not the intensity.  So when Knowl-
  edge is deducted from observation to create the measurement of
  Ability, there is no simultaneous measurement of Desire.  There-
  fore, the entire sum of Knowledge containing both pattern and
  intensity has been removed from the observation before Desire
  gets a chance to look at it.
  So when the mind alternates and measures Desire, only the
  remainder of the observation, weakened by the subtraction of
  Knowledge is available.  It is clear that when Ability is measured
  first, it carries considerably more weight in rating an observation
  for risk and potential.
  If Desire were to be measured first, existing Knowledge will
  be removed from the observation before Ability can be measured
  and Desire will carry substantially more weight in rating risk
  versus potential.
  So the real difference between the two minds is not which
  variable is held as a constant, but which is held as a constant first.
  That determination is initially connected with how a Mind first
  sees an observation.
  
  33
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  An observation, as well as a Mind, contains within it all four
  elements (Thought, Knowledge, Desire, and Ability) simulta-
  neously.  But as we have discussed, the Mind cannot see all four
  as variables simultaneously and still maintain awareness.
  Since Ability and Desire are functions requiring the passage
  of time to measure change by comparing two frozen moments,
  the factors Ability and Desire are not seen by the Mind in
  observation.  Rather, the Mind sees observation as either Thought
  or Knowledge.
  If the Mind sees the Observation first as Thought, it will
  allow the observation to be filtered by internal Knowledge,
  creating a new Thought.  In doing so, it has now established a
  passage of time across which to measure Desire.  Of course, the
  Mind’s Knowledge has been altered by this process, but from the
  internal perspective, the Mind was not monitoring Knowledge
  and did not perceive the change.
  To understand this, let us look at the mechanism of how an
  observation is applied to the Mind.
  In order to create a new Thought, observation increases
  Knowledge to a higher state of instability.  This, in turn, decays
  THE RELATIVITY OF
  OBSERVATION
  
  34
  M E N T A L   R E L A T I V I T Y
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  into a new pattern of Thought.  Only then is the Mind able to
  compare Thought1 to Thought2.  In this instance, the Mind will
  be comparing Thought2 to the initial observation which was
  perceived as Thought.  Effectively, observation (Thought1) has
  been divided by Knowledge equaling the difference between the
  two:  Desire.
  As an equation from the internal perspective, Thought
  diminished by Knowledge equals Desire: t / k = d.
  From an external perspective, Knowledge has also been
  altered by this process, and once altered has had to decay in order
  to create Thought2.  So from an external perspective, what the
  Mind perceives as Desire is really the effect of Ability applied to
  Desire, or: a ∗ d.  In other words, Knowledge1 was altered into
  Knowledge2 by being increased through observation before
  decaying into Thought2.  So, although the Mind is only inter-
  ested in Thought2, which it perceives as Desire, Ability has really
  already been determined and is contained in that internal
  perspective of Desire.  So the Mind’s internal equation of
  t / k = d., is seen from an outside perspective as t / k = d ∗ a.
  Once this Mind has determined Desire, Desire appears to
  be a constant, and that Mind will then set about determining
  Ability by using Thought and Knowledge.  This person will
  either want something or not want something initially, and then
  use Reasoning and Reason to achieve what he wants and avoid
  what he doesn’t want.
  The other type of Mind will view observation first as
  Knowledge.  It will allow the observation to be filtered by
  internal Thought creating a new Knowledge.  In doing so, it has
  now established a passage of time across which to measure
  Ability.  Of course, this Mind’s Thought has been altered during
  the process, but from the internal perspective, the Mind was not
  monitoring Thought and did not perceive the change.
  In order to create new Knowledge, observation was applied
  to existing Knowledge to create a higher state of instability.  In
  other words, internal Thought was applied to observed Knowl-
  edge to create new Knowledge.
  
  35
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  In order for the new Knowledge to be perceived, it must
  decay into new Thought.  From the internal perspective, this
  Mind perceives Thought as being unchanging or constant, in
  order to compare Knowledge1 to Knowledge2.  As an equation
  from the internal perspective, Knowledge applied to Thought
  equals Ability: k ∗ t = a.  But since Desire (the difference between
  Thought1 and Thought2) is diminished by the existence of new
  Knowledge (from the external perspective), k ∗ t =  d / a.
  Once this Mind has determined an apparent Ability, that
  factor appears to be a constant.  Because in the process of
  calculating Ability, new Thought has diminished new Knowl-
  edge to the point that there seems to be no difference between
  new Knowledge and old Knowledge.  The elevated state of new
  Knowledge was not visible to this Mind until there was new
  Thought to observe it.  So, as new Knowledge decays into new
  Thought, it is diminished in the process of observing it.
  This person will either feel able or not able to do something
  initially, and then use feelings and emotion to motivate them-
  selves to Desire what they can do, and not Desire what they are
  unable to do.
  
  36
  M E N T A L   R E L A T I V I T Y
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  
  37
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  How do these two differing approaches to observation help our
  Ability to survive?
  The processes of dividing and multiplying are the basis for
  deductive and inductive thinking.
  Deductive thinking is the process of comparing experience
  (existing Knowledge) to observation to determine risk.  The
  observation is matched to KNOWN cause & effect.  It works
  well for immediate reactions, but is not at all useful for projecting
  new courses of action that have not been experienced.
  Inductive thinking is the process of taking the known
  quantity from an observation and then finding all of the touch
  points that share part or all of the known quantity.  This is best
  suited for projecting the potential of new and unexperienced
  alternative paths, but has no power to determine the risk of the
  paths.
  What we call awareness incorporates both processes, induc-
  tive and deductive thinking.  One Mind will compare observa-
  tion to existing Knowledge to determine Ability (deduction),
  and compare existing Thought to altered Thought to determine
  Desire (induction).  The other Mind will compare the observa-
  THE MEANING OF
  MENTAL RELATIVITY
  
  38
  M E N T A L   R E L A T I V I T Y
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  tion to existing Thought to determine Desire (deduction), and
  compare existing Knowledge to altered Knowledge to determine
  Ability (induction).
  Due to the structure of the Mind, one system will create an
  inductive process using Reasoning and Reason, with the deduc-
  tive process using Feeling and Emotion.  The other Mind will
  create an inductive process using Feeling and Emotion with the
  deductive process using Reasoning and Reason.
  Everything we have so far described depends upon the
  equity between the left and right sides of the equation.  However,
  through the passage of time, each new observation creates an
  inequity on one side of the equation or the other.  In addition,
  since each Mind reflects the other as an inverse with a twist, the
  interrelationships between these two Minds, compounded by
  new observation, leads to the complexity of psychology which we
  will discuss next.
  
  39
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  Left Minded Thinking
  NEW
  THOUGHT 2
  THOUGHT 1
  (Observation)
  EXISTING 
  KNOWLEDGE 1
  NEW 
  KNOWLEDGE 2
  Ability
  Desire
  
  
  
  
  
  
   Deduction
  Induction
  
  t / k = d ∗ a
  1. Observation viewed as Thought1.
  2. Knowledge1 prior to filtering of Observation
  (Thought1).
  3. New Thought2 the result of the decay of Knowl-
  edge1 after stimulation by Observation (Thought1).
  4. New Knowledge2 the result of Knowledge1 after
  stimulation by Observation (Thought1).
  5. Deduction as the process of reducing the unknown
  quantities from Thought1, resulting in filtered
  Thought2.
  6. Induction (after deduction) as the process of com-
  paring the increase in known quantities between
  Knowledge1 and Knowledge2.
  7. Rating of Desire measured as the difference be-
  tween Thought1 and Thought2.
  8. Rating of Ability measured as the difference be-
  tween Knowledge1 and Knowledge2.
  
  40
  M E N T A L   R E L A T I V I T Y
  Copyright © 1991 Melanie Anne Phillips & Chris  Huntley
  Ability
  EXISTING
  THOUGHT 1
  
  KNOWLEDGE 1
  (Observation)
  
  NEW
  THOUGHT 2
  
  NEW 
  KNOWLEDGE 2
  
  Desire
  
  
  Induction
  
   Deduction
  Right Minded Thinking
  k ∗ t = d / a
  1. Observation viewed as Knowledge1.
  2. Thought1 prior to stimulation by Observation
  (Knowledge1).
  3. New Knowledge2 as the result of the filtering of
  Thought1 after stimulation by Observation (Knowl-
  edge1).
  4. New Thought2 as the result of the decay of Knowl-
  edge2 after stimulation by Thought1 .
  5. Induction as the process of comparing the in-
  crease in known quantities between Knowledge1
  and Knowledge2.
  6. Deduction (after induction) as the process of re-
  ducing the unknown quantities from Thought1,
  resulting in filtered Thought2.
  7. Rating of Ability measured as the difference be-
  tween Knowledge1 and Knowledge2.
  8. Rating of Desire measured as the difference be-
  tween Thought1 and Thought2.
  
SOURCE: textdata/thevault/Crafts/Writing/Huntley & Phillips - Mental Relativity.pdf