Force of Destiny

2000+ Free world Best Books
click on the pics.

Logic Law

Unambiguous or unequivocal contextual inferencing may be defined as an inference or conclusion drawn from a
perceptible inconsistency or contrariety; between aggregates rather than single objects, that has reached a threshold where an object or small group of objects and that of the aggregated group providing context are no
longer tenable jointly.

It belongs to the classification of a contrariety, as opposed to a contradiction, where the conclusion is drawn from a balance of probabilities when the threshold of contextual elements jointly, or conjunctively overwhelm the object that joint consistency is no longer plausible or tenable.
First an easy literary example.

Context precedes Percept, an idea I put together from W. Shakespeare and W. Empson and often determines meaning with utter precision.

Here are a few lines from Shakespeare, Hamlet's gravedigger's scene. Look at the boldface section for the word 'lie' in each line. Each is highlighted in blue.

  Ham. They are sheep and calves which seek out assurance in that. I
    will speak to this fellow. Whose grave's this, sirrah?
  Clown. Mine, sir.
    [Sings] O, a pit of clay for to be made
              For such a guest is meet.

  Ham. I think it be thine indeed, for thou liest in't.
  Clown. You lie out on't, sir, and therefore 'tis not yours.
    For my part, I do not lie in't, yet it is mine.
  Ham. Thou dost lie in't, to be in't and say it is thine. 'Tis for
    the dead, not for the quick; therefore thou liest.
  Clown. 'Tis a quick lie, sir; 'twill away again from me to you.

  Ham. What man dost thou dig it for?
  Clown. For no man, sir.
  Ham. What woman then?
  Clown. For none neither.
  Ham. Who is to be buried in't?
  Clown. One that was a woman, sir; but, rest her soul, she's dead.
  Ham. How absolute the knave is! We must speak by the card, or
    equivocation will undo us. 

The meaning of the word lie is switched in one line clearly from lying as in laying down, to lying as in telling a falsity. Look for the line where the ambiguity gets stronger, and thereafter becomes determined by context where the switch is made. That is how context precedes and determines percept with precision. All done by inference from literary context. I hope this example gives you sufficient clarity as to how the process works. What is needed now is to transpose the principle to behaviour in a contextual frame.

To take another example. Let us assume that the path between a person whose course of conduct is goal orientated seeking to move from
A to B, where A is any starting point and B; the goal, is a vault containing diamonds. The path is strewn with infra red moving
cameras that span all traversable surfaces so that detection become almost impossible or at least very difficult. The only solution is to
traverse that critical path when each camera jointly reaches its temporal blind spot; ie when it's scanning returns the path it came from, and then to make the move into the adjoining camera's
scanning perimeters. The critical path.

This is wholly dependent on the nature of the obstacles as a function of their efficacy in completeness of coverage. Say there are 15;
rather than 2, cameras in the particular example. The path from A to B requires far too many contrarieties; crossing the blind spots,
to be breached as to reach the end totally 'by accident' rather than 'design' with a probability close to zero. It may be said that the probability of reaching B by
accident is close to 1, ie; almost impossible. In such a case, where the successful breach of security has been attained, it is
unequivocal or unambiguous that it was possible by sheer accident, and most improbable to have been attained by lack of design, ie;
purposeful goal seeking. If the conclusion is conjoined with an admission by the intelligence of the correspondence in design or goal
and its realisation, then the conclusion becomes certain.

An observer of a spaceship leaving the earth's orbit on a trajectory to Mars, that lands on the far side within a few yards of a
previous landing, in context is highly probable to have been one of design rather than accident, and when the spacecraft's crew are
questioned and their objective was precisely that objective, then the conclusion is certain. In all such cases, the intelligence is capable
of being interrogated or tested. If a mouse crosses the path from A to B, and finds cheese at point B, it has shown intelligent design
in bringing itself and its objectives to realisation.

The difference between the function of movement between two objects in space governed by Newton's first law of physics; “Every
object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it”, and that
of intelligent design, is the more complex situation that is required to traverse points A and B, without relying on simple forces of inertia, or gravity. Its is the teleology as an expression of cosmology rather than ontology.

This contributor used the contextual inferencing with devastating consequences. The body concerned was warned in advance of the two disciplines that implied delinquency on their part. The denial was outright, and the consequence was to confront them with the logic where the denial was irrational. So irrational was the denial it forced an admission since it was far better to admit to one false representation than be compelled to admit two in the untenable situation they were in. The contributor didn't release anything like the full context of what was available that would have made the denial not merely irrational, but outrageously of unsound mind. Subsequently, there was another attempt to make a false representation, and this was again confronted with the background of an already destroyed credibility. The denial that should have come instantly has not yet arrived, and the time interval is equivalent to silence by admission. Should it be necessary it can be proven. The methodology used that has not yet been revealed publicly is available, and will, after a period of release from sub judice conditions, be channelled here, for those of particular and profound interest and need.

The degree of perceptibility is the essence of contextual inferencing. Inconsistency occurs the moment the contrariety or inconsistency exists itself, but in many or most cases it is far too imperceptible to rationalise.
Only “time unfolds what plighted cunning hides”, and then “who covers faults with shame them derides”.
The contributor tells a story of a much wanted child. And at the moment of conception the information of the inconsistency was available in the system. That same night after conception about 5-7 hours later the contributor recalled a powerful dream of existence and destiny that is recounted elsewhere. The realisation was confirmed by tests some 14 days later. The information is there, detecting it in a timely fashion is the thing.

Put a different way.

Proper understanding of the function of purpose and strategy is somewhat forensic and detective in nature. It's achieved in context, and better still, if there are several contexts, to get a triangulation or stereo vision on the problem properly and to identify it.

The nature of contextual inferencing is to examine with added purpose, the consistencies and inconsistencies, similarities and differences IN context(s). Those features that show themselves best articulated to the percepts are formed in the process of space time, the SIX dimensional view of 3 dimensions of space and 3 of time.

The individual's (particle's) world time line as it were in Newtonian physics and derived towards quantum mechanics may sound a bit obtuse but has its roots in the Newtonian law of motion:

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

For the nonce I will place the other two here also.

SO, to plot the plot behind human actions, draw upon the law above and add the notion: that the uniform motion of purpose and strategy is understood better in the context of time and space, ( essentially movement, since without movement there is no perceptible sense of time ), or in procedures governed by the ambit of agendas and rules.

1. When you discern the consistencies between actions and their given context, or else the inconsistencies in that same context, you have a view of the teleology, or inner purpose. IF the purpose is inconsistent then it will be cloaked in veiled conduct, wrapped in pretext, but it remains as easily perceived because the justification, when asked for; which one should do, simply doesn't follow from the wider context, or even the narrower one, (non sequitur), being the agenda that's visible or opaque being attempted to be hidden, rather than transparent. It's the differences and similarities that either cause discord or accord to the percepts of a hypothesis that's driving scrutiny in the focus of attention.

Cor. Time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides.

Who cover faults, at last shame them derides.

Thus purpose and or strategy either conforms to rules and procedural agendas, or else they are inconsistent with them. But the inconsistencies when cloaked in the art of deception, reveal themselves when the 'mens rea' in the spoken words; locutions, conform to the rules, procedures or agendas, BUT the 'actus reus' doesn't. OR the locutons are more like perlocutions; being utterances with purpose of persuasion, rather than indifference and perfect equanimity.
Simple really!

Instinct picks it up instantly, but rationalisation takes time, and requires proof. Disentangling the logic of strategy shows purpose as time unfolds with movement, and thus features become more distinct, like a mutation is not readily visible at birth, but after growth in time, shows its full features.

Combine this with several disciplines of reasoning. Scientific methodology; as in, necessary and sufficient conditions, formal and syllogistic reasoning, combined closely with the precise use of judgements of comparison and subsumption to infer presence or absence of simple or complex causes.

The next part of the equation is to ask the right well framed question, and observe with added purpose the response. If the answer is consistent with the context(s) then it's probably more likely to be true, and if it is inconsistent, or the explanation involves terms whose potential is open to wide interpretation of senses, then it is more probably a lie. The way to ask the right question is to get a denial since the denial is exclusive of all senses save the one being denied, otherwise affirmatives are dangerously open to holding a particular sense in the mind of the deceiver, while suggesting the sense that is designed to be interpreted in the mind of the listener.

Procedures in rule governed processes are a very good cloak for agenda or deception, since the party blocking a course of action, say a court officer, will choose to wrap an order in a carefully chosen civil procedure rule that will label the conduct perhaps as vexatious, when it is a matter of vital principle being addressed, but money is the greater agenda. This is where the Judiciary loses its sway on true justice as it becomes subject to self financing, as in a selecton agenda behind today's CPR methodology whereas before, the principle was paramount and the agenda or money at the heart, was not an overriding factor.

Such orders, or rulings may be derived to permit a stalemate as it were with a face saving outcome for the body whose integrity is not to be questioned if at all possible. Hence the vital importance of a public hearing. The more public the less likely to be covered up. When a ruling is given to push a party towards adverse opportunity like, find a compelling reason to hear a case or else go to a Judicial Review, the only option is to surround the compelling reasons with references to fairness and reasonableness, ask some kind of irrefutable question of the adversary, then add the option to make it all public if that all fails. Hence the vital importance of a free press, but even more so, free open and pubic forums not governed by the need to advertise or sell papers.

In all this, the disciplines of sound reasoning then have to come into play thereafter in deriving conclusions that flow soundly. Non sequiturs are unacceptable, but abundant in fallacious arguments.

Formal logic, sound reasoning from major premiss's that have truthful and objective correspondence with reality, scientific methodology, and unambiguous and unequivocal inferences that flow from context(s) are some of the tools.

These are all found in the logic and fallacies sections of this site. For example:

____________________________________

1. Necessary and Sufficient conditions for determination of proper causes.

The simplest form is, The presence of oxygen is necessary to life IF AND ONLY IF the absence of oxygen is sufficient for the absence of life. The conclusion is, that if there is one simple cause for the existence of life, and if the above proposition holds true, then oxygen may be said to be a simple cause for life. The real life example of its use with my borough.

____________________________________

2. Truth and an objective correspondence theory wrapped into one long sentence.

Aristotle, Metaphysic book IV ch 7: 1011b 26-7:

“To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false,

while to say of what is that it is, or of what is not that it is not, is true.”

____________________________________

3. The three laws of thought.

Identity, excluded middle and non contradiction.

A. A thing is only identical with itself, B. it is either itself or NOT itself, and C. it cannot be both itself and not itself simultaneously. Here.

Forget for the time being any Heraclitean notion of flux, we are talking here of time slicing.

Not “you cannot step into the SAME stream twice”

____________________________________

Syllogistic reasoning from Major to Minor premiss and sound conclusion relying on the middle term. Here.

Truth and falsity. Here.

Knowledge and Belief Here.

Combine that with a dead person found at the bottom of a coal mine with his miner's lamp extinguished and you have a context from which to construct a simple inference of unambiguous content. This is dissimilar in context with a dead miner on the surface with his miner's lamp alight. In this context, with no outward signs of obvious causes, a post mortem “PM” may be necessary if the person is young and didn't simply and obviously die of old age. Such a postmortem by a family pursuing justice for some reason and suspicious of the circumstance, the PM may be conducted with added purpose. Thus, several tests may be conducted such as toxicology, or heart and liver investigation where the family context showed similar past instances. In such like manner is the application of the primary discipline of scientific methodology with added contextual information will provide substantive correlations to refined judgements. These judgements then fall into the main two classifications of judgment, those of comparison and subsumption discussed elsewhere. With the growth of technology, there is an ever sharpening of critical ability that merely refines judgements in most cases from what is known or conjectured in the broadest terms.

The procedure commences with a hypothesis, combined with the application of the rationalisation process of necessary and sufficient conditions. Along with all that, valid formal reasoning must be applied. Most clear thinking people with common-sense, will find these procedures to be instinctively innate, and we certainly shouldn't require the governments of the day to teach us how to open a can of beans carefully. The need arises when governments promote stupidity with complex fallacious arguments, turning normal thinking upside down because of revenue or otherwise biased agendas. They have created a body of automatons whose thinking is removed from them BY ORDER. Don't rationalise at the location, all the rationalisation will be done at the head office or better still the back office. Wardens are so instructed that nowadays they need training to recognise a new plastic style disabled badge, that has taken over from former paper ones. I should have hoped that simply pointing 50 people to a picture of the said plastic would be a word to the wise, but alas it is not so. Dehumanising, requires subsequent training and re-humanising. What a waste of the body of human innate instinct and intelligence. Only bureaucracy could come up with such ideas.

Being aware of context, defines the nature of activities that should flow from the relevant dimensions, eg; time, location, setting, circumstance, antecedents, situation, and whatever is relevant to he context's focus.

Being aware of context, defines the nature of activities that should flow from the relevant dimensions, eg; time, location, setting, circumstance, antecedents, situation, and whatever is relevant to he context's focus.

Two examples from one context with slight temporal difference only will illuminate this.

1. You are the librarian in the daytime of the British Museum Library. What flows from the context of a group of readers; the understanding of specific rules of conduct and perhaps even the architectural surrounding imposing itself, is silence. You and others tiptoe around quietly, nobody puts on the radio, a slight accident of say a dropped book will raise eyebrows of disapprobation and alarm.

2. Six o clock arrives and the library is now empty. You are free to turn on the radio, perhaps just a little more softly than in a discotheque, and walk around very normally.

Is that now quite clear as to what flows from context. Context is a determining and deterministic force. W. Empson says that 'context precedes percept' which I agree with, but differ, in that percept involves an interaction of the psyche. I prefer the neutral form being context precedes particular(s) , in that, events occur as part of the natural flow from contextual antecedents, and this does not involve the psyche of necessity, but perhaps an undetermined teleology. I see no particular reason to invariably link the psyche as the 5^th dimension to space time, (standard space time, where time is not of itself three dimensional, past, present and future). Once understood, we don't need to check every time if the fridge light goes off when closing the door and leaving, we reasonably know it to be so, because of understanding the mechanism involved. In archeology these things flow through time, and when the architect comes along, examinees the striations in glacial movement of moraines, rock compression and volcanic eruptions, water, fossils and sedimentation, he may calculate the effects of climate and time upon the process enabling him to reason unambiguously that large prehistoric animals preceded their smaller kind, and there was perhaps some intervening ice age that affected the dinosaurs. It may all be probabilities, but of such high order to be near to certainty as one can be in an empirical world.

Similarly in forensic detective work, where perhaps three people are in a fatal struggle, say in a narrow corridor, two parents and a child. One parent stabs the other parent, and remaining parent and child flee the scene. On examination of the blood spatter, one wall shows splatter higher than the other, and blockage by the two obstructing bodies, that allows inferencing that there had to be a tall and a short person in front of the spray that almost defines the body size as if cast by a shadow. It is this application of necessary and sufficient conditions combined with proper valid forms of reasoning, that permits the disciplines of archaeology and police forensics to establish so much from context.

In communications, words in their contexts of surrounding sentences, and the choice of words is particularly revealing, as I will show below, but those sentences in context of paragraphs, ideas with purposeful ripostes and thrusts, and then of course the entire context of the exchange, be it spoken or written, and the situational nature of the entire dimension of the exchange itself.

Certainly inferencing flows the moment an observer arrives at the scene, but the context that preceded his arrival was deterministic, at least until teleology of human psyche became involved. If there was a higher teleological force being the context, ie; nature or God, other than a greater context of planetary movement then this is out of the focus of this treatise.

I trust the reader will agree at this point that contextual reasoning or inferencing can be very accurate, and a reliable form of conclusion derivation without any particular reference to formal logic or syllogistic reasoning. In fact the reasoning is far more akin to that involved in scientific methodology, relying on the necessary and sufficient conditions for causal or nomic relationships to be unequivocally derived. See the separate section of the principles of necessary and sufficient conditions in nomic relationships and causes.

It was this use of unambiguous inferencing that I found myself looking at in the early stages of a court case with my local borough. It will be an interesting digression here, as an expose of how powerful and reliable such inferencing; allied with the other disciplines and forms; syllogistic, formal logic, and necessary and sufficient conditions can be. The result of its use found the lawyer's letter in reply to an allegation I made, to be the entire downfall, admission, expose and embarrassment of their defence in the pre-action protocol stages leading towards litigation I had given them notice of.

I will have to unfold the background statutory framework, ring fenced procedures, and code of conduct, along with the generalised view I have on 'fee'd' lawyers that are not independent of their employer. It concerns the simple delivery of a parking penalty charge notice “PCN” for stopping a vehicle for 60 seconds and what unfolded from that trivia, into a major dispute. The statutory framework is that;

1. A PCN is issued under circumstance where a contravention is alleged to have occurred.

2. One may appeal informally to it by representations to the borough, and if these are rejected, then a Notice to Owner “NTO” is sent out. I had received five replies signed by different people from the borough, one in particular from the locum lawyer, stating they were examining all my representations and rejecting.

3. On receipt of the NTO, one is ring fenced into a daunting formula of limited choices where the mitigating circumstance are ruled out with ruthless efficiency, deficiency, and only discretion remains for the borough to allow an appeal to get off the penalty. The profit margin and zeal for revenue having become such predominating factors where the spirit of the law is set aside, and contraventions are pursued simply for their own sake, making appeals very difficult, and in many cases appellants simply give and pay up. I wanted a hearing to dispute the legitimacy of both PCN and process. I, in the required period of time for a £50 discount, NOT taking advantage of the reduction paid the £100 in full in advance as the purchase price for that hearing, it was returned for procedural reasons.

4. In my case I had written to the borough on receipt of the NTO, and stated I would return the form by hand.

5. As is set down, on delivery of that form, the borough shall, as defined by statute, serve upon me a Notice of Rejection “NoR” and appeal forms for a Parking and Traffic Appeal Service, “PATAS” hearing. This borough had a code of conduct that stated “it aims to reply to all letters within 10 days”; or working days from receipt. About 5 weeks went by and I received a charge certificate raising the bill to £150, and not as expected the NoR.

6. I challenged the borough with the allegation that context for me, being 14 years of residence without missing letters, as well as context in my view of their practice rather than observance of codes, that they never sent one out, and denied me that hearing I wanted to purchase. I also mentioned the function of anticipation and expectation that I was confident they had no knowledge of.

7. The wrote back a fulsome letter, containing one line that was devastating to their case due to contextual inferencing that I had already warned them of. But their want of knowledge in this area revealed they didn't know how it worked, and they placed the essential part of the jigsaw into the context that found them guilty of precisely that which I had challenged them of, wilful omission with malice aforethought. (This might be arguable were it the ONLY error, but in the larger context of similar errors it has to be ruled out).

8. I will state the sentence and ask you to see if, before reading on, you can evaluate what the contextual inference was that flowed unambiguously, although at this stage with limited information you are unable to conclude unambiguously as yet.

9. The Locum Lawyer stated

   1. “We have reviewed the Council's records in the light of your assertion, and record that at no stage have we received any representations from you”,

   2. Of course this statement is utterly false and its contrary is corroborated so massively, it is beyond any shadow of doubt; not reasonable doubt, what is happening here. In court this is clear perjury. And by the way, how is it possible to review council records, and conclude that you've got none, where records exist themselves, do you see the internal contradictions already?

   3. Set aside your awareness of the fact I had five letters signed and dated from them which contradicted that assertion. What followed from the context is the question I want you to focus on.

   4. Look at the motivation behind mendacious conduct which will deny a standard procedure because any errors, may incur liability as well as a 'fee'd' lawyers practice, is to admit nothing and deny everything.

   5. The question to focus on is what flows unequivocally from the denial in 9.a. above. Turn away and think for a moment, you may kick yourself if you haven't guessed it yet.

10. Well what flowed is not immediately visible to the untrained mind, but it is, that the Locum Lawyer admitted that they never sent out a NoR and Appeal form to me, cloaked within a veiled lie. This is a serious breach of statute, and constitutes a serious offence of malfeasance and maladministration. Not the lie, but the prejudicial omission willfully carried out by a team of at least 6 people in the know. In one sentence they admitted they could NOT have sent me a NoR because they denied receiving any representations from me. IF THAT WERE TRUE, then it follows that there was NO essential trigger for the NoR, since denial of receipt of the returned appeal form meant they would have synthetically manufactured a reason to make up a charge certificate, which is what they did, and the timed delay sets out the basis of all the improbabilities of loss of postage between us.

    1. THAT was blocked however when I sent them a photo of the receipt I had received when hand delivering my formal NTO and appeal. That photo showed their letterhead, a signature, the date, and the precise details of the contents of the envelope I hand delivered, with the PCN numbers etc......

11. Do you see, in the mind's eye what flowed now? IF one raised a charge certificate, it relies on the 5 weeks being the time it takes for my receiving a rejection and doing nothing about it, which is precisely what they counted on. IT gets far worse than this......... This was just the tip of the iceberg.

    1. My reply to that part of the letter was;

    2. “Please bear with me, there is a play on words you said you record that at no stage have we received, a different proposition from at no stage have we received. I trust you see the difference? The one implies maladministration of records, and misfeasance, the other implies falsity in the presentation of evidence I have that renders it so. That means some 4-5 very long, 2-5+ page letters prior to the Notice to Owner, were not received, ( despite being acknowledged, read and replied to ) so why on earth did you send me your first letter, if you have no record of representations at any stage?”

    3. I sent them a notice to admit based on the court's form N266. The case continues.......

    4. I will now proceed to place this small context into its wider context and as we move out in focus, the whole picture will fall into place.

12. Go back now and re-examine the sentence a) in its entirely, here it is again; “We have reviewed the Council's records in the light of your assertion, and record that at no stage have we received any representations from you”

    1. First, as aforesaid, how does one review records and find as a conclusion there are no records? After all “no stage received any” means no records exist in their hands, surely?

    2. Second, knowing I was going to challenge the validity of the wording of the PCN, the team knew it was highly probable that I would dismantle its semantics almost immediately, as they were my special disciplines that came across in any conversation I might have. The consequence of that would mean that 6 months, 24 weeks of 10,000 PCN's weekly were likely to come under question for their validity, and the revenue could be deemed in breach of another statute I will highlight later on. Do you see their problem?

    3. The two honest choices logically were;

       • either cancel the PCN, but we were already into a dispute of David and Goliath proportions, and the entire system of semantic nuances were going to be brought into play, legally. This had become a personal dispute with a cloaked directing mind operation behind several correspondence 'officers'. NO real match for someone whose life and arguable expertise has been spent in a passionate interest of the nature of Truth, Falsity and the Epistemological consequences of beliefs especially, and falsities in particular, that were rejected at an early stage. I was going to accuse them of admitting defeat by backing down, that the PCN was not valid. Not appealing as a first choice of action, especially since 5 letters indicated the zeal for revenue was undiminished and increasing.

       • Or the alternative was to send me a NoR and appeal and thus face my arguments at a hearing, that already had a precedent overruling their substantial compliance previous arguments, and base for past actions, making their PCN's a nullity many thousands of times over. Not an inviting choice.

    4. The third alternative was simple choreographed malfeasance, to breach statute, play a game of omissions and block my having a hearing. By increasing the pressure of the higher amount of money and to add a threat of enforcement and bailiff action to pull me down to compliance. They were unaware that I was monitoring the Charge certificate with the Court, as to what they were planning next, and much more that shall be divulged in the fullness of time. A dangerous game and it went wrong. Omissions happened to be my particular interest. Omissions being negatively characterised acts that have the advantage of cloaking, making them difficult to detect, save for contextual inferencing combined with the other disciplines. I hope it was interesting so far.

Food for thought. LOOK AGAIN at

“We have reviewed the Council's records in light of your assertion and record that at no stage have we received any representations from you."

What unambiguous inference flows from the context of such an assertion.

Think hard, before reading the next paragraph.

Got it?

This confident peremptory averment, not only confutes and contradicts the existence of the letter to which it replies, it is internally inconsistent in reviewing “record(s) that at no stage have they received any”. PLEASE consider this and its logic, before moving forward, it is the beginning of an awful worsening unlawful mess that follows. So adept at sophistical constructions the defendant has lost sight of the world of logical consistency in language and any correspondence with reality. This is a solicitor's art at its best / worst.

Of course the contributor has their apology, which, when set in the context of anticipation and expectation, and contextual inference is disgraceful, in a reply to this particular malfeasance from a lawyer, no doubt under instruction a stated..

These conclusions in the above case may not be so easily visible to the procedure of rationalisation in sequences, for me, I simply saw the sentence, its depraved falsity, and with a little time and small amount of limbecking of the antecedents bearing in mind I had warned the council of two areas of serious want to their thinking and procedures, 1. That context precedes percept and 2. That there is a function of anticipation and expectation at work. They simply fitted the paradigm of the allegation I placed in the frame of questions. I think I read the letter, prior to going out for an hour in the park, then came back with the realisation. For me, sometimes de-focussing from a concentrated gaze is as good as focussing with concentration. The alteration of focus relaxes the cognitive functions while the sub-conscious mind continues to resolve the cognitive dissonance. Sometimes if it is major problem, an overnight sleep brings the results perhaps early at about 5 am, when I get up and write it all down before forgetting it.

Newton

1. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

2. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Can't see the wood for the trees?
Same as can't see the context for the purpose!
Purposeful trajectories, conform to Newton's 1^st law of motion with added purpose. The difference between mass or objects moving on conformity with the first law, is that the destiny of an object in uniform motion is governed by forces outside its control, and initiated from those forces that were inherent in its creation. For objects that have sentience,and hence the ability to move towards things that attract, and away from things that repel, is obvious when a volcano erupts, and the boulders in its path remain, whereas sentient things get out of its way, if they can. Trees and other things that are fixed to the ground are unable. The roots of sentience still inhabits flora and fauna in the respect that they are drawn towards light and water, and away from drought, but cannot move rapidly enough to defeat the purpose of an eruption, indeed many highly intelligent things also cannot. What then distinguishes the degrees of sentience in the primitive areas of being simply drawn towards light, and warmth, and repelled from danger is the goal seeking entities that have inner motivation, means and opportunity, much like in forensic analysis and criminal detection, (means motive and opportunity, MMO). The MMO of intelligent beings is seen in context where the teleological consequences of foreseeable consequences are part of a strategy, and that strategy is abundantly evidenced in the trail of effects seen in the outcomes of the fragile balance's between detriments and benefits. A goal seeking entity is likely to confer benefits on itself at the expense of detriments towards its surroundings, unless it observes an ethos that replaces or preserves the detriments so conferred on the surroundings. This might be simply called – respect - for other life forms, and the longevity of the very sources that sustain present objectives and allow continuity. To be unaware of these consequences or to be aware and continue is tantamount to inconsiderate usage of resources. There are of course tolerable limits to this goal seeking, where the expression of selfishness has its respectable limits and merely alters a power structure, but when it is carried out for the purpose in itself without consideration of consequences, it is plunder.