1. When we engage in the use of reason, do we measure our reason against our physical world or our human mind? Our science operates under a specific system of thought that requires them to measure their ideas with the use of reason. Science associates itself with examination of our physical world. In hard science, we require the examination of ideas to measure against the physical world. We have progressed because we have built accuracy between our understanding of the physical world and the reality of the physical world. Nevertheless, as a presented method, do we have reason within its definition a requirement to connect to the physical world?

2. What is our definition of reason? Because the idea is broadband, we have different ideas of reason animated in the minds of human beings. To discuss the idea of reason, we have to work through various ideas of reason. We need to narrowband the idea of reason into its various accepted forms. Once we do this, we can then analyze the definition to see if we are measuring reason against the physical world or against the chaos of the human mind.

3. One narrowband idea of reason we have is that it is the bases for our actions, our decisions, feelings or beliefs. We have no statement in the narrowband definition that reason has to connect to the physical world. Our bases could just as easily connect to non-reality ideas. We can have people justify the murder of people on the bases that they think differently to their thinking. When we define reason as measuring against the bases, we do not have a requirement for accountability because our bases may reside in the human mind and not relational to our physical world. We could have the bases to justify defending ourselves, even to the point of having to kill someone in our defense. Our base for this justification is that our physical existence is threatened. Our base here in our reasoning was that we measured against a physical reality. When we do not require the bases for our reasoning to measure against physical reality, we can end with our use of reason with accountability and unaccountability. We have left the idea of reason open to the chaos of the human mind.

4. One narrowband idea of reason we have is that it is the motive for our actions, our decisions, feelings or beliefs. Again, we have no statement or requirement that we connect our reasoning to the physical world. By the actual use of the word motive, we placed it into the human mind. Motives involve internal drives. We have placed reason into an adhesive mindset where people can randomly attach any sliver or master idea to ideas. We refer to what was the motive as the reason for it. It is the why, but no accountably to truth is ever required to follow.

5. One narrowband idea of reason we have is that we have an underlying fact or cause that provides a logical sense to any idea. Whether this definition connects to physical existence or not depends on the idea of fact or cause by the user. If we require a fact to connect to our physical world and the cause of the action to connect to the physical world, we can say that reason connects to the physical world. We have a narrowband definition that is aligning with hard science. Science works in the why. In the why we get our fact and cause. Notice that the why connection to the idea of reason works for science. Nevertheless, when we apply this why to all ideas, we have a breakdown.

6. The reason for this break down is due to the different existences the why resides in. We can follow the same paths that hard science and social science takes with the reasoning of ideas. We can create the following flow of action:

• Fact ® Event ® Cause ® Why.

An example of hard science would be:

• Fact (A released ball drops) ® Event (A falling ball) ® Cause (Gravity) ® Why (Because gravity exists in physical existence).

An example of social science would be:

• Fact (A person looks or thinks differently.) ® Event (Murder) ® Cause (False-reality ideas) ® Why (Because false-reality ideas exists in human thought).

Now we have a mismatch of reason between science and social thought. One connects to the physical world while the other does not. Nevertheless, they both gave their why. In the cause and effect ideas of science, physical existence is a uniform and unchanging existence. By its own nature, physical existence is a singular source and directly associated with reality. Physical existence cannot attach false-reality to itself. Our human thought does not have uniformity when we allow ourselves to attach reality to non-reality ideas. We have one additional movement that physical existence does not have. With social ideas, we have Fact ® Event ® Cause ® Why-1 ® Why-2. We then have:

• Fact (A person looks or thinks differently.) ® Event (Murder) ® Cause (False-reality ideas) ® Why-1 (Because false-reality ideas exists in human thought) ® Why-2 (False reality exists because of an unaccountable system of thought).

Notice that the why in science is stable as it rests in physical existence. Notice too that the why-2 of social actions is only stable when our thought system rests in maintaining its relationship with physical existence. Once we break from our physical existence and allow the attachment of reality to non-reality ideas, we end with unstable actions as it rests in the chaos of our minds.

7. When we move from hard science of our physical world to our human thought existence, human thought existence can begin with false-reality facts. False-reality facts are actually non-reality ideas, as they do not exist in the physical world. Our use of reason under this definition can only be reason if a system of thought with accountability existed for all ideas. Ideas are not restricted to scientific ones that measure physical existence with physical existence, but include ideas that measure human action against humankind. The move of fact and cause from science to human activity breaks from physical existence. We must maintain a required alignment to physical existence if accountability to ideas is to remain. Otherwise, we break from our physical world and easily begin to make statements of facts, presented as ideas with reality, when they are really non-reality ideas. Once we start with non-reality ideas, our logical sense has no reality-based logical sense. Simply, when we use reason without an accountability method, we begin to measure against the chaos of the human mind.

8. One narrowband idea of reason is to think logically. We have no statement of required accountability. Because we have no requirement to maintain reality measured against reality, we can move logical outcomes to non-reality ideas. We can move these non-reality ideas in a logical form in relation to their false ideas. You could start with the idea that witches exist. You could follow with the idea that these witches hate water. We could then use logic to conclude that a reasonable action would be to dunk a suspected witch into water. We have no reality or truth required to the logical reasoning.

9. One narrowband idea of reason is that it operates within the realm of good sense and practicality. We have to ask ourselves the following. What do we measure our good sense against? We have human beings in history that reasoned it made good sense to sacrifice children to manufactured higher authorities. We have people that reasoned it made good sense to murder anyone branded as a witch. We have people that reasoned it was practical to murder millions of people in gas chambers. Our measurement of ideas under an arbitrary idea of good sense and practicality allows us to go to any non-reality idea as long as we deem it to have good sense and practicality. We lost our physical reality and allowed people to measure to their preconceptions, reality-based or non-reality-based.

10. One narrowband idea of reason is the use of faculty reason. Faculty reason is simply the capacity to think. We human beings are mental animators and we can move our sliver ideas around with ease. Our sliver ideas have arrived to us via our physical existence. When we move these sliver ideas around without maintaining our measurement of them back to physical existence, we end with chaos in the human mind. This happens because we allow the sliver idea of reality to attach to non-reality ideas. We now have our use of reason measured against any created non-reality reality. Our non-reality reality only resides in our minds. The idea of faculty reason can even create a greater divide between reality and non-reality. It gives us the idea that thought is internal only. It ignores our original inputs from physical existence. The idea of reality, which arrives from the experience of our physical world, we defaulted to good sense, practicality, providing our bases, motives or our logical follow in faculty reason. It encourages thought of any sort. Faculty reason defaults people to measure their ideas against themselves or other human minds. We have started ourselves to think in a void without any measurement against the physical world. We have chosen chaos with our human ideas.

11. When we tie the idea of human sense to our impulses, such as sex and vices, this leads us to a conception of reason away from connecting to the physical world. Allow me to present a piece of writing from 1713. The title of the work was The Art of Self-Government, in a Moral Essay. A passage went as follows, "and break those Fetters wherewith the rational part is bound up; to restore the Man to that State that God made and intended he should live in; that the Soul might govern the Body, and the reasonable Will the Appetite; so that he might live as a rational Creature, and act as one that is moved upon future Hopes and Fears, and not upon present Enjoyments without respect to the fatal Consequences thereof." (3, p8-9) This example provides us a historical view where we tied a narrowband idea of our senses to the vices of humankind. Notice they had our minds controlling our body as our intended state. They had the idea of soul paired with the idea of reason. It was through this soul-based use of reason that they had us becoming rational creatures. A soul-based use of reason meant we thought relationally to our mind only. This use of reason and rational thought certainly falls under its definition. Again, we dropped our physical world from our relationship with reality. We cannot control our body by mind only. We can only control our body with our mind engaged relationally to physical existence. If we look at Diagram 2 and 3, we see that we have ignored physical existence. Some may complain about my claim that reason and rational thought are unaccountable and declare fault in this use of the idea of sense. Nevertheless, the complaint does not change our broadband definition of reason and rational thought. One technique to amputate physical existence from reason and rational thought was to tie it to vices from our senses.

12. We cannot remove our required physical connection to reason because of vices and vicious actions. This author further wrote, "For, if the Man were but brought to himself, and to the use of his Understanding, Virtue and Piety would find as ready Entertainment as Vice now doth. He would then exercise his Reason, instead of Sense, and consider the end of vicious Actions; the present Enjoyment and future Reward would be brought into Balance, and Hell and Heaven consider’d as well as Earth." (3, p9) The answer to stop vicious actions was not to remove our physical connection to reality. We need our physical reality to measure actions to determine if they violate thesis (physically based) morality. We cannot evaluate to a "Balance" when we measure against the chaos of our human minds only. This stops and eliminates the relational aspects of our external reality and our thought integrity. These words by this eighteenth century author demonstrate the mysticism impregnated in our view of reason and rational thought that continues to exists today.

13. One narrowband idea of reason is that it is the capacity for rational thought. When we do not require our rational thought to connect to the physical world, it becomes an unaccountable system of thought. To say reason is the capacity for rational thought is to say reason requires an ability to engage in reason. This contributes nothing, and certainly does not require any relationship between reality and physical existence.

14. We must measure reason against the physical world. We are missing an important piece of the definition that would narrowband it to a form with accountability. Our missing part of the broadband definition of reason is that we must measure all our ideas against the physical world. Since we do not have this requirement, thesisism and reason are not the same. Because thesisism requires the connections to the physical to maintain, thesisism has accountability where reason in its broadband sense does not have the requirement to accountability. Hard science may have maintained the required physical connection, but reason in its broadband definition lost this requirement to social actions. We need to understand this limitation of reason and acknowledge its unaccountability.

1. Do we measure our rational thought against the physical world? When we apply the word "rational" to the word "thought," we find that rational thought nearly equates to reason. We often refer to the word "rational" as agreeable to reason or reasonable. We often refer to the "act of thought" with the word "rational" as having or exercising reason. We often endow rational thought with the faculty of reason or having reasoning powers. Despite these definitions, we never mention any requirement to measure our ideas against our physical world. Under this, our rational thought defaults to the same arguments given above on the character of reason.

2. One narrowband definition of rational thought is that it involves good judgments. What are we measuring our good judgment against? We can use any system of thought and claim good judgment in terms of how it relates to that system. Slave owners bought and sold people measured against the good judgment of the surrounding economic system. We see claimed good judgment by one religion while others viewed it as bad judgment. With human centered systems of thought, we cannot distinguish good judgment from bad judgment because we have measured our ideas against the chaos of the human mind. We have only one requirement with good judgment. We only need to deem ourselves sane and lucid. How can we determine this if we measure our ideas against our own human mind? Nevertheless, we do have one aspect to the various definitions given for the word rational that brings us a bit closer to thesisism.

3. One of our narrowband definitions of rational thought is that we reference against our senses. We often refer to rational thought as sensible or in good sense. If we use the word sense in its pure form, and not include human thought or emotional reactions, we have a potential to line up with thesisism and our requirement to stay measured against the physical world. This is because our sensory existence is our player to our physical world. What we bring in with this player is the input of our physical existence. If we maintain our connections to physical existence, we bring accountability to all ideas. If we allow ourselves to move our sliver idea of reality around without maintaining the required connection to reality, we end with unaccountability and chaos. The use of sensible and in good sense becomes useless once we drop our accountability method and begin to animate sensible and in good sense to ideas with our misplaced sliver idea of reality. Sacrificing children to manufactured ideas about a higher consciousness made good sense in that non-reality. Although deadly false, it is rational to the false idea. No matter if the traditional users of reason and rational thought wish to deny this, unless we require ourselves to keep the sliver idea of reality measured against our physical reality, they are as unaccountable as religious thought. Friedrich Nietzsche did not measure his ideas against physical existence with a complete grasp. He acquired and created non-reality ideas as reality. He created within himself an adhesive mindset that bent his perceptions so that he could not see the full physical aspects of human beings. He ignored our equal aspects while he focused on our differences. Under the use of rational thought, he created his higher men idea that began to violate our moral code of conduct to our equal aspects.

4. Our historical thought is in doubt. We need to review our historical thought under thesisism. If we currently operate reason and rational thought without accountability, it is likely that all our history of thought contains errors of magnitude. We would have compounded all these errors with further errors. My book, The Coercive Animal, reviews our history of human thought. It is written in three books. In BookOne, we outline thesisism and begin to measure our ideas with accountability. In Book Two, we review our history and find how well we have matched to our reality. In Book Three, we review government and capitalism. From what we find, we can evaluate ourselves today and begin to move to a real-world civilization where we can eliminate coercion and liberate our freedom and liberty.

3. Anonymous. (Attributed to George Burhope.), The Art of Self-Government, in a Moral Essay, In Three Parts, First Written to a Gentleman in the University, and since fitted for Publick Use, The Second Edition Corrected, London: Printed for W. Taylor, at the Ship in Pater Noster-Row, 1713

An excerpt from "The Coercive Animal"

by James S. Serilla ©2008-2009