Insane Asylum Logic - ?

Are you being subjected to insane asylum logic?

A key neural pathway reveals how the brain forms fear memories from psychological threats

 

Dualism is blatantly self-contradictory, while all of our mathematics are tautological or self-contradictory. In other words, logic itself is insane. This is supported by all the evidence in fuzzy logic and quantum mechanics. So, I tell people to Get Over It Already! Insanity is an insane concept!

 

I think it goes something like this...

If you say 1+1=2, some "influencer", like Charlie Kirk says "can we really be sure it's not 1+1=3?"

Especially if Trump says it's true, quoting Kirk in social media.

Then rightwing media parrots saying "why does 1+1 always have to equal 2? It can equal 3 as Trump says!"

 

The simple fact is, mathematics requite language, and the only time people insist everything must make sense, according to classic logic, is when it benefits them. Donald Duck will claim the sun revolves around the earth, only because idiots encourage him. Others are just as deluded, and will storm the palace with knives and pitch forks, insisting their benefiting from the experience.

 

Bats In The Attic

Batman Always Kept His Bats In The Belfry,
And, ALL Of His Best Toys, In The Attic!
Only To Have Rats Steal His Best Toys!
Which Is Why He Became A Vigilante!
Wearing, Spandex, Lace, & Leather!
Beat Me, Whip Me, Make Me Write Bad Checks!
The Bats Are ALL Coming Out Of The Belfry!
My Best Toys Are No Longer In The Attic!
The Bats And Rats Are Holding A Party!
While, I'm Running Out Of Lubricants!
And, The Insane Are Already Running The Asylum!
​

 

That's totally true.

I was messing around with explaining how a Calabi-Yau manifold can be used to describe space in particle physics and String Theory and M Theory, and I ran into something that seemed so obvious and right off the cuff!

The Calabi-Yau manifold can describe space on a different scale than anything we would perceive with the human senses or vision; it's on a subatomic scale.

But while I explained this I realized String Theory or M Theory on its most basic level assumes additional 'dimensions' to measure physical space in deliberate practical science.

It proposes strings for particles - which in and of themselves are NOT the same SHAPE; a string in common vernacular is NOT the same shape as a 'particle', which is typically abstract in the common knowledge and even beyond it into learned understanding - they are NOT the same thing.

What was funny is I reached easily for a comparison: Try to think about a new 'dimension' of measurement,

by which to measure beyond length or width or height and then time (which is a little less direct; we are measuring in spatial terms and then also include a measurable aspect of physical science that DOES NOT pertain to spatial measurement),

is JUST LIKE trying to think or imagine or dream a NEW COLOR!

Have you tried? Think about any time you've seen colors together. A box of crayons might come to mind, or more dramatically a painter's oval shaped or kidney shaped palette.

Here we are standing at the easel, and I say, "let's imagine a color that doesn't exist!".

When a teacher proposes String Theory (a theoretical part of physics) they find a way to include 'dimensions' that outside of string theory are not normally used to measure spatial area, nor anything additional for temporal chronological application (no different time measurement).

Imagining a new spatial measure is a bit like imagining a new color!

 

Quantum mechanics are usually explained using fuzzy logic. Science is not innately obvious, so we have to learn it. If the text and teaching are not bound by a measure of learnability, we do not usually have a strong hold on how they truly function in application.

Quantum mechanics and particle physics are both much too abstract in our introductory learnings of them in my experience.

 

I don't play around with kid stuff. E8 is the newest kid on the block, known to cause hallucinations, while my work explains how logic and humor express particle-wave duality. and how you can induce even more hallucinations and other effects, just playing around with the math.

 

Yeah, but in order to share our work with a more robust audience we subject ourselves to competition.

With only $2 budgeted for further exploration, Ben Franklin might be choosy about who gets to understand how to create his art.

 

Fuzzy logic applies to everything in the world around us, while physicists around the globe still insist, quantum mechanics only apply to the subatomic.

 

My work is so simple and stupid, 50 million of us write it, and two billion know it, and we would be doing it all in the public domain, but that's just the public restroom these days.

Welcome, to the Dark Web...

 

A key neural pathway reveals how the brain forms fear memories from psychological threats

 

Dr. A: You know, I was reading that KAIST study on the pIC–PBN circuit—the one about fear memory formation from psychological threat. No physical pain involved. Just the perception of danger, and boom—trauma gets encoded.

Dr. B: Right, that’s the posterior insular cortex to parabrachial nucleus pathway. It’s wild. The brain doesn’t need a broken bone to register threat. Emotional distress alone can trigger the same kind of long-term imprinting you’d see in PTSD.

Dr. A: Exactly. And what’s interesting is how that maps onto what we see socially—especially in environments that mimic institutional logic. You know, the kind of “therapeutic” settings that feel more like containment than care.

Dr. B: Like when therapy becomes coercive. Or when digital platforms start to resemble behavioral wards. You’ve got mature content filters, algorithmic nudges, and public shaming mechanisms—all functioning like soft restraints.

Dr. A: And cortisol’s probably the silent player here. The study doesn’t mention it, but we know chronic stress elevates cortisol, and that can sensitize emotional circuits. Over time, it makes the brain more reactive, more prone to encode fear from even minor psychological stressors.

Dr. B: Which means if someone’s stuck in a system that doesn’t honor autonomy—whether it’s a hospital, a comment thread, or a “wellness” protocol—they’re not just being treated. They’re being conditioned. And that’s not therapy. That’s a mechanism.

Dr. A: A mechanism that mimics punishment. And if it’s being deployed through digital infrastructure, it’s not just outdated—it’s dangerous. We’re talking about trauma architecture masquerading as care.

Dr. B: So yeah, forced therapy might yield compliance. But if it’s built on suppression or fear, it’s not healing—it’s institutional logic dressed up in clinical language. And we’ve seen where that leads.

 

When we aren't calling out damaging Insane Asylum Logic we enable something damaging to constitutional values in the United States.

Those values are precious and sacred, but does freedom of expression also damage the things it was intended to protect?

Is it degrading and eroding our values in that we are expressive in absence of purity; expressive in ways that invigorate our minds and emotions without obedience to our moralistic designations?

To call faith or beliefs 'moralistic designations' is to my heart and mind deeply inaccurate and lazy and apathetic and inadequate.

So where does the damage meet its totality? Is freedom worth losing my religion? Well?

I don't think it is. But I wouldn't dare give it up.

Where that leaves us is with a dilemma.

To foist direction upon those unsuspecting by leveraging asylum logic to drive in direction toward reform or 'restoration corridors' or preservation of integrity is arguably, in the US 1. unconstitutional, and 2. defiant of social boundaries and role-appropriate implementation, and 3. transparency/honesty, since no one is saying what they intend.

But we have a genuine problem. It's an addiction-class mighty foe. We can't get away.

Except if we wanted to. What makes it worth it?

Here's the hint: NOT asylum logic. Fear as the motivator? It's obsolete and archaic at the very least.

Make it worth my while. Tell me why I listen to you. "Because if you don't" is not the answer.

 

And I realize the mechanics of what I've labeled asylum logic, or to be blunt 'fear driving' have some positivity incorporated as their proverbial gravitation or grounding aspects - our societies, and society in the US typically involve morals in the background and upbringing, and when that fear is used there is a retreat or regress to a former state that is easier to refer to.

But are we de-curating the individuality of the person? Yes, we are.

For the sake of morality? You could argue that, but I want to point out that our environment is not demonstrative of intention to change.

Perhaps 'fear driving' or 'asylum logic' are priming the masses for a vote toward a moralistically intended systematic overhaul.

I'm in favor of identifying with solidarity of identity at a higher unified moral understanding.

Also, when you offer people a way to identify as more emotionally honest or emotionally fluent, they tend to choose such as we see with youth identifying with what they perceive as a more intelligent identity or orientation as with sociology of their psychological dynamics.

What if they could choose intelligence without orientation or risk issues? Fascinating, but digressing.

What I mean to say is people will choose to identify with better intelligence. If that is packaged with moral integrity, we also win. =-]

 

In over a decade of surveying people, not a single one knew how to use a dictionary, establishing that the reason the insane are running the asylum, is because they never did actually graduate from Kindergarten.

 

“Share everything. Play fair. Don’t hit people. Put things back where you found them. Clean up your own mess. Don’t take things that aren’t yours. Say you’re sorry when you hurt somebody. Wash your hands before you eat. Flush.” —Robert Fulghum, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten