I know that I go to sleep and I carry on and I wake up, so every time I'm asleep I'm subconsciously operative, so that what I call then the Intuition, is a twilight zone existing between the subconscious and the conscious. I don't think that the line is sharp. I think it can vary. And at times one gets a little bigger and the other a little smaller they are pulsative, they have tides. So, this is the kind of thing that I'm really quite busy looking this way, and something makes me look over there. I'm trying to give you a 90 degree metaphysical the metaphysical tells me to turn that I'd better look over here all of a sudden. Maybe it is kind of a hint, and maybe it's a sound. Maybe it is just because it is a pattern that I have experienced before which tells me that I'd better look to the side.

So I can see that there can be metaphysical 90 degreeness that's watching you all the time being very careful.

And now I'll take you into metaphysical 90 degreeness where I spoke to you about all of our economic charts are Newtonian, and the baseline is 90 degrees, and you find all of our curves, everything we've been having in our civilization, where we grow faster and faster, and we see more and more of the world, all of the curves are increasing and getting more and more abnormal. And they're getting into almost verticality, the acceleration factor is so high. So we say that all of humanity is becoming so abnormal that we are coming into race schizophrenia. But I see then if I take the Einsteinian normal that normal is 186,000 miles a second, and any other speed has to be accounted for by the energies intercepting one another, and tying themselves in local knots, which is really beautifully proven enough to come out with fission which definitely demonstrates this is exactly the way you can predict how much energy is in any given matter, so that I find, then, the Einsteinian norm of constant motion intertransformation and 186,000 miles a second is normal. Therefore if I take motion and change as normal, and Newton was not only the norm baseline, but his first law of motion said "A body persists in a state of rest, or in a line of motion, except as affected by other bodies." At rest was the norm. If anybody threw anything new it came to rest over there, because they didn't think bigger than the world because the world was standing still in Universe at that time. So the norm was at rest, and so death was the only thing that was really normal. They had the "quick and the dead" and the dead was absolutely normal, that's the eternity.

So I find then the Newtonian showing man going into race schizophrenia due to the acceleration and so forth, I turn the chart 90 degrees metaphysically, and I find that man was in a tailspin just about to crash and pulling out into a straight level flight! So this is a metaphysical, 90 degree, reorientation. Taking it which is your base? Is that a fairly satisfactory kind of an answer?

"Do you feel that a knowledge of politics, and or economics is necessary to make major contributions to humanity? You say that naivety is invaluable wouldn't it stand in the way of comprehensive anticipatory design science?" They are really two different questions, alright.

The politics and the I think it's very good to have knowledge of economics, I don't think you can do design science without economics, but I have to say what I mean by economics. The word "economics" in Greek did derive from the world "ecology." And this was the "ecol" "house", the "col" is the house, and the management of the house, and the word "economics" comes from that. So I think we are dealing then in environment controls, and there is the environment which is the whole Universe. Environment to each must be all it is excepting me. And Universe the only difference between Universe and environment is "Me" the observer.

So my environment could be very big, or it could be a local environment, as for instance the biosphere of our little spaceship earth. This is a very local environment, even more local environment is this room that we are in here, but each one, "ecol" then is this collecting, collection. Which one are we really talking about this particular one. These are economics. And the energy, the metabolics, what I taught Meddy, quite a while ago, my grand strategy of Design Science in World Gaming is to have internal metabolics and external metabolics. And external metabolics are economics. And to make them in the terms of just a cow or just in terms of a coin or money is where we've gotten into confusion rather than bringing it on to what I call a "cosmic accounting" basis and the "cosmic accounting" really does deal in these energies. How much in producing oil at a great refinery, you take all kinds of energies that are going into heating, this fractionating column or whatever it may be. They figure the energies put in here and taken out there incredibly carefully. And that's the way the Universe works.

If the people then who are exploiting oil then really took the work that engineers do in designing refineries, I've been through this refinery design it is an extraordinary matter. The exquisite accuracy with which they know how much energy to take from this or that and turning that energy to the larger account where they're going to cash in on what they're making with it

Well, so economics, when they're energy economics, and motion economics, and Newtonian economics, I think that those are very essential to design science, and to you and I being useful to our fellow man to humanity.

So "naivety" I really mean then not knowing it all. Not saying, "I understand that and I am not going to listen." The naivety to really be quite a sucker about everything, really, somebody is attracting you and saying something is going on with safety razors, to be naive enough to say "this could be something." But to go on a little further and to look into it more. But I think an enormous number of people miss everything because they say "I know that, I know that, I know that." There is that goes on a very great deal. And I know my own propensity to be just that stupid particularly if I am tired, I know that. So I really have to watch to watch that. I really deliberately try to keep myself as a child, and a child is naive. That's what the word means, "being as a child."

I did everything I could to recover my sensitivity of a child because all the people who were talking to me when they were telling me, "Never mind what you think," they said "You've got to get over your sensitivity this is a tough world, and there is going to be a moment when you're going to have to do something pretty tough if you're going to survive. GET OVER THAT SENSITIVITY." And so I kept trying, and started learning the game, you really had to get over your sensitivity. But when I tried to get myself in my own thinking again, I did everything I hope I haven't lost the sensitivity I really was born with, can I open it up again, and sure enough I did. So, I really am enjoying life, I feel very much about life as I did as a little child. I get just as excited really looking at the flowers as I did when I was a child. But I got to a time when I was pretty blase about that flower. Something you send to funerals and make the girl feel good. Now, either a bribe or a lever.

"You made much mention of the tet, octa, cube and icosa the dodecahedron is a platonic solid too, why does it not have a place in your mathematics?" I said, I gave you something about the domains, topologically there is a domain of vertices, and domains of edges and the domains of faces. The domains of faces was the face, the domain of an edge was a diamond, and domain of a vertex is a connecting centers of gravities of the triangles around I only deal in structural systems and they have to be triangulated. The dodecahedron are the domains of the vertexes of the icosahedron, but if you make a dodecahedron as a necklace, like this, you'll find it collapses, just like the cube. So it isn't a structure, and that's why, I only deal in the cube as a structure, and that's why I do all this accounting as a structure, by triangulating it. So if I triangulate the dodecahedron then it turns out to be the icosahedron.