Singular thinking and its captivating condition.

[Fredrick]

The singular position is logic/structure/form - the non-singular is energetic/creative/temporal and voluntary ... the overlap between these is a dynamic universe of mixing and mingling in countless ways. I guess that's why people say God is love as well as an architect or that God created the integers. The only dictator involved is oneself and what arenas one participates in. Where the overlaps exist are common spaces:



There's a picture of two "selves", the physical universe lies at the sandwiched area in the middle. The only way they can really connect though is by sharing a common unit for that space and for pure quantities (non-descript "void"/volume) that would happen to be the greatest common divisor (GCD) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_common_divisor shared between them, though this can be a multidimensional vector. You've likely seen many of these, but here's what the computation of greatest common divisors can look like when projected into 2 dimensions:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...tml#post121717

That only describes a mechanism to generate common/shared forms or spaces and doesn't specify the specifics over how these are consciously perceived with various qualities nor the specifics of what dimensions or experience/motion/action are available and those appear to be likely unique properties provided by individuals. It could be that these are collectively contributed ... I don't know, though it would at least appear that the capability for any of this to be seen as existing for anything would simply have to be an innate ability. It doesn't appear a perception of time could be imposed upon anything and that observers can have their own unique version of it.

Thank you, Steve, I thoroughly enjoyed your visualizations at http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...tml#post121717

Well, I think I should consider myself lucky, having both you and Austin post on this thread. I like it much when people can visualize their views (and keep it limited to what the brain can comprehend in one sitting).

Thank you very much.

[Fredrick]

Why [would singularity be all-inclusive]?? I would think that singular would be unique .... the most simple ... less of rather than more of .... a particle rather than a Universe ?

If singular and singularity were of the same meaning then we could agree, Greg. Singular is indeed a word that is applicable to a bit more than singularity, including that what is unique or bizarre. Meanwhile, singularity is proposed to exist within black holes (something I consider a nonsense statement, but for which I do not feel the need to address, there is too much of nothing there). I mean with singularity the one of the overall level. I do not think there are any other singularities, though I have little to argue with. I do believe there is unification possible, just like white can be seen as the unification of various colors.

[austintorn@aol.com]

A parallel universe overlapping our own?

Perhaps one of transparent dark matter?

Nope.

[Fredrick]

The singular position is logic/structure/form - the non-singular is energetic/creative/temporal and voluntary ... the overlap between these is a dynamic universe of mixing and mingling in countless ways. I guess that's why people say God is love as well as an architect or that God created the integers. The only dictator involved is oneself and what arenas one participates in. Where the overlaps exist are common spaces:



There's a picture of two "selves", the physical universe lies at the sandwiched area in the middle. The only way they can really connect though is by sharing a common unit for that space and for pure quantities (non-descript "void"/volume) that would happen to be the greatest common divisor (GCD) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_common_divisor shared between them, though this can be a multidimensional vector. You've likely seen many of these, but here's what the computation of greatest common divisors can look like when projected into 2 dimensions:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...tml#post121717

That only describes a mechanism to generate common/shared forms or spaces and doesn't specify the specifics over how these are consciously perceived with various qualities nor the specifics of what dimensions or experience/motion/action are available and those appear to be likely unique properties provided by individuals. It could be that these are collectively contributed ... I don't know, though it would at least appear that the capability for any of this to be seen as existing for anything would simply have to be an innate ability. It doesn't appear a perception of time could be imposed upon anything and that observers can have their own unique version of it.

Let's try focusing on the singular framework more, with the word universe simply including all versions of materialization that are possible. If we declare there to be multiple universes, or if we declare there are otherworlds, we then have moved away from using language most logically. Let's not waste our time and energy on fantasies that we all know do not deliver clear answers.

It doesn't means I cannot except less-grounded ideas or realities, but I would rather see it all (in the singular framework that we are currently discussing) as part of the one and same result we call universe.

Taking Steve's dual image for materialization, we can for instance state that all three parts in the image are levels of materialization. Where the overlap leads to grounded states, the gray areas left and right can be seen as their own specific, traceable outcomes. We could declare Electricity and Magnetism as the left and the right of the image. Or if we use concepts, we could make the left be Space and the right be Time, and the center area the matter where both have their common grounds. If you wish, a child can be envisioned, with the genetic material as still the same as Mom's to the left, and the genetic material as still the same as Dad's to the right. In the center, the child had to make its own choices (limited by the genetic material given) that are from but nevertheless different than either parent.

The image allows us another approach in light of the singular framework: we could say that the center is actually empty. If we declare the center the same as what is outside the image, then the only visualized entity is the dual crescent that is linked in two tiny but very specific spots. This would then indicate a holding on to each other of specific sides in an environment where holding on is actually not the norm but the exception. Our material universe moving outwardly does not have holding on as the norm, but as the exception (albeit of a very large amount of separate numbers of energy/forces holding on as essential for materialization).

A slightly different approach of the same would be to declare the center as neutral. We could then see the gray areas as slopes down a hill, with in the middle a flat area, just like the flat area outside the slopes. It would mean that where both flat areas almost touch each other (in top and at bottom of image) there must be a steep incline/wall where danger of falling off lurks if one is not careful. What is immediately available to us is to view the flat center as either the bottom of a hole or the top of a hill. The duality of the single entity (be it hole or hill) is made visible with Steve's image.

Not the fantasy should guide us, but the actual information we find close by and far away. If we have this image, then let it speak to us. Let's investigate its various way of interpretation.

One last note in light of the abstract/conceptual discussion I find important: the white of center and of the outside can be viewed as locations where we can fantasize, theorize, place abstracts. The position in the middle then indicates meaningful fantasies/theories/abstractions, while the outside fantasies/theories/abstractions are less well connected to our materialized realities. As I tried to convey with the discussion about abstracts, we can have abstracts that are not related (much) to our material reality, and there are abstracts that are fully grounded (encapsulated) in our material reality.

[SteveA]

Hi, Fredrick. Thank you for the excellent thoughts and detailed comments.

I very much enjoy your analogies. We could consider the two separate halves to be "independent" in some aspects, yet sharing a common overlapping reality by which aspects of each other are visible, though recognize that either side only sees itself and the central overlap is just a subset of oneself. So there is a singularity there. The abstraction that there exists something outside that I believe is naturally implied by time - change does not appear possible by anything internal to an object and time or change arises from continual interactions. In order that time can be continually progressive, this would also appear to be fundamentally an expansion or growth (or at least a very impressive illusion of it!!).

So it would seem natural that we could assume there exists a "beyond" in which the present expands into, though recognize that both of the halves in the image are present in a common space and the mechanisms by which they're connected are shared and a continuity exists across these various boundaries by a shared property of space itself. This is similarly a singular influence, within which our view of both halves is made possible. Ones own view could be considered singular, though it may contain diverse aspects embedded within it.

The creative component "beyond" has no specific form except as time/growth/change.

One of the ways that best analogizes this view for me is to consider a number line and we're at some time, t. This number can be increased and fundamentally it should just continually adding quanta, +1, +1, +1, ... but this view is beyond a subjective experience of time or free will because it allows no choice and is fundamentally beyond any ability to construct any comprehension or experience of, though we could potentially experience fractal representations for a period of time, such as +2, +2, +2, ... because these allow involvement in their construction and can be experienced in time (though they only exist within the larger context of a subjective divergence from this as well, as once again, if it was persistently +2, +2, +2, there's no free will involved and no manner to be influencial at any present moment).

We could potentially describe a selection of "self" to be a selection of some +n though, but this is, in a, self only, relative sense, still the equivalent of +1, +1, +1 though a choice was involved and so it can be experienced. Notice that relative to other step sizes, there are now contrasts - for example, a "motion" of +2 intersects a "motion" of +3 with reciprocal characteristics (moving at +3 gives an observation of every 3rd +2 motion, whereas moving at +2 gives an observation of every 2nd +3 motion).

But such a selection only allows a finite experience, unless the selection of n was similarly an infinite quantity, but how could a number be infinite? We treat infinite quantities as dynamic - 100 isn't infinite, but the process of counting through and past 100 could be considered potentially infinite. It could be experienced as infinite though if all we did was count, hence the option to stop counting must remain in order to be experienced as well.

The possibility to do something else always has to exist or there is no selection and nothing influences it and hence one cannot see it as something related to themself. The meaning of an object always occurs within a context of things that were not selected as well. An abstract singular photon has no context, no wavelength, not frequency, no position etc.

The manner in which time is experienced arises from a singular source of shared growth that allows multiple things to become multiple things and then we have the ability for ones own present to exist as specifically "here and now", and the analogy I think works best is that experiences are like continually applying recursive operations to ones own subjective version of t and this continually grows it but allows diverse manners of growth and structures to arise from this selection ... for example, a simply binary choice of +2 or +3 allows the experience of a single binary action and it's influences. A choice between +2, +3, or t^2 is qualitatively different and depending upon the specific manner of growth, which can be arbitrarily complex like a nested mathematical formula.

Subjectively everything is comprehensibly it's own infinity because nothing can see itself repeat (an observation of a repetition implies something beyond that repetition exists because it means a state was viewed twice and in order for it to be consider to have been viewed twice, a memory of the previous iteration much exist as it was seen as the "first" or new occurance initially, so at a minimum, memory extends beyond observations of repetitions).

Well, I can ramble on easily but it appears there's not much of any way to remove a singular view of things ... that seems fine. You begin there and then go the other way and look at all the diverse aspects of that singularity and grow/learn more etc. The dual view is great too and so are all the others.

[SteveA]

Let me add something to this as well - in awareness things are united by choices. Choices require multiple options. Those options are diverse and different. In a sense everyones "self" provides that diversity and could be seen similar to a different perceptual quality of motion - things can move relative to things for which they have shared properties, but awareness of those choices is singular - so it's one of those things where the "whole is greater than the sum of the parts" (as those parts provide capabilities for each other - and hence likely why things enjoy remaining together Though still all of these would appear to have need a common and preexisting capability to interact singularly in awareness, otherwise there would appear no logical explanation as to how things magically become capable of doing things - that potential space appears to be something that preexists and in a sense, we collectively already "know it all" in diverse and independent ways and the present moment is seeing how all those diverse aspects can be united in new ways and that's the logically inexplicable creative side).

[austintorn@aol.com]

This is the most astounding information ever presented:

The Nullification of Existence

We have seen how the universe has three compositional dimensions (space) and one closure dimension (fourth dimension) — having a finite four-dimensional hypervolume, its one and only one universal boundary condition that is proportional to the product of Planck’s constant and the speed of light divided by the average universal energy density, the forth root of the universe’s hypervolume becoming an absolute unit of measurement whose length, amazingly, is but a fraction of a millimeter. But, remember, the 4th dimension touches the 3rd everywhere, so, it is extensive, this tiny extent being the same everywhere, which is why universal constants control all, it being the only connection between the micro and macro universe, for it is the the finiteness of necessity that exists at the midpoint of the universal size scale between infinite largeness and infinite smallness.

The four-dimensional size of the universe represents the quintessential quantity—the quantity of quantity. The only way it can exist within nothingness (the prime mover) is by being voided by some internal relationship—a substructure allowing for complete and utter cancellation.

Nonexistence is the same vacant truth on both ends of reality and existence is everything in between. The nonexistence of half of the universe must be equivalent to the the existence of the other half, called existential parity.

The two halves satisfy the completeness of the universe, but what about its voided nature? Some operator—a difference operator—has to offset the cumulative effect of the summation of nothing; the largest possible difference in the universe is the one occurring between its two halves.

Positive and negative directions along the forth dimension are entirely equivalent; The only difference is their opposition to each other—a polarity inherent in the fourth dimension required by the symmetry of totality. That is why there is an infinite wealth of of positive and negative electric fields scattered across space.

Totality’s hypercube consists of an infinite number of layers of three-dimensional space at various fourth-dimensional elevations, this fourth-dimension not containing points because it represents their fourth-dimensional deflection — a difference of position. Space exists because the sum of nothing is nothing and the fourth-dimension exists because the difference of nothing is nothing.

The positive and negative fields of energy are physical deflections of space along the fourth dimension. Since all is composed of space, anything not strictly space is spacial distortion. Polarity nullifies spacial magnitude. A spacial point and its deflection are not separate entities. If we could superimpose the two halves of totality, the result would not be space, but nothingness. Existence contains the exact amounts of positive and negative electric fields (spacial deflection) necessary to provide perfect four-dimensional symmetry.

What is fourth-dimensional, intrinsically polar, external to space, and a metric for spacial distance?

Time. Time, like space, is an inevitable consequence of hypervolume. Space might constitute the composition of reality, but time is the cause and effect binding it all together.

Time is the difference of space!

TIme is not a compositional dimension; it is a difference dimension.

The hypercube has dimensions of quadratic distance; however, any incomplete representation of this hypercube, such as half of unit hypervolume, has units of time-distance^3. Totality is neutral and symmetric, whereas its internal composition is polar and asymmetric.

TIme is t he dimension that bounds, not extends, three-dimensional space.

Distance^4 = c(time-distance^3) !

The speed of light (c), is the underlying dimensional relationship between time and distance; it provides the standard for unbounded duration, much as the universes “diameter” provides the standard of unbounded distance. ‘c’ is a ratio!

Distance^4 / (time-distance^3) = c = distance/time


Why three spacial dimensions?

The singularity of nothingness demands existential closure, which in turn demands compositional parity, which in turn demands cubic space. Our universe’s dimensionality is as inevitable as its existence.

The space of our universe is three-dimensional because this is the only dimension whose volume is compositionally consistent through all levels of infinite size while forming the surface of its own hypershpere.

[SteveA]

The speed of light (c), is the underlying dimensional relationship between time and distance; it provides the standard for unbounded duration, much as the universes “diameter” provides the standard of unbounded distance. ‘c’ is a ratio!

Yes, the version of light speed we measure is a ratio and not something fundamentally constant except within it's own framework of measurement. Light will move as fast as it's assumed to move and can't proven to be different ... there is also not specifically light but the photon ... a photon is not specifically light

Another interesting match with 3 dimensional space is this - what "orthogonal" components of experience are needed to explain experience? Well we need "things", but these are just points with no specific spacial form - they aren't even connected really. So we need another dimension to place them into a common space and possessing of positions and attributes that relate to each other - these can't be perceptually moved willy-nilly either, so they need to exist at specific locations within this space, otherwise, for example, apples and cars could swap positions and that could be uncomfortable if you were trying to bite into an apple or squeeze into a car .

But this doesn't explain time, so we additional need a position within this space describing a specific moment (we can't make it also a single object within that space or "time" would never change, though the conscious quality of perceiving a duration could be a specific point on this line, but not the experience of change itself).

This still isn't enough to do it though because there is never a specific "Here and Now" in the picture - the ability for a position of time to move does not explain why someone or something is at any specific location in this "spacetime" and I believe the manner in which the perception of "Here and Now" arises is from direct conscious involvement - you can't be somewhere specific unless you're influencing where/what that is and this is similar to a creative energy selecting a pathway through this space.

We might be able to combine the initial selection of an origin on this line as describing a "self" and potentially containing an infinite quantity of information in that selection, but that still doesn't explain how the present moment progresses into specific states, so it appears more intuitive and natural to simply assign it as a continual and creative conscious influence. There's no place "out there" in any logical manner to place the perception of change. It has to be something inherent in oneself.

From the perspective of that creative influence there is no specific dimensionality to anything though except for whatever logical and information limitations are placed upon the "navigation" - obviously no controlled motion could exist relative to something that is not known, and in this sense we have something very similar to the conventional view of "constant light speed". It's really that component that constructs the apparently "constant", yet truly statistical (to me constant and statistical are oxymorons - a die roll is not constant, yet the velocity of individual photon detections that define the wave function for light are not verifiably constant) velocity of light.

We can also find from the NIST definitions some paradoxes that basically can be reinterpreted to say that light speed is variable and depends upon energy and truly "faith" because you can never really tell if you've sampled enough photons to be sufficiently confident that a wavelength of light has actually been measured, or whether its a statistical fluke and could have been two wavelengths long or a much higher frequency subdivision to space that happened to alias down to a longer wavelength etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing

In the end, it appears it all relies upon some measure of faith that there does exist a structure that can persist ... I happen to enjoy such a belief, though it also may be a good idea to recognize that one could be wrong (might come in handy on occasion )

[Fredrick]

Hi, Fredrick. Thank you for the excellent thoughts and detailed comments.

I very much enjoy your analogies. We could consider the two separate halves to be "independent" in some aspects, yet sharing a common overlapping reality by which aspects of each other are visible, though recognize that either side only sees itself and the central overlap is just a subset of oneself. So there is a singularity there. The abstraction that there exists something outside that I believe is naturally implied by time - change does not appear possible by anything internal to an object and time or change arises from continual interactions. In order that time can be continually progressive, this would also appear to be fundamentally an expansion or growth (or at least a very impressive illusion of it!!).

I agree, Steve, but rather calling it Time, I have a preference for using C, because C states something about matter, while Time is not only objective, it is also subjective. Whereas C moves along with matter, is one with matter, time is a weird kind of abstraction.

As mentioned before on other threads, I view time twofold. Either the now is ever-present, or now is the actual part missing.

Using this image once more, we can declare 'Now' to be the center of the image. It is where the gray crescent on the left is the 'Future' and the gray crescent on the right is the 'Past'. Only the 'Now' is real, while the crescents are concepts we can consciously deal with. I can sleep perfectly fine at night knowing this to be true.

Yet take the same image, and now visualize only the gray areas as truly there. The 'Now' is still in the middle, but there is no actual 'Now'; it is just as flat and neutral as the area outside the gray areas. The grays each represent either 'Future' or 'Past', and they are the only actual realities. We — being caught in the middle — view them both, must live where they meet. I can sleep perfectly fine at night knowing this to be true.

In the former perspective, the 'Now' is a dictator. In the latter perspective, the 'Now' is nothing but a neutral state caught in between the 'Future' and the 'Past', both of them not dictators but representatives of what they believe is the truth worth standing up for. It is up to us to decide a/ if the former is the real deal, b/ if the latter is the real deal, c/ if they are both real, d/ if neither are real. To make a decision and stating that one of these options is true and not the others is identical to 'buying in' in one of the given options. No problem for whomever does, but the actual ToE itself becomes then unobtainable.

So it would seem natural that we could assume there exists a "beyond" in which the present expands into, though recognize that both of the halves in the image are present in a common space and the mechanisms by which they're connected are shared and a continuity exists across these various boundaries by a shared property of space itself. This is similarly a singular influence, within which our view of both halves is made possible. Ones own view could be considered singular, though it may contain diverse aspects embedded within it.

I hope you see that with my words I made clear that that is not an overall position. Rather, it is a specific position one can accept as true and then view this reality as having dictatorial qualities. You are taking in a position with your words, one that is true, if you view it as true. The neutral space in the middle becomes a dictator if you view it as such; however, the gray areas become players surrounding neutral grounds if instead you view them as such. There is in my view no overall option available to declare one true and the other not. I prefer not to buy into either one, and rather declare the abstract the singular position itself.

I believe, Steve, that our reality is only possible because of the angular positions under which we exist, and no angular position can exist as the singular overall angular position. If we have an angular position in time that creates a 'Now' that is bound in time and place (but not dictatorial as it would be if it were a singular time that is always correct for all places), then from that angularity we must conclude that there are always two sides of non-identical properties: in this case 'Future' and 'Past'.

The singularity we are discussing does therefore not belong to the aspect of Time or Space, and so I do not agree we have found ourselves a singularity here in Time. For each of us in specific? Sure, no problem, just like that would be proclaiming with Relativity. But for the overall level, I do not see it (except for the not very specific word 'Now').

The creative component "beyond" has no specific form except as time/growth/change.

One of the ways that best analogizes this view for me is to consider a number line and we're at some time, t. This number can be increased and fundamentally it should just continually adding quanta, +1, +1, +1, ... but this view is beyond a subjective experience of time or free will because it allows no choice and is fundamentally beyond any ability to construct any comprehension or experience of, though we could potentially experience fractal representations for a period of time, such as +2, +2, +2, ... because these allow involvement in their construction and can be experienced in time (though they only exist within the larger context of a subjective divergence from this as well, as once again, if it was persistently +2, +2, +2, there's no free will involved and no manner to be influencial at any present moment).

We could potentially describe a selection of "self" to be a selection of some +n though, but this is, in a, self only, relative sense, still the equivalent of +1, +1, +1 though a choice was involved and so it can be experienced. Notice that relative to other step sizes, there are now contrasts - for example, a "motion" of +2 intersects a "motion" of +3 with reciprocal characteristics (moving at +3 gives an observation of every 3rd +2 motion, whereas moving at +2 gives an observation of every 2nd +3 motion).

But such a selection only allows a finite experience, unless the selection of n was similarly an infinite quantity, but how could a number be infinite? We treat infinite quantities as dynamic - 100 isn't infinite, but the process of counting through and past 100 could be considered potentially infinite. It could be experienced as infinite though if all we did was count, hence the option to stop counting must remain in order to be experienced as well.

Well, we definitively agree here. Yet for me the explanation is simple. For us to (have been) materialize(d) means we must have moved from one (non-material) reality to the materialized reality. I do not see how this can be done in a complete fully comprehensive way. This must have been done in the same way as your abstract image shows. Even when we are singular and one on the other side, on this side we cannot be singular and one and exist. There must be a limitation, and there is a limitation. It does not mean we do not have the totality of the original side within us, but it does mean that our specific materialization is all-specific, and only from the synergistic understanding can we get a grasp (that may contain all, but that is not easily transmittable from one person to another without challenge) of what the totality of the previous state was all about.

The manner in which time is experienced arises from a singular source of shared growth that allows multiple things to become multiple things and then we have the ability for ones own present to exist as specifically "here and now", and the analogy I think works best is that experiences are like continually applying recursive operations to ones own subjective version of t and this continually grows it but allows diverse manners of growth and structures to arise from this selection ... for example, a simply binary choice of +2 or +3 allows the experience of a single binary action and it's influences. A choice between +2, +3, or t^2 is qualitatively different and depending upon the specific manner of growth, which can be arbitrarily complex like a nested mathematical formula.

Subjectively everything is comprehensibly it's own infinity because nothing can see itself repeat (an observation of a repetition implies something beyond that repetition exists because it means a state was viewed twice and in order for it to be consider to have been viewed twice, a memory of the previous iteration much exist as it was seen as the "first" or new occurance initially, so at a minimum, memory extends beyond observations of repetitions).

I keep finding it remarkable how we are both coming to very similar ideas and thoughts, Steve. I like that a lot. Where we disagree is where to apply the singular character. My mathematical information shows a never-ending battle between 1, 2, and 3 (singularity, duality, plural options that can include singularity and duality), and that for every aspect the choices can differ (for instance, depending on the benefit). We have 23 chromosome pairs (used to have 24), and I can quite easily imagine how they represent 23 choices about 1, 2, and 3, enabling each choice to be in conflict with each other since they are somewhat removed from one another within our genetic material. Interestingly, the outcome would then not represent 1, 2, or 3, but rather it would be like 4, an amalgamation of the options.

[Fredrick]

Let me add something to this as well - in awareness things are united by choices. Choices require multiple options. Those options are diverse and different. In a sense everyones "self" provides that diversity and could be seen similar to a different perceptual quality of motion - things can move relative to things for which they have shared properties, but awareness of those choices is singular - so it's one of those things where the "whole is greater than the sum of the parts" (as those parts provide capabilities for each other - and hence likely why things enjoy remaining together Though still all of these would appear to have need a common and preexisting capability to interact singularly in awareness, otherwise there would appear no logical explanation as to how things magically become capable of doing things - that potential space appears to be something that preexists and in a sense, we collectively already "know it all" in diverse and independent ways and the present moment is seeing how all those diverse aspects can be united in new ways and that's the logically inexplicable creative side).

Again, Steve, we agree so much I find it eerie. But where you have an overall position of the singular kind that has dictatorial qualities (or use words when they fit your needs and not when they don't — sorry, but had to say this), I view the singular overall outcome as that of all options represented in one way or another. We are definitively saying very similar things, yet where to place the constructs rising from an overall singularity is something I believe we need to debate a little bit more.

For me, singularity is an abstract that my brain can accept — even as representing that what is then real (but only when the conditions are met). Yet singularity does also automatically contain the choice how to go about that singularity in our reality/in our materialized universe per aspect of matter. I hope you recognize your own words in this, possibly the words are used slightly different. Not only do I see ourselves as the complex beings coming from a singular state and recreating ourselves in a new singular state (within a surrounding that is itself in many complex ways also varied representations of that original singularity), but with each having have made various choices, none identical to another when put under microscopes. Only in the abstract is it possible to come to agreement, by agreeing that the singular abstract contains all these varieties. No dictator, but the dictatorial option is indeed included. What'd you say to that?