Efficient communication is facilitated when individuals are either on a similar intellectual and emotional capacity which naturally causes understanding and receptivity, or if a considerable amount of effort is put to decrease a present disparity in intellectual and/or emotional capacity where receptivity and contemplation has considerable attention put into it and therefore functional efficiency of interaction can be achieved.
What this means in less complex terms is that I recognize the immense disparity in my intellectual and emotional capabilities compared to the vast majority of people and I've put very considerable effort to greatly elaborate on many foundational understandings that allow someone who puts sufficient effort into reading and understanding everything I've written to be able to see things more clearly and understand my position much better than if I'd never written this book.
I've covered several different areas in considerable detail and even used different presentation forms in order to keep things exciting and interesting but also enlightening and efficient. I've paid careful attention to detail in focusing on facts where it's pertinent but also elaborating on emotions when it contributes effectively to the subject matter. I'm writing this book with the clear express intent of communicating my thoughts and feelings as clearly as possible and with a very great amount of detail.
This isn't a joke.
As such, before you even dream of trying to have some kind of dialogue with me, consider carefully what you're thinking, what you want to say and why, and what you could ever hope to achieve. I'm sure there are many that would consider me a coward for releasing this book and then closing myself off to communication with anyone except Kimi until/unless I get the proper relationship with her that I've always wanted. Naturally, I have no regard for the musings of such ignorant and arrogant fools and have absolutely no desire whatsoever to act in an extremely functionally ineffective manner simply to attempt to prove them wrong.
I know such a person would find some excuse to still accuse me of being a coward even if I opened myself up to communication, or come up with some other personal attack to throw at me. This makes any attempts to appease them completely futile by nature and would make me extremely stupid if I were to humor it for even a moment as the circumstances of my relationship with Kimi currently stand. I don't exist to entertain these clowns, so they can go fuck themselves.
Anyone except Kimi, even those that aren't complete morons, also is a complete waste of my time and energy to communicate with as things currently are. They either have nothing good or useful to say and don't hold any intentions towards me that I'd ever find desirable, or they have things to offer that I may have wanted but don't care for in the slightest if I can't have Kimi in my life. Either way, I have absolutely zero good reason to talk to these people as well.
Basically, I'm closing myself off to any communication except under an extremely specific set of circumstances because I'm not a moron and can see that not doing so would not only never produce me any kind of positive outcome I desire, but also result in a considerable amount of frustration that I don't need or want in my life; I'm not willing to feed that toxicity and make it seem like I'm trying to facilitate it. You can call it anything but smart, but that only shows how stupid you are for even trying to suggest you'd do any differently if you were as intelligent as me.
This book isn't a cry for help. It's not an invitation to express your opinion. It's not an attempt to beg for acceptance (that's more of a demand). It's not a demonstration of bravery. It's not bragging. It's the complex and complete expression of my potential at this time to the furthest extent I'm willing to share it with the world and a manifestation of my deepest thoughts and wishes in life. It's the culmination of my life up to this point and an explanation of my plans for the future. It's liberating for me to finally be able to express all this and put it out into the world, regardless of its reaction. I'm writing it because I have no reason to keep holding all of this in, not because I'm seeking feedback from anyone in any way.
I'm pretty sure most won't actually be respectful enough to consider what I'm saying, but at least I know I mentioned this, so when people disregard it, there's a place they can go to attempt to understand how stupid they are. If you want to even contemplate upon how you'd communicate to me or what you'd communicate about, you should feel obliged to write in a manner that can be understood and responded to.
This involves form and content.
Form is spelling, grammar, punctuation, and overall structure/flow.
There is no excuse for lacking these basic skills.
You should be able to see the extent that these things have an impact in this book. Imagine how terrible this book would be if it lacked them. Even with excellent content, it would greatly lose credibility and even readability, drastically reducing its overall value and hindering its functional efficiency.
Why write something if nobody's even going to want to read it or be able to even if they try?
That's right, there's no good reason. Don't bother.
If you have a hard time with this, try writing in Word or whatever word-processing program that you have on your computer. Most of these programs are designed to correct basic errors of spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
While this alone would make whatever you want to communicate still far from worth my time on its own, at least it's somewhere to start.
Content is the substance of what you're communicating. Just about any comment you can make is either a judgement or a call to action.
In the case of judgement, you are stating that you agree or disagree with a statement and your reasons for agreement or disagreement.
If you disagree with someone, it should be because:
If you disagree with someone the burden is on you to clearly state why.
There is no point in just stating "I disagree" - that is just being mindlessly contentious.
Personal attacks and manipulation will also not have any place for even consideration to be responded to; I've provided a lengthy list outlining several common forms of manipulation in speech that are apparent in the world, serving to demonstrate further to you that as stupid as you probably think I am, you're wrong.
If you agree with someone and find it worth saying so, it also does not hurt to state why.
In the case of a call to action, you are stating what should be done or not be done and your reasons why.
Don't forget that even thinking through what you want to communicate doesn't inherently mean it's worth my time to deal with either.
I'm writing this book using truth and in pursuit of truth. I've had people try to manipulate me enough in my life that I'm well aware of all the tactics. My patience for such bullshit has run thin. If you're even considering doing any of the following things in communication with me, not only are you an idiot, but you can also go fuck yourself.
1. Carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.
The more general your opponent's statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it.
The more restricted and narrow your own propositions remain, the easier they are to defend.
2. Use different meanings of your opponent's words to refute his argument.
Person A says, "You do not understand the mysteries of philopsychology."
Person B replies, "Oh, if it's mysteries you're talking about, I'll have nothing to do with them."
3. Ignore your opponent's proposition, which was intended to refer to some particular thing.
Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it.
Attack something different than what was asserted.
4. Hide your conclusion from your opponent until the end.
Mingle your premises here and there in your talk. Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order. By this circuitous route you conceal your goal until you have reached all the admissions necessary to reach your goal.
If the opponent grants you the truth of some of your premises, refrain from asking them to agree to your conclusion. Later, introduce your conclusions as a settled and admitted fact.
If your opponent has admitted to all or most of your premises, do not ask them directly to accept your conclusion; rather, draw the conclusion yourself as if it too had been admitted.
Your opponent and others in attendance may come to believe that your conclusion was admitted.
5. Use your opponent's beliefs against him.
If your opponent refuses to accept your premises, use his own premises to your advantage.
If the opponent is a member of an organization or a religious sect to which you do not belong, you may employ the declared opinions of this group against the opponent.
When your opponent puts forth a proposition, find it inconsistent with his or her other statements, beliefs, actions or lack of action.
Should your opponent defend suicide, you may at once exclaim, "Why don't you hang yourself?"
Should the opponent maintain that his city is an unpleasant place to live, you may say, "Why don't you leave on the first plane?"
6. Confuse the issue by changing your opponent's words or what he or she seeks to prove.
Call something by a different name: "good repute" instead of "honor," "virtue" instead of "virginity," "red-blooded" instead of "vertebrates".
7. State your proposition and show the truth of it by asking the opponent many questions.
By asking many wide-reaching questions at once, you may hide what you want to get admitted.
Then you quickly propound the argument resulting from the proponent's admissions.
8. Make your opponent angry.
An angry person is less capable of using judgement or perceiving where his or her advantage lies.
Contradiction and contention irritate a person into exaggerating their statements. By contradicting your opponent you may drive him into extending the statement beyond its natural limit. When you then contradict the exaggerated form of it, you look as though you had refuted the original statement.
Contrarily, if your opponent tries to extend your own statement further than your intended, redefine your statement's limits and say, "That is what I said, no more."
Should your opponent surprise you by becoming particularly angry at an argument, you must urge it with all the more zeal.
Not only will this make your opponent angry, but it will appear that you have put your finger on the weak side of his case and your opponent is more open to attack on this point than you expected.
9. Use your opponent's answers to your question to reach different or even opposite conclusions.
10. If you opponent answers all your questions negatively and refuses to grant you any points, ask him or her to concede the opposite of your premises.
This may confuse the opponent as to which point you actually seek him to concede.
11. If the argument turns upon general ideas with no particular names, you must use language or a metaphor that is favorable to your proposition.
What an impartial person would call "public worship" or a "system of religion" is described by an adherent as "piety" or "godliness" and by an opponent as "bigotry" or "superstition."
In other words, inset what you intend to prove into the definition of the idea.
12. To make your opponent accept a proposition, you must give him an opposite, counter-proposition as well.
If the contrast is glaring, the opponent will accept your proposition to avoid being paradoxical.
If you want him to admit that a boy must do everything that his father tells him to do, ask him, "whether in all things we must obey or disobey our parents."
Or, if a thing is said to occur "often" you are to understand few or many times, the opponent will say "many."
It is as though you were to put gray next to black and call it white; or gray next to white and call it black.
13. Try to bluff your opponent.
If he or she has answered several of your questions without the answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow.
If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the technique may succeed.
14. If you wish to advance a proposition that is difficult to prove, put it aside for the moment.
Instead, submit for your opponent's acceptance or rejection some true proposition, as though you wished to draw your proof from it.
Should the opponent reject it because he suspects a trick, you can obtain your triumph by showing how absurd the opponent is to reject an obviously true proposition.
Should the opponent accept it, you now have reason on your side for the moment.
You can try to prove your original proposition; as in bluffing, maintain that your original proposition is proved by what your opponent accepted.
For this an extreme degree of impudence is required, but experience shows cases of it succeeding.
15. If your opponent presses you with a counter-proof, you will often be able to save yourself by advancing some subtle distinction.
Try to find a second meaning or an ambiguous sense for your opponent's idea.
16. If your opponent has taken up a line of argument that will end in your defeat, you must not allow him to carry it to its conclusion.
Interrupt the dispute, break it off altogether, or lead the opponent to a different subject.
If your opponent asks you to admit something from which the point in dispute will immediately follow, you must refuse to do so, declaring that it begs the question.
17. Should your opponent expressly challenge you to produce any objection to some definite point in his argument, and you have nothing to say, try to make the argument less specific.
If you are asked why a particular hypothesis cannot be accepted, you may speak of the fallibility of human knowledge, and give various illustrations of it.
18. When your opponent uses an argument that is superficial and you see the falsehood, you can refute it by setting forth its superficial character.
But it is better to meet the opponent with a counter-argument that is just as superficial, and so dispose of him.
For it is with victory that you are concerned, not with truth.
Example: If the opponent appeals to prejudice, emotion or attacks you personally, return the attack in the same manner.
19. State a false syllogism.
Your opponent makes a proposition, and by false inference and distortion of his ideas you force from the proposition other propositions that are not intended and that appear absurd.
It then appears that opponent's proposition gave rise to these inconsistencies, and so appears to be indirectly refuted.
20. If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary.
Only one valid contradiction is needed to overthrow the opponent's proposition.
"All ruminants are horned," is a generalization that may be upset by the single instance of the camel.
21. Turn the tables and use your opponent's arguments against them.
Your opponent declares: "so and so is a child, you must make an allowance for him."
You retort, "Just because he is a child, I must correct him; otherwise he will persist in his bad habits."
22. When the audience consists of individuals (or a person) who is not an expert on a subject, you make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience.
This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes your opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs.
If your opponent must make a long, winded and complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen to him.
23. If you find that you are being beaten, you can create a diversion.
You can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had a bearing on the matter in dispute.
This may be done without presumption if the diversion has some general bearing on the matter.
24. Make an appeal to authority rather than reason.
If your opponent respects an authority or an expert, quote that authority to further your case.
If needed, quote what the authority said in some other sense or circumstance.
Authorities that your opponent fails to understand are those which they generally admire the most.
You may also, should it be necessary, not only twist your authorities, but actually falsify them, or quote something that you have entirely invented yourself.
25. If you know that you have no reply to the arguments that your opponent advances, you by a fine stroke of irony declare yourself to be an incompetent judge.
"What you say passes my poor powers of comprehension; it may well be all very true, but I can't understand it, and I refrain from any expression of opinion on it."
In this way you insinuate to the audience, with whom you are in good repute, that what your opponent says is nonsense.
This technique may be used only when you are quite sure that the audience thinks much better of you than your opponent.
26. A quick way of getting rid of an opponent's assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.
You can say, "That is fascism" or "atheism" or "superstition."
In making an objection of this kind you take for granted:
27. You admit your opponent's premises but deny the conclusion.
"That's all very well in theory, but it won't work in practice."
28. When you state a question or argument and your opponent tries to avoid responding, push harder.
If your opponent gives you no direct answer, evades it with a counter question, or tries to change the subject, it is a sure sign you have touched a weak spot, sometimes without intending to do so. You have, as it were, reduced your opponent to silence.
You must urge the point all the more and not let your opponent evade it, even when you do not know where the weakness that you have hit upon really lies.
29. Instead of working on an opponent's intellect or the rigor of his arguments, work on his motive.
If you succeed in making your opponent's opinion, should it prove true, seem distinctly prejudicial to his own interest, he will drop it immediately.
A clergyman is defending some philosophical dogma.
You show him that his proposition contradicts a fundamental doctrine of his church.
He will abandon the argument.
30. You may also puzzle and bewilder your opponent by mere bombast.
If your opponent is weak or does not wish to appear as if he has no idea what your are talking about, you can easily impose upon him some argument that sounds very deep or learned, or that sounds indisputable.
31. Should your opponent be in the right but, luckily for you, choose a faulty proof, you can easily refute it and then claim that you have refuted the whole position.
This is the way in which bad advocates lose good cases. If no accurate proof occurs to your opponent, you have won.
32. Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
In becoming personal, you leave the subject altogether and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.
This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect.
If you can't make the effort to be understood in the first place, don't be surprised when you get ignored or logically decimated. If you can't make the effort to communicate content that's rational, well-structured, and free of manipulation, you shouldn't be expecting anything different either.
If you don't care if what you're communicating is understood or if you are legible or coherent to anyone reading it, then why bother in the first place?
If you don't care if what you're communicating is rational and has place to be considered in a fashion free of emotional bias, of which is already so painfully inherently present in any individual with an active ego regardless which in and of itself acts as a barrier to communication, why expect any kind of functionally effective outcome?
If you're a dumbass, a prick, or both, and you think you deserve to be able to inflict your toxic communication upon me, go do something more productive with yourself, like stick a butter knife into an electric socket or take a nice swig from your nearest bottle of Ultra Clorox. It'll be far more immediately effective at your ultimate goal of being self-destructive.
The same goes to all the people that immediately jump on every person that may attempt to genuinely understand and possibly even defend my position. Ignorance, arrogance, and petty nitpicking criticism don't make you smart nor right, they just make you egotistical.
All that being said, I also want it to be known that I won't run away from any form of communication if I see that it actually could lead towards this relationship with Kimi that I've always wanted. Even if more drama ends up having to happen, if I can see that certain communication could lead to the outcome that I desire, then I'll have no opposition to engaging in it. Being unwilling to accept fame or other rewards without Kimi doesn't mean I'm running away from encounters that could actually lead to getting what I want, it just means that I'll have no tolerance for any communication that doesn't seem effective to achieving my goal; this means I won't be talking to anyone who doesn't seem to be able or willing to help me try to make my relationship with Kimi work, and past a certain point, I won't pursue any further communication with anyone for any reason if things end up unfolding in a way that makes it clear Kimi is a suicidal heartless piece of shit that really wants to break my heart and will never be with me, leaving me only with the desire to be as destructive as possible.