This and all other postings are WORKS IN PROGRESS. Each selection is added to, corrections made, and questions asked are answered as needed. I add new findings as they become available, often before proofing.

The technology behind our televisions is evolving. For now, let us consider the standard picture tube receivers that have served us for many years.

When we see a “picture” on the screen, it is through a process of visual resolution. The television screen is a mass of individual dot objectives, lots of individual spots of resolution. Not one of these specks defines a singular conclusion with enough resolve to allow us to see the "big picture."

Enough of these correctly defined “dots” put together, however, will give us the resolve to see the picture. Here, it helps to look closely at a television screen, if you have never done so.

We also arrive at rational conclusions through a balanced process of resolution; this is, if we have defined an objective.

As to how we refer to televisions sets, if I may digress a bit at this juncture, as word "meanings" are the tools used to "think," consider teaching children to read using a drawing of a television set, when there is only one, or to spell apartment when they are joined together. Why is it that delivering goods by land is a shipment, if by sea a cargo?

Perhaps we could say these are examples of word “meanings” determined by the context in which they are used. At this time, I cannot determine if these variances are an indication of illiteracy, or one of many odd quirks in words we may never resolve until rational literacy is part of public consciousness.

In spite of misnomers, malapropism, and bastardization of the nomenclature, however, your basic ten-or-less core operating system depends upon the correct definitions of rational terms to manage an incoming incoherent mass of singular fragmented details.

The role of the basic ten-or-less core operating terms is to quantify all incoming details, even the above misnomers, and send them on their way correctly addressed to their destination, their value appraised (quantified) to highlight their particular point of resolution, which, when all put together gives you the insight of a resolution that is unambiguous in its authority.

(Speaking of “authority,” this may challenge you a bit at this level, but were you aware that there is a difference between the rational meaning of “writer,” and an “author?” A “writer” conveys a conversation by pushing verbs up against nouns. An “author” has the “authority” to speak for the universe. Most people today have no awareness of the distinction between those two terms, but sense the underlying authority in an author's work. Could it be the author knows the universal factors of the rational terms that are used in their commentaries?)

Without rational factor values to quantify the flood of details in any rational question, the result would be random hits to your mental “screen.” It would give you a “lightshow” of a meaningless reaction of points of unresolved definition on your psyches' "screen."

We are 100% emotional creatures. The distinction that empowers one individual, over “life's' less fortunate,” is their rational process delivers its outcome apart from the individual subject's personal hopes for the outcome; from influence by their subjectivity.

Solutions can only serve you if they are true, and regardless of any personal choice of perspective, when rational resolutions are presented will be the accurate from any angle: Move your perspective to the right, and the answer still frames the same "picture." In a huff, challenge the results by posturing your agenda at a supposed “higher level," and regardless of the height of the ladder climbed, to "look down" on the resolution, the depiction will not change. Rational outcome is powerful because it allows you to see "see," the logical way, and the conclusion is not subject to debasement by your emotions of the moment.

This entire complex effort of resolution coming together, automatically, and without effort on your part is dependent upon prior agreements as to the factor values of a rational term. An easy example would be: One does not decide “on the spot” what “love” “means,” as the emotional element would likely win.

All this is to say that your rational prowess is based upon whether you know the definition/meaning of a term when used in particular context. For illustration, consider that somewhere on the physician's “rational screen” is “a dot” that should project a clear resolution of "infection,” and nearby another for “injection." Also consider that partial definitions are not going to deliver what is expected at the end of your "anal" process. Well... no! What I meant was "analysis."

We are in the process of learning to define these terms that are the foundation that supports the entire rational process. Truly, we have just begun, but it will be fun!