—An Abstract of the Formation Source—

In one way we're like our digitized machines with physical “circuits” either to be “on” or “off.” These circuits  are material and of the psycho–physical within our electro–neuro–chemical neurologies which can switch to an "on" mode of awareness. 
Yet they're also of that immaterial "mind" which forms to be analogous of the physical "brain" incompletely within the totality of that circuitry. That totality forms to be each human’s “subconscious” which materially also includes the senses. It's only then that the “analogous mind” forms to be the human “subject” which similarly corresponds to its neurological “object.” 
The statements so far express “formative facts” which require an also–immaterial and analogous language, many of the "words" of which we subconsciously also imprint with "concepts" as we've conditioned to both by association. Those concepts immaterially also form within the mind to be of the differing “essences” which 
individuals also may reduce to still-other concepts which define the original word as a concept. Ultimately, they also are unique to each thoughtful human who first mentally did "abstract" or "remove them" from the sensible object or recollected them within his or her analogous subject as the objects of his or her focus.
Either way, “word–concepts” form from a unified “object–subject” which we'd neglect at best to achieve only a rough understanding of what each of us may refer to through them. It’s also words which I must use in order to try to communicate with you despite your own conceptual conditioning to them—one which mitigates against your knowing them through their formative applications otherwise. 
That difficulty a given, please bear with me as I go on to say that we’ve variously “focused” upon and hierarchically prioritized either the sensible objects of our apprehending senses at the expense of our comprehending subjects or vice versa. The former forms an “inductive logic” which conceptually bases on apprehending senses of varying acuity among us within our own subconscious objects. Yet at least this has let us describe and measure through our word–concepts and—within the species common limitations of  “essential ignorance”—shape our surrounding environment. It has permitted us technologically to further our claim to being the “sovereign” species. 
While inductive logic is the cornerstone of the scientist’s problematically–successful “empirical method,” it also divides its practitioner. It does so as he’d otherwise be a complete human being. It doesn’t permit him to prescribe what morally should be or proscribe what shouldn’t any better than the rest of us. 
Our “deductive” logicians at best fare no better. Descriptively, the theologian’s focus upon the analogous creations within her or his own subject may let him prescribe and proscribe, but the “word–analogues” therein sensibly don’t provide rational referents at all—much less a common social ground for agreement.
Only the word-analogues which are word-formatives can provide it. Only they analogously can explain what our humanly–common source enables in that they refer to that source from the outset. Within its initial unity, the formative referents for our merged “object–subject” and “focus” are among the formative truths from which follow the formative facts earlier discussed. They follow within our formative logic which could supplant the mutually-exclusive inductive and deductive logical systems which that formational source also enables where and when either the formative referent for what we can call our "psycho–neurology" or "subject" can control our focuses otherwise.
The formative logic then analogously prioritizes the formative truths over the formative facts and those facts over our formatively–standardized word–concepts commonly within their hierarchical formation. It's also then that those truths and facts apply to our limited and limiting word-concepts to form standards to which commonly we can refer truly to provide the rule of moral law rather than the rule of men socially within our inclusive prescriptions and exclusionary proscriptions.
The formative truths begin within the “primary inclusion” of all things of our human awareness. Yet, to include everything really is to distinguish nothing even if we knew everything, and we don't  Therefore, we must first look to the second truth if we would distinguish something. That one is of a first–unified “inclusion/exclusion” which through our focally-possible referents provides alternatives, and an awareness of our formative philosophy which enables and explains even the contrary is but one possibility. 
We've not fully had that analogous awareness before to my knowledge. Yet, we’ve partly enacted its authority from its underlying formation "intuitively.” Our sensible acts and standardized language at least imply that our respective subconsciouses and subjects sometimes do motivate us to be moral by happenstance if not with the constancy which otherwise could come through our clear self-direction.
Thus, the unified object–subject as the third truth focally itself only has divided us socially as we only—and erringly—first have divided it.. By dividing it, we've first and also divided each of our selves as an individual object–subject. By doing so, we've also divided our individual selves otherwise at least as “rationally integrated” individuals from others socially. 
To be rationally integrated, each of us as a unified object–subject must vest the “object” of and from our sensed awarenesses with greater rational authority than the very subject which thoughtfully comprehends it. That is, the “prepercept” which forms from our senses preconditionally permits even our perception—the subject's at–least minimal response associated with it. Moreover, that most–often–single–word response at least likely had been the comprehended analogue—the word–concept—which someone comprehensively first formed within his or her standardized “contemplation,” his or her own focally–subjective connections through all such words. 
The “morally–integrated” individual and social group require even more than this. They require each individual either subjectively to “understand” through contemplation or, at least, intuitively to know through subconscious imprinting. Yet what they’d understand or condition to forms to be of the word–formatives which ultimately form from the referenced formations for those formatives, the latter alone to precondition even without understanding for the responsively conditioned. Either way, the individuals would form to be “formatively aware” in but the initial step. Only if they next also empower those formations in their acts are they also “formatively dedicated”—and morally integrated as individuals and as a society.
The fourth and fifth truths are of and from “space–time” and the “entity–event” respectively. Scientists and semanticists traditionally have recognize their authority ultimately as unified conceptually and only to divide by convenience given our “essential ignorance”—the leading formative fact of our human inability absolutely to sense even the smallest known entity within space–time absolutely to be indivisible. They at least intutitively are correct as far as they can take it.
Despite the technological extensions to our senses they’ve produced as rationally–integrated individuals, even scientists have been “formatively ignorant.” Both space–time and the entity–event also manifest from our object–subject entire, and there morally is a transcending formation therein—one which devolves to make their essential ignorance—and our own—the most authoritative of all the formative facts which in human common . 
This one leads to our hubris—our unearned and unwarranted arrogance—where and when we morally don’t account for it, as these inductive logicians can't until and unless they switched logical systems to prescribe and proscribe human—or any other—behavior. In the past of course, the deductive logic most obvious in the standardized "theologian" was their only recourse, and even with it they morally couldn't account for hubris within our own behavior. They couldn't acount for their and our “unintended consequences” upon the natural environment which personally sustains us individually and culturally as a species either. 
Morally, our abused sovereignty rationally could bring us our doom. The inclusions which define our space may become exclusions. This unexpectedly could occur to exclude our very selves within a divisibly–focal truth of  “time” as the change within that similar truth which is our "space—" that ecological change which our kind enacted even from accumulated, separable changes. At some "point" in time, our rationally–limited ability to reverse our course and morally "converge" upon it could come too late. If so, another unified truth of “convergence/divergence” logically still will bear the same following relation to time which space bears to a leading inclusion/exclusion, but that divergence would lead to our exclusion even where and when we even could foreknow it—could predict it without the ability to prevent its inexorable coming! 
I only can hope that we will get our moral act together—that these words will reach you at least intuitively  before it is too late. If for no other reason than that your self–interest in your own selfness and/or those of others close to you is your motivation, the prospect of our unintended consequences ought to give you at least rational cause to consider the formative alternative. 
If it does, bear with others of your own kind. It takes great effort to surmount our conditionings, and I reasonably can’t expect you to know what it’s taken me over twenty years of experience and thought to come by. Especially given our ever–increasing conditioning to training—to expecting and finding comfort only in “sound bites” at the contemplatively–demanding most, you shouldn’t expect more of yourself or others than to try to turn our course around necessarily through halting steps. All I also can ask is that you care and open–mindedly receive what we offer on this site and I offer in my books. 
Question all of it open–mindedly as well. At the point you feel the formation sufficiently applies for you to standardize the word–concepts of your own areas of expertise—can help you contribute to the rest of us beyond what you could know to say otherwise—please join us. This site forms to be a morally–guided think tank after all, and the rational facts you could help others with always will remain open given our essential ignorance. 
Yet we together can close even the inductively–rational gaps in our knowledge through our formerly–ignored formational alternative. We can where and when formatively–standardized word–concepts even rationally have a greater authority than their unstandardized counterparts. They do because they go to their unified source where and when we also would prioritize our essential ignorance over their rational formations in the first formative instance.
We even can prescribe and proscribe socially with greater certainty as well. For instance, our essential ignorance converges with our first truth of primary inclusion at the prescriptively–moral interface with the descriptively rational. This convergence logically applies to mean that we morally must prescribe certain inclusive “presumptions” by reference to each entity–event’s morally–assignable rights and proscribe the contrary. 
Morally, each human equally is first within these applications. The social "presumption of innocence" from prosecution happenstantially is but one intuitively–moral application as a standardized word–concept. Another is that society’s responsibility for the unenfranchisable—its children, and the infirm—presumptively must converge upon their enfranchisability as socially included where and when the already enfranchisable assume custodial authority under the word–formatives in the interim to see that it’s so. 
Yet we’ve not completely and uniformly practiced even these through a social contract anywhere at any time. We still await the formation of our kind’s first “morally–exemplary nation–state, and we morally can't impose that contract until and unless we form a truly “moral majority” politically as a standardized “nation” within the contiguous geographic borders of a standardized “state.” 
This, too, awaits our formative awareness and dedication. The obstacles are daunting, but it can—and hopefully should—include you. The value of our lives as individuals and as a species depends upon it.... 
...Dana Barbour

Last Updated October 4, 1999