[post is 20,000 words [3/6/2014], will probably be split in half later.  Has many examples. Much of this length comes from a TAGGS table of “Faith-based” grants]

(Suppose I’m Right, here. . . What Would You Do when the Lights go On? [Published Mar. 5, 2014]. <=includes case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ending in “-2os”).

P/REVIEW (3/15/2017):  Despite the length, this post has many single sections, many are clearly marked inside thick-bordered boxes with colorful background, which I believe distill and explain the problem mothers face when attempting to make sense of their treatments in the family courts after identifying and reporting abuse (of themselves or their children) IN the courts.

To Whom It Concerns — Suppose I’m Right?

. . . . In general, and in what I’m about to prove, right now? . . . . Suppose that when I report what I see (and hear), I am seeing and hearing quite well, based on my report versus independently observed reality?

Even though it’s quite the minority opinion, suppose it’s far closer to the mark than others?

In fact years after some of this started hitting the Internet, people reporting consistently, diligently (and accurately) on these matters are so few and far between that we get confused with each other by outsiders, the language is just that different.   “….all you people look alike….”

To Whom It Concerns among the:

• 254 or so followers,  [@2017 — now over 1,000.  Not that this is a lot, but it is a change…”followers” referring only to those who’ve submitted email addresses to be notified on each new posts; not to be confused with visitors, which count is much higher over time…]
• Others who receive each new tweeted post because they follow Lets Get Honest on Twitter, or
• Among those I report on, and who are monitoring to see how much, how close to the mainline truths are “out” so far, (bloggers do get to know this in back-office functions; I’ve even posted a few samples on an About This Blog page, i.e., who was watching this blog when), and are curious if and when their gigs are up;
• Or those who click after reading some comment I submit elsewhere along the lines of “get real!” or “What about this?” that indicate some of us simply don’t talk like the others, when addressing:

Family (and Conciliation) Court Matters

(and an Uncommon Analysis of the Operations, Practices & History, thereof) 

Suppose I’m right?

Some holes are fathomless, they seem to have no end.  But, suppose, we have already hit the bedrock, here in this blog[*], of: Fundamental, Urgent and Relevant Truths — what would you do when the lights go on?

[* including the many links to other sources, but what’s here, is my assembly of that information, my general roadmap, and “Analysis.”  Incidentally, it’s also copyrighted to me, Let’s Get Honest (i.e., this blogger), except where quoting other copyrighted material, and subject to wordpress Terms of Use]

Or is the dark more comfortable, because the lights tend to show things that need to be cleaned up,

. . . . .for example nationally respected [by whom?] experts and consultants whose Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policies on major aspects of the truth is resulting in too many dumbed-down, distracted and misled mothers,

. . . .who (have been) willing to mortgage the greater truth [entire categories of it] for a stripped-down version, minus accurate vocabulary and plus folklore on “how and why judges (etc.) make decisions,” but at least with the press coverage of the personal drama, and a nice supportive group of on-line friends who also don’t do lookups, use TAGGS, or apparently question their leadership much, but are quick to fight back in comments fields others who do. 

Over time, while new generations of roadkill, children STILL being murdered in or around supervised visitation (or court-ordered) exchanges, sometimes and/or with the father, or mother, other times with bystanders — and lives are disrupted (and bankrupted) — the conversation from this assembly of experts has barely changed, except “hitch your story to this wagon, and hope for results through self-selecting intermediaries…” and they have now picked up, year by year, more connections with the “court-connected corps” crowd, who are hardly about to get confronted on matters such as relate to misdirected, diverted, and otherwise inappropriate federal grants to the states [i.e., such as some of us DID report on] to help increase the misery level in the average contested custody case. 

Other than what I’ve been saying (show and telling) all along, the next two to three posts, I have recently seen and come to a (firm) understanding of some rock-solid and hard-to-accept truths.  BUT, I believe the assessment is good.  First, let me outline them (and it is in out-line form).

Then, below, I’ve referenced some math (proof) terms, i.e., Proof is a Process with Elements.  Propaganda, on the other hand, is a swirl of insinuations.   My “SUPPOSE” are in “SUPPOSITION” format, an IF/THEN process.  I feel we have to first establish that it matters!  And that truth (or at least proofs of it) have a form.  So the words:

LEMMA, THEOREM, PROPOSITION, and COROLLARY — we’re talking, how to talk some sense, instead of NONsense — have to make an appearance.  Look for this photo, below (twice):

Etymology On-line (good reference for understanding words’ origins).  It has an index; all definitions below from this:source.

lemma (n.) 1560s, first in mathematics, from Greek lemma (plural lemmata) “something received or taken; an argument; something taken for granted,” from root of lambanein “to take” (see analemma).

---

So the word “lemma” apparently means “taken,” (“taken for granted,”) or in our terms, we might call it the opposite, a “given.”  (“Given that so and so is true, then  . . . . “)

---

analemma (n.) 1650s, from Latin analemma “the pedestal of a sundial,” hence the sundial itself, from Greek analemma “prop, support,” from analambanein “to receive, take up, restore,” from ana- “up” (see ana-) + lambanein “to take,” from PIE root *(s)lagw- “to seize, take” (cf. Sanskrit labhate, rabhate “seizes;” Old English læccan “to seize, grasp;” Greek lazomai “I take, grasp;” Old Church Slavonic leca “to catch, snare;” Lithuanian lobis “possession, riches”).

You’ve probably heard of this next word — which means, “oh my, both can’t be right– I’m going to have to choose between two.”  Hence, “di-lemma.”

dilemma (n.) 1520s, from Late Latin dilemma, from Greek dilemma “double proposition,” a technical term in rhetoric, from di- “two” + lemma“premise, anything received or taken,” from root of lambanein “to take” (see analemma). It should be used only of situations where someone is forced to choose between two alternatives, both unfavorable to him. But even logicians disagree on whether certain situations are dilemmas or mere syllogisms.

So the “Lemma” is a sort of given; next words: the Corollary, is something attached to it — “if that’s true, so is this” — a PROPOSITION is putting them side by side to come to a conclusion about the situation, and a THEOREM is a little stronger, we got something going there as to truth…

corollary (n.) late 14c., from Late Latin corollarium “a deduction, consequence,” from Latin corollarium, originally “money paid for a garland,” hence “gift, gratuity, something extra;” and in logic, “a proposition proved from another that has been proved.” From corolla“small garland,” diminutive of corona “crown” (see crown (n.).

The corollary to be “correlated” must actually come from something proved, and it’s not a corollary unless logical deduction was the path from one to the other proposition.

I guess if someone hits two (truth) birds with one stone, that’s rewarding — a corollary.  If one is looking to assess the situation, and by determining whether or not ONE proposition? (or “lemma,” whichever!…) is true and then obviously there’s a corollary, it’s like a bonus point in the pursuit of truth.  the pursuit of truth, for example, is important when one is in protection, survival, rescue, or defense situations — or simply looking to understand what’s going on!!

proposition (n.) mid-14c., “a setting forth as a topic for discussion,” from Old French proposicion “proposal, submission, (philosophical) proposition” (12c.), from Latin propositionem (nominative propositio) “a setting forth, statement, a presentation, representation; fundamental assumption,” noun of action from past participle stem of proponere (see propound). Meaning “action of proposing something to be done” is from late 14c. General sense of “matter, problem, undertaking” recorded by 1877. Related: Propositional.

theorem (n.) 1550s, from Middle French théorème (16c.) and directly from Late Latin theorema, from Greek theorema “spectacle, sight,” in Euclid “proposition to be proved,” literally “that which is looked at,” from theorein “to look at, behold” (see theory).

Proposition is “let’s discuss it.”  Theorem points towards something seen (evidence which can be beheld — viewed — looked at).

Pythagorean (adj.) 1540s, from Latin Pythagoreus “of or pertaining to Pythagoras,” Greek philosopher of Samos (6c. B.C.E.), whose teachings included transmigration of the soul and vegetarianism (these are some of the commonest early allusions in English). The Pythagorean theorem is the 47th of the first book of Euclid.

So, language really counts; it matters.  To SPEAK (on-line, includes to write) means placing words into a coherent (or incoherent) pattern of statements, either at one place and time, or many places, over time.

When someone’s, or some group’s, or group of groups’  (including but not limited to self-selecting group of professionals within certain fields) SPEECH continues incoherent (in meaning; things don’t add up) — this could be accidental, because the speakers are distracted or somehow disabled (for example a PTSD state or outside influence may be involved).  Or, you could be listening to a sales pitch designed to distract.

Over the long-run, if it’s consistently internally and externally incoherent, it’s likely intentional, and designed to manipulate, not just persuade through reason.  There could be a group motive; i.e., what’s the relationship with others outside the immediate conversations?  What is the pattern of the other relationships in the room?  When they are better known (which takes some time, and definitely some attention, some lookups), probable intentions and motives become more clear.

So that’s what we’re looking at here.

I’m not a math brainac (and don’t even do calculus), math and logic are about proof and disproof.  But if things don’t add up, they just don’t add up, so why continue yakking along the same lines, or listen to others who do?

Would it not help to have some way of screening the information, or sorting it (INbox, OUTbox), to distinguish  “doesn’t add up” from “adds up,” and to make better decisions on when “where do I put my focus and spend my time, en route to regaining contact with my kids, staying alive (or keeping them alive), with a long-term view to figuring out whether OR NOT these family and conciliation, problem-solving, holistic, unified, high-conflict docket (etc.) courts are worth saving and fixing, and/or whether a more appropriate practice for the public (nationwide) might be quarantining them, or administering a shut-down, like any hazardous waste, or hazardous construction zone — or HUD slumlord property, someone’s real estate investment en route to a political career — as unfit for human habitation?

Read the rest of this entry »