The individualized life turns science against its self.

I'm not a young woman, nor a middle aged female, I'm an old lady, I hope. I read a lot, old books and newly published books that surprisingly sometimes  say the same thing. Reading a certain page in  Ouspenkys' Tertium Organun for instance recently merged seamlessly with a chapter in The Bond by Lynn McTaggart, a recent book. The subject was language, biology, DNA and the possibility that the environment and personal  experiences alter ones DNA. But naturally that formed  the inference that science doesn't establish stable information. Even scientific studies that had been accepted truths changed into being false when more information was revealed.

 I read somewhere that every life forms (or should form) a 'story'.  The 'story' that's formed as I have lived my life, is that as an individual my experiences do accomplish something. I used to wonder if my  seeing something or being present made a difference anywhere, if just being an observer changed anything. In 1989 I read a newstory that had been published in 1932 about the gamma ray experiments to be made by Arthur H. Compton.  That was the year I was born, and the front page article mentioned that the 'new discoveries' of quantum physics implied that human thought, human activities and motives were involved at that level.That was 80 years ago.
 I know that what I saw and observed in my unique life that formed my 'story' was revealed to me.   

It was  received by me as inner content that emerged from the physical world but which merged and joined with content that was already present in my mind

not yet as thought and other content that was not visible until it met its exact match, creating  'coincidences' that generated new contexts and meanings to 'events', in my past and 'now', a point that is not fixed.
 It seems logical to assume the 'new physics' was about information itself, and the body is information, every event is potential information, every circumstance is potential information. The Bond by Ms. Taggart as I understand it opens that territory. Some mechanisms of mind that are not under my will must be active to reveal new-to-me information. 

The entire  story  gave me evidence that  what I saw and thought, even the more private thoughts and events that I never told anyone about, are stored in a data base, with my names on it. I don't know the 'address' but it is  known to some intelligence other than mine. (Emanuel Swedenborg's experiences and his complicated writings as well as Robert Monroe's are evidence that the mind can operate independently from an individuals 'will and intentionality' and the body.)  

There's an old riddle about liars and truth tellers who live together in a certain city. I read it somewhere when I was a very young girl. The only rule in this city is that liars are compelled to lie and truth tellers are equally compelled to say what is true. What question can a visitor ask of any citizen in this city that will reveal whether one is doing business with a liar or truth teller? At the time I didn't spend any time trying to think of a question.

One day in the mid 1990's that riddle came to  mind at work, when my supervisor was talking about some changes in our workplace that to put it bluntly, were based on my hearing words that could be interpreted in two   contexts. The corporate goal was announced: to become lean and to become a world class corporation. Somehow the 'lean' in this context automatically added 'and mean'. They intended to become lean and mean. But that was also in the business context we were beginning to experience. They intended to become a 'third  world class' corporation because the focus was changed from building products to earn money, to raising the price of stock. Outsourcing had not begun but news stories about reducing the number of employees produced positive and immediate increases  in the stock market. High ranking executives earned bonuses for performance while jobs were eliminated.

 That changed as time  passed. That's when outsourcing really began,  Sending  work to Mexico forced the blanket shop to be closed and my boss boasted that was going to save millions because their wages for a week were less than our daily wages. "Third world class" corporation was a natural association to form then. We had a long strike during the Thanksgiving/Christmas season and the theme was that the corporation was already a 'third world class' corporation'.

 Increasing shareholder value was the new principle. Value and principle are words that sound the same but they have different meanings.

My mind of course produced those associations because I've heard and read the term  'lean and mean' often enough that lean always brings 'mean' up from my memory. That's how my mind works. A clue  to what I'm trying to define, which is about how my mind worked then,  is that the word  'value' applies to both  'principle/principal' and that somehow the new plan to become  'lean' almost automatically formed an association in the mind with 'mean'  automatically. "The  company is going to get leaner." (and meaner)  The new plan was creating 'value/money'.

I had read a book,  The Value Creator and there learned that a Japanese teacher, Tsuneseboro Matsuro  Machiguici believed education should join value creation to work and education. But also that learning to love to work and love to learn should be the goal of the schools in any nation. An individual that had not read that book and been affected by it would not form the same associations, probably.

What question can be asked that reveals whether I'm connecting to a liar or to a truth teller? I couldn't think of one question and a supervisor I told the riddle to couldn't either. He plagued me for several days to tell him the answer but I would not. Then one day he triumphantly told me it was so simple, all I had to do was ask if  2 added to 2 was 5 or something similar.  The liar would have to say yes because he had to lie. The truth teller would have to say no. It seemed so simple.