Man thinks 'cause he rules the earth, he can do with it as he please
And if things don't change soon, he will
Oh, man has invented his doom.
First step was touching the moon.

Man invented his doom, by touching the moon--we have the capabilities to destroy the earth with space weapons and nuclear war.

Now, there's a woman on my block.
She just sit there as the night grow still.
She say who gonna take away his license to kill?

The woman is Wisdom---"She cries out in the street, 'turn ye here at my reproof." She wants man to have his license to kill taken away---as man has the license to fight wars indiscriminately, and make lawful war, like is happening in Israel right now and Ukraine.

Now, they take him and they teach him
And they groom him for life
And they set him on a path where he's bound to get ill
Then they bury him with stars
Sell his body like they do used cars

The schools and television groom you for life--it teaches you how to have your life, and be distracted. But, it sells you through the capitalist machine... you're a product for corporations, your body a tool to produce for the engine of commerce.

Now, there's a woman on my block
She just sit there facin' the hill
She say who gonna take away his license to kill?

Now, he's hell bent for destruction
He's afraid and confused
And his brain has been mismanaged with great skill
All he believes are his eyes
And his eyes, they just tell him lies

Man is hell bent on destruction---will destroy themselves through nuclear war. He's afraid by the news--such as the war in Vietnam---and he's mismanaged with great skill, believing his eyes, that there  seems to be peace. But, his eyes are telling him  lies... there is no peace.

But there's a woman on my block
Sitting there in a cold chill
She say who gonna take away his license to kill?

You may be noisemaker, spirit maker, heartbreaker, backbreaker;
leave no stone unturned
May be an actor in a plot, that might be all that you got
till your error you clearly learn

The plot of life, is to get rich, get all you can out of life, do the things you want to do to make life easy and enjoy your produce. You could be a very happy person, and spirited, and tough. But you're only an actor in the plot... kind of like an extra, as the world goes by, and your error you clearly learn is that you're not that important. You feel center to the stage, but you're just an extra.

Now he worships at an altar
Of a stagnant pool
And when he sees his reflection, he's fulfilled
Oh, man is opposed to fair play
He wants it all and he wants it his way

The reflection is the television,  giving us our reflection, and the News and our programs we consume, which are brainwashing us. When we see our reflection, we're fulfilled. Some have said this is like Narcissus, staring at his reflection and hearing Echo behind him; maybe Wisdom is Echo? Kind of reminds me of my story St. George and the Dragon. And instead of looking back at Wisdom, and receiving her, we're selfishly glutting ourselves on the entertainment, and our reflections, as the world moves on, and we're only a minor character in this world,  thinking we're the central point, or the fulcrum of it. We all have this egotism, trying to make our way in life, get the goal of a good life.

Now, there's a woman on my block.
She just sit there as the night grow still.
She say who gonna take away his license to kill?

Dylan, Bob. License to Kill. Bob Dylan.com. Web. https://www.bobdylan.com/songs/license-kill/ 6.15.25

1-2. The needle on a caravan refers to a caravan of camels passing through the Needle of Jerusalem.
3-4. When you make the decision to ride without a saddle, you are free... and Christ rode upon the Colt and Donkey.
5-6. The potter's tool is his treadle, the mason's grout.
7-8. He kneels to kiss God's sandals, and all the "Stones Cry out."

He was struggling with his homosexuality, his affluence and his Catholic beliefs. He made the decision to be gay, and stuck with it, but also Christian. Maybe trying to reconcile the two, that we all sin. And he's truly struggling with it. We're all affluent, so what about that?

However... affluence isn't a sin in Romans which leads to death. Or in 1 and 2 Corinthians. Homosexuality is. No man, practicing such things, can inherit eternal life. The homosexual has to repent of their homosexuality, and abstain from it, just like the adulterer or the fornicator, or the bitter man, or the slanderer or libeler or the one trying to accomplish their work of salvation themselves (Which is unrest). There can be no salvation for one who wishes to continue in their sin.

But he's struggling with that question. "If a rich man can't be saved, but is saved, why can't a sinner like me?"

I'd simply say, the righteous man wants to cease from all sin. The unregenerate does not. And God gives the power to abstain from all sin, and the willing heart, and ceases even the temptation after a while.

([4{radius a + radius b}]*π/4)=p

***
Prior Work to Solution

***
Section I

We all have to be wrong, before we get it right. Just today, I was working on a means of calculating an Ellipses' perimeter. You’d think, “That’s easy. Shouldn’t the hard part be the area?” No.

But, I looked at a rectangle, to see if it worked the same as a square (See Section II), and worked every possible angle—and had a specific measurement where it worked, and then a second measurement where it worked, but not a third—so I thought I had found a formula. But, I didn’t, so I rescinded it.

Now I have a second idea, but I have to look at the circle area and perimeter formula to find a relation there. I don’t know… actually. But what I’m chasing right now, Pi is the universal measurement of a curve where the curve is equal… and the area is always equal to the curve it’s just exponentiated—that’s a principle in calculus. So, if I can find a way to reverse the area down to the perimeter—which may just need calculus, so that I can’t do, and we may already be doing it—but if I can find a way to do that linearly or quadratically, I’ll have a simpler formula.

See the problem with this, actually, lies in a relation that actually the number e describes. So, it may just require calculus to solve, actually, on all fronts. Because when dealing with linear and exponential functions, there’s a point of “Equilibrium” which is what “e” is, that number, and that basically describes the point where the area and perimeter are equal. Which is a diameter of 4 on a square and circle. Which gives me a third idea, to chase, is possibly finding the point of equilibrium on a rectangle. But I have to work through the second, as I’ve already proven the first false. Which that should be any x*y=16 function, but again, that’s probably how they get the area formula, and that’s kind of why it’s easier than the perimeter. Well, actually, maybe not… because it’d also have to be x+y=16. So you’d need both systems, which adds another variable as to why this might be so difficult.
I’m just a philosopher, and very curious. That’s all.

Neifert, B. K.. "How do you correct your incorrections at the end of the day after reflecting and knowing you were wrong?" Answer B. K. Neifert. Quora.com. Web. 6.6.2025

***

Section II

I had just understood, that the area of a circle formula is like Length times Width. But, hold on... a Radius is not the same thing as length. So, you do the same math expression for a rectangle, it will not work, but you do it for a square, it will. Because half the parameter of a square times its radius would equal the area. So this math works for a square, because it is equal, the same that it works for a circle, because it is equal. However, said area formula will not work for a rectangle. Because a rectangle's side lengths are not equal.

Neifert, B. K.. Another Reason P Cannot Equal NP. WordPress.com. Web. Access Date 6.6.2025

***

Section III

I also had a brief thought to use Polynomials, but then started looking at my axiom here in the Squares to Circles (See Section IV) and started exploring if there was a way to generalize a formula from the area of a circle to its perimeter---as such would work, the curve always has a relation to the area. And if the area of an ellipse was related to the two radii, then so must the circumference. So then I started looking at the Area and Perimeter of a Rectangle's relation to its area, and intuited the equation from that, while combining it with my principle of Squares to Circles.

***

Section IV

Section V:

Upon further evaluation, even with the revised formula, a perimeter of an ellipse cannot be solved, except using calculus, because the curve is not always equal to pi. I tested it on two known ellipses, and did not get a consistent result.

Student: Has no knowledge of his subject. Thus, must learn from those with more knowledge.

In a sense, we all are students, but the student is given the mark of having no knowledge. We all begin as students in every field we learn. And we must be humble at it, and learn from instructors.

Instructor: Has knowledge of at least one subject, and can give instruction on that subject.

If seven or more Instructors have agreed, they have the bestowal of gifting a student with the title of "Instructor." And only in that one area of instruction. Yet, the Instructor knows to gain knowledge from his students, as much as instruct them

Meistro: Has expert knowledge on at least one subject, and can innovate it.

If two or more Meistros have agreed, or fourteen or more Instructors, they have the bestowal of gifting an Instructor with the title of "Meistro." And only in that one area of which they are a Meistro. Yet, the Meistro will learn from a student, and does not lord his mastery over any.

The Prodigy: Has expert knowledge on at least seven subjects, and can innovate in all of them.

The Prodigy is given his calling by fourteen Meistros, and fourteen Instructors, two in each field who check his field, that he has true knowledge of his craft. And if fourteen Meistros and fourteen Instructors see he has mastered at least seven subjects, he is a Prodigy. But, the Prodigy will learn even from a student the thing he is most experienced at.

The Sage: Has expert knowledge beyond the Prodigy.

If two Prodigies agree upon the expertise of one Prodigy, that he is gifted in at least four of their shared subjects, and two Meistros agree in each of that Prodigy's subjects, and seven Instructors in each of their subjects, then he is a Sage.

The Compulsory Instructor Credit - An Instructor can become an Instructor, by demonstrating they have taught a subject they know thoroughly, and instilled in their student a correct understanding. That correct understanding must be validated and checked against good sources of knowledge, that the student then understands their subject.

The Prodigy Devaluation: A Prodigy is only a Meistro at his subjects, and is only counted as a Meistro, as well as a Sage is only counted as a a Meistro for his subjects.

The Political Devaluation: There are No Rabbis. Thus, the teaching is led through the gates of free learning, and nothing more, and only right understanding pushes the person's accreditation, and this only for free learning, and nothing practical. To be called a Dr. and also a Meistro shows to the patient that they are well learned, not that the Mastership qualifies them to be a Dr.. For the institutions of man work separately from the institutions of this Free and Open Society.

The weights:

A Student who has learned their subject well, can bestow the gift of Instructor on their Teacher; but the student must be validated by at least three other Instructors to have learned it well. Or validated by fifty Students learning their subject.

Seven Instructors are equal to one Meistro.

The Greeting: Two in this society shall greet, and say, "I am a student", no matter their level be it Prodigy or Sage even. And the one being greeted will say, "I am a student, too." And they shall each tell what they are students of. And if an Instructor, they shall teach the student, and if a student, they shall share what they know with the Instructor. For one can become Instructor by teaching, but not Meistro.

The Parable of the Sage

There was once a sage
Who had wisdom and knowledge;
He saw this litmus
And he said, "I am still just
"A student, I now realize."

The Sage and the False Professor

There was a sage, who
Elite in every subject
Was told by a false
Professor, who said, "I am
"A Prodigy. I arrived."

The Sage replied, "Let
"No man call themselves Meistro
"Or Instructor. I'm 
"But a student, and shall, thus, always be."

1. Start with a question.
a. When you're doing a project for school even, starting with a question can be the best beginning. You want to know something, learn that one thing in your class.
2. Find numerous sources with a credible ethos expounding upon your question, trying to answer it.
a. Find dozens if not hundreds of people to give you an answer. Listen to all of them, and derive from all of it a meaning.
b. There was once a treasure that was found, by simply asking millions of people where it was, and then taking the bulk data, and finding a location through analyzing it. Studying is like that, where you'll find many different views, to find the location.
3. Synthesize an answer. Find the truth, using all the data you collected, and synthesize an answer.
a. By using all the information--even information you disagree with is helpful, as it can find avenues for new areas of learning, and even your opponents can have hidden gems wrapped up in their disagreements--you can find a good answer.
4. Test your answer. 
a. Don't just be happy with your answer, ask people in every day about your answer. Discuss with people the answer. Talk to people. Have dialogues. Get opinions from people who are more advanced than you are, and people who know nothing of the topic.
5. Revise your answer based on the testing.
a. Revising your answer, gives you more correct analysis. Always be asking people, and actively listening. Don't assume your knowledge is complete, but rather get knowledge from every source.
6. Write down your entire process.
a. From start to finish, document your entire process. Get the wrong answers, and then find when they've reached the nuance to where they're correct, and don't stop revising your answer, just because you think you know it.
7. Be humble. And have good faith.
a. No one has complete knowledge. So listening to many people, and gathering insights from many people, all having studied and come to answers too, you build upon it to a correct solution.
8. Making connections.
a. Make connections with everything else you've learned, and don't just isolate the knowledge into one context. Connect it to everything else you know, and learn through making webs of contexts.

I do think IQ tests have a cultural bias, but I also think an education can help you find the means of getting more intelligent. There’s a concrete reality, and intelligence is your ability to grasp it. If you can or can’t. Most people don’t connect those two dots. Less intelligent people, have less to say on the real world. More intelligent people, almost can without fail find answers nobody even knew they were looking for.

1. The book was not one of C. S. Lewis' better books, so I actually agree with Orwell. If you're going to be explicitly Christian, be Christian. But, he sort of got into the Space Occult. Like, it was too ambiguous... I think that's what Orwell was trying to say, is he didn't come off as Christian--which is ]h]is prevailing ethos--and it disappointed it, when it ended without a discussion, as I was expecting Merlin and the Head to dialogue, rather than just end in a Deux Ex Machina.

2. I think working from the framework, if your story incorporates miracles, you have to be cognizant of the ethos you're working through. Which, Orwell probably wanted a Christian moral, and when he didn't get it, the book was confused, and it began to be kind of schizophrenic. I'd say that was my problem with the book, was it didn't work from a Christian framework, but rather was a sort of unbelievable space occult thing, which Narnia is leaps and bounds better, and so are Lewis' essay works. The Space Trilogy was always low on the totem pole for me, on Lewis' corpus, and I never really did like it. But, miracles don't depreciate the stories value, but I think the invention of a Mythology and mixing the Occult with Science, that's kind of disturbing--and may be the actual strength of the novel, I haven't figured that out. But, I found it kind of eerie, and I didn't get the respite of a Christian message. Which I think might be Orwell's problem with it, all around, is it didn't stick to Lewis' ethos, but rather diverted off of it, into occult magic and stuff like that.

3. I'd say the answer is not different. It's just you got to choose your ethos. And Lewis' ethos is Christianity. And this was a particularly early work, but he was also writing Mere Christianity at this time, he should have known better. I felt kind of alienated from it, as I couldn't implant Christianity into it, but rather it devolved into its own mythology. Which is something people do today--so it's probably more readily accepted today, with the culture's general malaise toward Christianity, you have mythologies like DBZ and Japanese Anime making Gods and stuff, where DBZ kind of lost my interest when it transitioned from an Atheistic world to a Theistic world, and I think the problem here is the same. Putting Gods and Goddesses in your work kind of warps it. Which, you can say Aslan is sort of like that, but he's more of a symbol rather than a literal. Where I think the problem with The Space Trilogy was it was literal... and that's not God's name, so it sort of offended Orwell, who's, although unwillingly, in that Christian society that wants real Christianity, or none at all. Like is said to Laodicea. 

https://apilgriminnarnia.com/2020/09/10/george-orwells-review-of-c-s-lewis-that-hideous-strength-throwback-thursday/