Click on “negative intelligence evaluation theory”

For further information



#1 How can you be so sure Richard III did not have the princes killed?


Ask a NIET-trained historian and he (or ‘she’) will tell you! Briefly, the mother of the princes, Elizabeth Woodville, had been queen of England for nearly twenty years when her husband suddenly died, 9 April 1483 (Edward IV). Three months later, her brother-in-law, her husband’s younger brother, was crowned the new king on 6 July 1483 (Richard III). Three months later, her two sons disappear and are never seen again. From that moment, Woodville said nothing and neither did any member of her large and powerful family. Why not?


Here was a mother with all the feelings of a mother who lived for another nine years (died 1492) and at no time did she claim her sons were dead. Neither did she claim they were missing. Why not?


In fact, Elizabeth Woodville said nothing to parliament concerning the fate of her two sons during the reign of the next king, Henry VII, who had married the sister of the princes, Elizabeth of York. Why not?


We shall say there are perhaps many thousands of theories but only one best-fit theory, which fits the facts, all the facts, without exception, and this best-fit, that a major conspiracy was afoot, is corroborated in coded correspondence between Ferdinand of Spain and his ambassador in London, decoded by Bergenroth in the nineteenth century, who has never received proper acknowledgment of the debt he is owed by all historians of this period.


Henry Tudor threatened to invade England from France, with French assistance, and Richard hid the princes for their own safety. This was done with the knowledge and consent of their mother, Woodville, who knew their whereabouts at all times and, more importantly, that they were completely safe. If you want a reason for silence during Richard’s lifetime, that will do!


If you want a reason for Woodville’s silence during the reign of her son-in-law, Henry Tudor, the best-fit points to a stand off put in place by a clever woman with all the feelings of a powerful mother. There was little risk if she agreed for the victor of Bosworth (Henry) to marry her daughter (Elizabeth of York) in return for a guarantee from her new son-in-law of safety for herself and her close and extended family. Henry explained and made clear to Woodville that he was willing to provide additionally for her sons but since he was now de facto king of England and since there cannot be two kings sitting on a throne, he further cleverly explained and made clear that her daughter should be Queen of England instead.


Woodville attended the marriage of her daughter to Henry VII, thus increasing the power and influence of the most powerful faction of the new nobility in England, the Woodville faction, after the demise of the former most powerful faction of the old nobility in England, the Neville faction, whose last direct descendant, Richard III, was dead.


Woodville accepted every one of Henry’s proposals except one: Woodville would not say that Richard had murdered her sons.


Woodville knew if she announced in public that her sons were dead, there was nothing to stop Henry from getting rid of them in private. Since Woodville only had to tell her pitiful story to parliament and disclose the whereabouts of her two sons to be believed, Henry knew his throne was at risk.


Since Henry could not say officially that Richard had murdered the princes without the supporting evidence of their mother, Henry ordered his department of dirty tricks (DDT) to continue saying it unofficially, as the agent provocateurs had been doing successfully in London during Richard’s lifetime, preparing the ground for the invasion of England from France by Welshman Henry Tudor with both hands deep in French pockets.


This black-op was repeated in the French parliament, with Henry’s full knowledge and consent, and still Woodville stayed silent, keeping the stand off in place long after the death of her brother-in-law, Richard. Her son-in-law, Henry, did not destabilize the position in parliament nor the protection the stand off gave Woodville and her family after he had gained the throne ‘by conquest’, as long as they stayed silent.


Woodville allowed herself to remain virtually incommunicado for the rest of her life in Bermondsey Abbey, less than a gunshot from the Tower of London, across the river Thames. Henry’s DDT pretended that Henry provided lavishly for Woodville. In fact, her Will shows she died penniless, leaving to her children ‘only her blessing’.


Woodville remained silent in order not to destabilize the stand off and bring down the supporters. If DNA tests prove positive it means she succeeded. Woodville’s sons continued to live under false names and identities after the deaths of their sister and brother-in-law, Elizabeth of York (d. 1503) and Henry VII (d. 1509). The eldest brother Edward V had been “housetrained” and remained a Woodville supporter. Richard remained a Neville supporter and exiled himself to Flanders, to his aunt, Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy (née Margaret of York), his father’s eldest sister, and apart from a visit incognito to his sister Elizabeth shortly before she died, he did not return to England until 18 January 1510, to celebrate a ball at Greenwich with his brother, Edward, and his 19-year-old nephew, Henry VIII. The eighteenth day of January was the day of the marriage of Henry VIII’s parents in 1486. The rest, as they say, is history.


If you want to read the work of Germany’s best new feminist historian, Klaudia Spielmann, see her A1 thesis for the First State Examination, “Was Richard III Demonized? A new interpretation of the history and historiography” (1989), today in the Library of University Department 10 of Modern Philologies at Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main. Klaudia has also made a German version. OK?



#27 "Have you found out something terrible in your research?"


I have found nothing to date so terrible that I cannot write about it. My greatest braggable is to have identified an outdated method of education, described by some as 'terrible’, and at the kind invitation of professional educationalists, I have explained and made clear a new method that has been tried and tested over a substantial period of time by science: Negative Intelligence Evaluation Theory (NIET). For instance, I observed in a sample of fifty thousand royal births dating from the fifth century (that is a period of some sixteen hundred years to date!), no twins are recorded. This is Negative evidence; namely, what is not there and what, reasonably, one might expect to find there. Positive evidence shows that the incidence of twins can be predicted: at least one birth in a hundred. One in a hundred means ten in a thousand, one hundred in ten thousand and five hundred in fifty thousand births. Since we are not going to invent a new biology for royal families, what ensued to five hundred, approximately, princes and princesses?


Finally, all this does not imply that academia has failed in its duties. This is not the case. Those duties have been carried out with great care and undoubted success over a substantial period of time. My reservations are concerned with what appears to be a system that had developed which did not match advances and procedures in other scientific fields. There must be a proper and effective checking procedure and the inquiry will want to know what was the system for checking: was it a good one, and was it operating properly. I have argued that any method which omits to state criteria or fails to follow systematic verification and falsification of all known evidence, NIET positive and negative, without offering a best-fit hypothesis based soundly upon a balance of probability, in an on-going method of inquiry, is an inherently inadequate procedure.



#28 "You're on an ego-trip trying to make yourself a millionaire."


If I wanted to be a millionaire, there are easier ways to do it. Many years ago I was advised to write the story pretending it was fiction and perhaps become a millionaire overnight. The advice was well intended but did not interest me. I decided to do it the hard way, from interest. It meant no hopes, no expectations and no illusions. THAT interested me. My friends know it. My enemies know it. And now you know it! At the same time, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to an American historian, Richard Marius, who wrote a book on Thomas More, which is today regarded as a classic. I was sad to learn recently of the death of Richard Marius. We never met but he flew in at short notice from New York to London early in 1991 when invited to appear in a documentary programme made for TV about my work, and since I was looking forward very much to meeting him in London, and since I was in Antwerp on the day he arrived and he had to return the same day and I could not be free until the next day, I was deeply touched when the producer told me that Richard Marius had left a message for me on film, an extraordinary and gracious offer from one of the great More scholars, that he offered to take me to dinner at the Ritz in Paris if my theory that More’s History of King Richard the Third was a blind was proved correct by DNA testing. Shortly after his London visit he wrote to Hermann Boventer of Cologne, on 31 May 1991 (reported in Thomas More Gazette No. 9): “Who knows?”… “We may all sit down sometime with our saint and listen to him give us all a lecture on how we got him wrong.” I hope that one day I may be invited to attend the lecture. Amen.


#29 "Are you crazy? You're an amateur taking on the pros!"


Get your facts right! Fact 1: I was an amateur in the true sense of the word when I began and I still am today, I love what I do. Fact 2: I was obliged to take on the professionals, they insisted, and many are now my friends. Fact 3: For better or worse, I'm THE expert, purely from interest, and don't you forget it!



#30 "Why haven't we heard about these discoveries before?"


Let's approach this problem obliquely. If I say one thing and you are an important professor who says another, we cannot both be right. There are just two options. Either we are both wrong or one of us is wrong. A third option, derived from options 1 & 2, suggests that one of us may be right, but which one? This hypothetical professor does not lack imagination. There is no end to discovery, this is the professor's Achilles heel and he knows it. He knows that his status, his economic rewards and his peace of mind are at risk. Sometimes, it means the roof over his head, and that is why he will often fight to the death insisting he is right.


Understand the underlying process and you are free of the confusion that comes from listening to talking heads condemning others, justifying themselves, comparing this with that and identifying themselves with some new or old belief. What can we do? The answer is Nothing Violent and Think For Yourself!



#31 "The Inquisition forced Galileo to recant on his knees when he said the sun was the centre of the universe, aren't you just a tiny bit afraid the establishment will do the same to you?"


HH Pope John Paul II has most kindly offered on-going moral support to this new investigation into the life of the English saint, Thomas More, since 1976. I have to draw attention to a tradition in the Pontifical Academy of Science (I am told!) that if their scholars cannot break a theory, it must stand. I have further to draw attention that my theories have not been broken for nearly a quarter of a century. Hallelujah!



#32 "Are you a Catholic?"


No, I'm on the Father's side.



#33 "Have you been tested by experts?"


I have been tested by the best and will not forget it. Neither, I suspect, will the members of the academic staff and other interested parties who attended my trial before the Devil's Advocates (1984, The Catholic University of the West, Angers, France), where I first defended my theses in public, each member of the tribunal standing in turn before his desk to declare: 'I am the best qualified to make this investigation', after which I was obliged to answer questions for as long as the distinguished members of the tribunal decided. On the second day, the president stood and announced in English: "We are unable to sustain any further argument against the theory of the unconventional symbols." The president gave my theory this name, hence the acronym TOTUS, by which it is now known and I am very glad about that. The crowd applauded, they stamped their feet and sang songs. Later that night, I was eating my dinner in the dining room when the most respected Morean scholar got up from his seat at the top table and came to the lowly place where I was sitting and fed me from his plate. "You deserve TWO dinners," he said. The much-revered Abbé, Germain Marc'hadour of Angers, emeritus professor and doctor of divinity, will remain forever in my private Hall of Fame.



#34 "Why didn't the Yorkists try to regain the throne if Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, were still alive?"


The Yorkists did try to regain the throne, in the names of the princes, and failed each time. For instance, when it was clear that Edward V, also known as Edward Guildford, had become “housetrained” by the Tudors in England, the Yorkist “banker” in Flanders, Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy (née Margaret of York), sent look-alike, Perkin Warbeck, the impersonator of Richard, Duke of York, to raise forces in Ireland for an invasion of England. The objective was to try and draw Henry VII's forces to the north, when the Yorkists were planning to invade from the south. I have to draw attention that a similar tactic employed by the Allies in the war of 1939-1945 was more successful when US General Eisenhower sent General Patton to command the First United States Army Group (FUSAG), a non-existent fictional army in the south-east of England, while the real concentration of the Allied forces was in the south and south-west.


The result was that the deception drew 15 Panzer divisions of the German army into the Pas-de-Calais area of France, to repel the anticipated attack by the short route across the Channel from the south-east of England, and kept them there for three weeks while the Allies landed 200 miles away in a less well-defended area of France, the Normandy beaches.


It is not generally known, but is not unknown, that the British caught all the German spies who had been landed in England with their radio equipment and turned them around with the sole objective of putting in place a plan of deception that the enemy would swallow hook, line and sinker on D-day, which they did.


If you want to know more of the national security agency aspects of my work under the guidance of Sir John Masterman, vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford and self-confessed member of the wartime "XX Committee" (also known as the "Double-Cross" Committee) which had been virtually running the normally wide-awake German Abwehr (Military Intelligence) for the last four and a half years of the war, read my volume on the detective work, as already explained and made clear, needing an editor and a printer.



#35 "How much is the painting worth?"


The question of financial value does not enter into the question today since the value of something can only be known after it is sold, presumably, and the likelihood of the descendants of Saint Thomas More selling Sir Thomas More and his Family is very, very low. However, your interest reflects one of the most frequently asked questions in my mailbox and if you want to make an educated guess, please bear in mind the following matters of fact: (1) The painting is a sacred religious symbol of the English Catholics and the wider world of Catholicism. (2) The painting reveals the secret history of the Tudors, which is relevant today, since no centre of learning can make progress without the New History. (3) It is the largest and (arguably!) the finest oil-on-canvas painting by More’s friend and master painter of Basel, Hans Holbein the Younger, court artist to Henry VIII. (4) There is no more interesting painting in England.


Finally, I have to draw attention that many visitors to Nostell have checked this out for themselves, successfully, and having had a quick glance inside Holbein’s head, find it difficult if not impossible to look at pictures in quite the same way again! In itself, this is interesting. Most visitors no longer stand in front of the painting trying to decide whether they like it or not, as though it matters, they now look to see what the artist is trying to communicate and that, as many discover for themselves, can be very interesting indeed!


Last Revision: 090900




#56 What is NIET?


I am preparing a computer program “NIET” for publication at this Web site, God Willing, later this year. [See below, 2002) For the present, I want to tell you a story about a meeting that took place a long time ago in London:



Lord St Oswald (speaking to friends in their Lordships’ House):  ‘Mr Leslau has a rather interesting theory about the identity of “Deep Throat” in the Watergate Affair. Would you care to hear what he has to say?’


Jack Leslau: ‘I have to draw attention, if I may, that the aim and objective is to identify the informant codenamed “Deep Throat” by the Washington Post reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, using Negative Intelligence Evaluation Theory (NIET), which gives equal weight to positive and negative evidence.’



Question No. 1: ‘Was the informant a Republican or a Democrat?’


NIET Positive Evidence:

(a) There are two major political parties in America, Democrats and Republicans.

(b) The entire Republican Administration, it is reported, was removed from office with the resignation of Republican President Nixon as a result of evidence given by “Deep Throat”, via the Washington Post reporters, to the US Senate Investigation Committee.

(c) The official record shows that certain evidence supplied by “Deep Throat” was only known at the highest level of the Republican Party.


NIET Negative Evidence (based soundly on a balance of probability):

Since the likelihood of a Democrat with access to highly sensitive personal and political information, known only at the highest levels of the Republican Party, is of very low probability – NIET argues “Deep Throat” was Republican.



Question No. 2: ‘What was the true name and identity of “Deep Throat”?’


NIET Positive Evidence:

The entire Republican Administration, it is alleged and widely reported, was removed from office after Watergate.


NIET Negative Evidence:

Since the entire Republican Administration is reported to have been removed from office after Watergate, if just one top-level Republican remained in office under President Ford who held a position at the highest level under President Nixon – the NIET best-fit points to that person as the informant.



Question No. 3: ‘Was there someone?’


NIET Positive Evidence:

There was one person at the highest level who remained in office under President Ford who had been in office under President Nixon – Henry Kissinger.



Question No. 4: ‘Who invented the name “Deep Throat?’


NIET Positive Evidence:

You may conceivably decide that Woodward and Bernstein knew the voice of Henry Kissinger before they spoke to the informant on the telephone. You may further decide that the Washington Post Editor, Ben Bradley, recognized Kissinger’s voice (How can we recognize someone or something unless we know it already?) Once satisfied it was not a hoax, it was necessary to provide a codename for the Kiss-and-Tell informant. Since Kissinger’s voice is highly distinctive, deep and accented with traces of German still in his speech today (Kissinger’s first language), the codename “Deep Throat” reflected the voice and title of a sexually explicit feature film in USA at the time. 



Lord Kagan: ‘Has Kissinger admitted he was “Deep Throat”?’


Jack Leslau: ‘No. Not as far as I know.’


Lord St Oswald: ‘Have Woodward and Bernstein?’


Jack Leslau: ‘No. However, as one of the henchmen said at the time: “When you‘ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.”’


Lord Watkinson (UK Cabinet Minister at the time of Watergate): ‘There is a rather large hole in your theory, since there were TWO men who remained in office after Watergate, Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig’.


Jack Leslau: Yes. That is correct. But I am following NIET criteria and not looking for a loophole, get-out or ambiguity. Factually, the top man was Henry Kissinger. Haig was Kissinger’s number two.”




                     Last Revision: 010101






“What is NIET?”


NIET is the highest form of intelligence. And since the central theme of NIET is that Capacity is born of Interest and not the other way round – you may conceivably decide the first and last test is NIET itself.







A new method of problem solving







© J. LESLAU 1976

A: JACKNIET.01 1986 Amstrad

A: JACKNIET.02 1996 Microsoft Works 3.0

A: JACKNIET.03 2000 Microsoft Word 2000



System check OK.




When ready

 – Scroll down to hyperlinked SYSTEM/MENU command –





Click è Forward or ç Back to return to next or last screen.


Select Control and either Home or End to go to first or last page.


Press: Page Up or Page Down to advance forward or back one page at a time.



OK? Ready? To continue, input


 Or, just read on. OK?




Help-answer: Screen No. 1





(a) The criteria pre-determine the hypothesis.


(b) The hypothesis pre-determines the conclusion.


(c) It is most unlikely a conclusion will be correct if based upon incorrect criteria.


(d) It is most unlikely that a correct conclusion will be obtained from an incorrect hypothesis.


(e) The correct hypothesis is the best-fit hypothesis based soundly on a balance of probability.


(f) Any method to determine the best-fit hypothesis that omits systematic verification and falsification of all known positive and negative evidence, based upon tried and tested criteria in an on-going method of inquiry, is provably flawed and may be rejected outright.


(g) Positive evidence is defined as what is there. Negative evidence is what is not there. We assume that positive evidence can be fake -- negative evidence cannot -- and thus investigate the more reliable evidence. The significant absence of information is tested on the basis of negative evidence -- people, things and ideas -- which is not there and which we might reasonably expect to find there.






Help-answer: Screen No. 2






Memory which the Mind knows it believes.



Memory which the Mind believes it knows.



Memory of a known past.



Belief conditions Experience -- Experience reinforces Belief -- the outcome, Knowledge, is recorded in a closed system of open and closed memory. The thinker is trapped in a cage.


(Message from the Computer):

Hi! The observations recorded on the test-data 'The Cage Effect' is as follows:


The feeling of being trapped in a cage has been widely experienced and recorded in literature. The irrationality of the feeling has been discussed over a substantial period of time. The term 'irrational' is interpreted here as 'not based on reason'. It follows that a rational approach requires systematic investigation in the search for a best-fit hypothesis. The point of departure is the cage itself and common sense awareness of the simple fact that however much we may have praised and decorated the cage in the past, it was always a cage. This merits further investigation of what we really know, in substance and in fact, and what we may think we know.


(End of Message. OK? Love, XXXXX.)



Since we may expect to find differences in individual Memory in accordance with different individual Beliefs, Knowledge and Experience, we assume each memory is unique in content at the same point in Time  -- and this is axiomatic.


Memory Input is determined by Belief, Knowledge and Experience, and pre-determines Memory Output. We assume no random factors and therefore include the recorded content of which the memory may be unaware at any point in time.


Belief, Knowledge and Experience is defined as the memory of relationship to people, things and ideas -- the database of the Mind --consisting of Open Memory (content remembered with ease) and Closed Memory (content remembered with difficulty or not at all.)


Memory Input = Terming & Naming of post-sensory Taste, Touch, Sight, Smell, Hearing, leading to è Recorded Memory.


Recorded Memory = Terming & Naming of post-sensory Taste, Touch, Sight, Smell, Hearing, leading to è Memory Output.


In each case, Memory Input and Memory Output, there is Stimulus and Response. We will return to this later.



For the present, we may therefore pre-suppose that the content of Memory is different at any point in time and, in this connexion, we propose to reject the translated Freudian descriptions 'conscious mind' and 'unconscious mind' on scientific grounds; namely,


(a) There is no clear dividing line between the postulates.


(b) Adjectival descriptions are imprecise and emotive.


Instead, we assume


Awareness and non-Awareness -- profound and superficial.


Awareness of content in open memory is related to a cause/effect mind process – the process of gratification -- when something pleases or gratifies.


Non-awareness of content in closed memory is directly related to a cause/effect mind process –

the process of non-gratification -- when something displeases or does not gratify.


It follows that external and internal stimulus input to the mind processes of gratification and non-gratification determines the response output from the open and closed memory at any point in time and, additionally:


(m) Qualitative and quantitative content of the database.


(n) Qualitative and quantitative recall from the database.



We may expect, therefore, a stimulus/response process of the mind conditioned by Belief, Knowledge, Experience and that the outcome is Thought and Emotion leading to Activity.


(o) Emotion is defined as Thought and its Sensation.


(p) Sensation is either gratifying or non-gratifying.


(q) Activity is defined as the negation of Action.


(r) Action is where there is no Activity.


(s) Activity leads to Conflict.


(t) Action is where there is no conflict.


(u) Activity is repetitive and destructive.


(v) Action is creative and renewing.





Activity is an exclusive mind process where there is Self and an end in view. Action is where there is no mind process, no Self and no end in view. Activity is socially acceptable to the majority. Action is not. Activity is realistic and Action is idealistic. Activity is superficial and repetitive non-awareness leading to conflict and war. Action is profound and non-repetitive awareness where there is no conflict from moment to moment. Activity is disintegrated thought.


Integrated thought is an idealistic theory presupposing human bypass of the twin processes of gratification and non-gratification and where an inclusive interest predetermines awareness and understanding which is not of Time, not of Memory, not of the Mind, not a process, not of the known, unknown in origin and probably unknowable. We assume that the opposite of activity is not inactivity, which is merely a negative state of activity. The opposite of activity is action and the outcome is freedom from conflict.


 Life in relationship


Without relationship there cannot be Life.  Life IS relationship. At another level, where there is Life, there is Awareness. Where there is non-Awareness, there is Activity. Where there is Activity there is Continuity. The death of Continuity and Activity is being in Action. And where there is Action, there is Life and renewal.




Help-answer: Screen No. 3






A conventionally agreed system of points and intervals,

including a NOW.



A non-systematic response of memory,

excluding a NOW.


Notwithstanding the true Now is reality in chronological time, the mind processes the chronological true Now a moment later in psychological time. The true Now is now a false Now because the true Now has changed. The new Now is now the true point in time and the false Now is now the true Past. This true Past, more simply 'The Past', is in fact Memory. The Mind responds to a stimulus a moment later -- often an infinitesimally small moment later -- by Terming & Naming in a memory input/output process. The mind thus creates an illusion believing it sees what is no longer there. Memory of the Past creates the Future in Psychological Time. For most people, the Past is the Future. NIET suggests the electron may occupy the whole track around the nucleus in a true NOW.


(To return to SYSTEM/MENU Click ç “Back”)



Help-answer: Screen No. 4





Interest pre-determines Understanding and this is axiomatic.


NIET positive evidence:


(a) Thoughts persist in crowding the mind when we are not deeply interested in something being said, requiring studied and persistent effort to listen to the words of the speaker. Is this not so?


(b) On the other hand, what happens when we are interested in what is being said? A deep interest stills the mind and no thoughts pervade spontaneous listening. Is this not so?


(c) If true, it means that studied interest requires effort and spontaneous interest does not.


What determines interest and how this pre-determines understanding is considered on the next screen -- Code: UNDERSTANDING.




Help-answer: Screen No. 5





Intelligo’ (Latin) = ‘I understand’


“Intelligence” = “Understanding”



(a) Understanding is not a process of the mind.


(b) Understanding is not the outcome of a process of the mind.


(c) Understanding comes in the chronological Now when the mind processes are spontaneously still.


(d) Understanding cannot come when the Mind is stilled by a process of mind control, either internal or external. What happens then is Experience and one then sees only what one wants to see.


(e) Understanding comes via a gap in between two thoughts. No matter how fast we are thinking, there is always this gap between each thought. This gap is infinitesimally small. It is this gap that is interesting.



(Message from the Computer):

The writer records the results of his experiments and investigations as follows:


“The outcome of systematic and repeated testing to-date (1959-1996) is positive. The observations are proven true observations and the effects are fertile and lasting, leading to greater inward clarity, renewal and creativity at all levels which is then apparent outwardly, socially, nationally and internationally. There is progressive dissolution of internal conflict and confusion in external relationship with those people, things and ideas, which principally concern me -- the most notable pre-requisite, Patience.”


(An Addendum notes):

“Problem solving became difficult with highly non-gratifying results unmistakably verified when one or more criteria was wrongly applied or inadvertently omitted by the experimenter over the long time period. The results were observed to be self-correcting if the new method was applied correctly and systematically.”


(End of message. OK?  Love, XXXXX.)

Return to System/Menu Click ç “Back”



From other test-data in controlled experiments, we observe that Illusion takes the appearance of Reality and the test of an illusion is Time. This is axiomatic.


(f) Illusion is created and perpetuated by the Mind.


(g) The Mind desires gratification derived from Sensation.


Notwithstanding that Sensation is Disturbance and the Mind does not like to be disturbed:


(h) The disturbed Mind desires and seeks avoidance of non-gratifying sensation.


Conclusion: The conflict in the mind between “what is” and “what should be” and the disturbed mind's desire for sensation stimulates itself to desire gratifying and yet more gratifying and stronger stimuli leading ultimately to frustration and depressive illness.


Unhelpfully, the outcome of desire of the mind for sensation is still part of sensation desiring yet more and greater sensation, quantitative and qualitative, leading to heightened internal conflict which is projected outwardly on to those persons, things and ideas with whom and with which the person is in relationship. The outcome of the disturbance, unawareness and imbalance in the mind is chaos, sorrow and conflict -- and is demonstrable. The chaos, sorrow and conflict indicate the disturbance, unawareness and imbalance, and the outcome is negative.


Finally and helpfully, a slightly modified realistic theory suggests that partial understanding of the causal nature of conflict appears to be partially sufficient -- the chaos diminishing in time -- seemingly by itself but at a rate and to a degree varying with interest. However, an idealistic theory assumes that freedom from internal and external conflict is attainable at any moment in time with Understanding -- and the outcome is Peace.


In this connexion, a truly balanced mind pre-supposes a spontaneous and non-critical perception of observable phenomenon leading to awareness of the human mind and its processes, leading to Understanding, which, if true, provides cogent verification that Understanding is not a process of the mind, nor the outcome of a process of the mind.


At the social level -- the outcome of the progressive inward dissolution of conflict in an individual offers the possibility of an outward dissolution of conflict in society -- open to verification and falsification in time.


At the theological level -- the successful dissolution of conflict in Man and Society might be termed and named miraculous and from God -- whereas science might prefer to remain less certain of the nature of the cause and with a lesser degree of probability of the miraculous nature of the effect based upon stated criteria and a defined Known from past experience. However, investigation shows that Understanding comes from the Unknown (and probably Unknowable) through the little gap in between two thoughts. If true, it means that understanding comes from the unknowable God the Almighty -- it does not matter what we term and name Him -- and is there for anyone to discover for himself or herself -- a defined Known and Unknown with stated criteria -- and other things we can discuss as we go along.


At the linguistic level – The Latin verb 'intelligo' means 'I understand' and is the root of the English word ‘Intelligence’. Similarly, 'scio' means 'I know' and the root of ‘Science’. OK?


At the philosophical level -- if Intelligence is synonymous with Understanding, can we learn it, like Knowledge? On the basis of all known evidence to-date, positive and negative, the best-fit hypothesis is that it is most unlikely we can learn to be intelligent. What we have learned, on the basis of the evidence of the past, and for most people, are stupidities. On the other hand, what happens when we stop the stupidities? Is this not Intelligence?


(Message from the Computer):

Hi! A gloss on the page shows:


The reader is invited to experiment and compare findings with what others may have said or written in the past about Intelligence. Investigators should be encouraged to reconsider and rewrite until the theory is correct for selected criteria. Additional criteria may assist to deepen insight into this simple method of problem solving. There is no end to discovery. Good Hunting and Good Luck!


(End of Message. OK? Love, XXXXX.)

 Return to System/Menu Click ç “Back”




Help-answer: Screen No. 6





What is MIND? I want to approach MIND obliquely, by observing correctly its processes.


The evidence of the existence of certain mind processes and the identification of the function of each process is based upon experimentally repeatable tests and observations open to verification and falsification by systematic criteria. The resultant best-fit hypothesis is soundly based upon understandable noumena and phenomena. The NIET theory of negative intelligence evaluation can be taught and learned and is understandable and understood or not understood. But these are merely words. We have conditioned ourselves for thousands of years with words. And words are merely symbols. Words are not the thing but a symbol of the thing. We live in a world of symbols and sometimes forget the thing. In this section we concentrate on the thing itself and the meaning of the words MIND and SELF in an oblique approach. Are they synonyms? Are they the same? Words sometimes become more important than things. The meaning of the words is determined more or less in the balance of personal gratification and non-gratification. It is easier to believe or disbelieve the words and the word makers than to understand them and that is why we do it. But Belief is not Truth. And neither are words, however much they may be repeated. And where they are repeated, the outcome is conflict and the war of one realistic mind with another. However, in an idealistic theory, truth comes when there are no words. Truth comes without questions and answers. Truth is not an answer and is all around us and therein is its beauty. We examine this new scientific approach to Truth. We are going to strip away each one of the onion layers of appearance and uncover the core that was there all the time. We will identify the best-fit hypothesis with which to challenge the appearance of Truth. Predictably, if we fail it means that we began with an incorrect hypothesis and/or insufficient data and other essential information, or incorrect criteria, or we may have omitted criteria. We test the old methods against new methods and the concept of scientific method itself. We test the probability of error in a theory and not merely the stripped result. We cannot know the result in advance. But probability argues that if we have the correct hypothesis we may be able to predict the correct solution and the solution will not be an answer. It just is. It is a fact -- a fact without contradiction, without words. The words are therefore of lesser importance. Instead, we examine directly the Me, the Self, the Mind, the processes, the nameable and un-nameable activity, the motives, the reactions, the hate, the love, the fear, the chaos and sorrow in the activity of the maker of all mischief and the prime source of conflict -- The Mind of Man (plus a few genetic factors).



Help-answer: Screen No. 7





(a) The four specific mind processes are the same in each person.


(b) The four specific mind processes function in the same way.


(c) The four specific mind processes process data in the same way.


(d) Processing of data is almost instantaneous


(e) Disturbance hinders processing.



Belief, Knowledge and Experience are the outcome of the mind processes of gratification and non-gratification and are prejudiced.



Belief, Knowledge and Experience is conditioned by a set of four specific processes of the Mind in self-deception:

Condemnation, Justification, Comparison and Belief.



The Mind in self-deception is capable of four processes and four categories of output, only:











CONDEMNATION: It is so delightfully easy and gratifying to condemn someone -- but what is the outcome? Does the relationship progress or regress? Does the quality of that relationship improve or not? Is the relationship creative or non-creative? Is the outcome love or hate, joy or sorrow? I feel important and do I give a damn? Let us be serious for just one moment. Instead of condemning the person let us consider 'why'. Firstly, why we are condemning. Secondly, why did the person do or say something (or nothing!) that makes us want to condemn that person. In the mere putting of the question we will have the answer with the speed of light, when we are in Action, and the outcome is freedom from conflict.


JUSTIFICATION: Have you noticed how highly gratifying it is to justify yourself to yourself or to another? When a desire for gratification controls behaviour -- justification comes quickly. We like Sensation and desire to repeat it. But sensation is not truth and neither is justification. Truth just is and therein is its beauty.


COMPARISON: It is significantly easier to compare A with B than to understand A and B. What is easy is gratifying and this is why we do it but the outcome is conflict. The conflict becomes apparent in time and conflict can only exist between what is and what should be. The mind desires gratification and seeks to avoid the disturbance of non-gratification. It therefore creates a bridge between what is and what should be -- and the lie slips out. The bridge is the lie. This is not terrible, it is human, and with understanding of the false process there is freedom from comparison and freedom from domination of the mind and the outcome is peace and freedom from conflict.


BELIEF: Instead of a head-on collision resulting from a direct approach, we take an oblique and indirect new path, treading cautiously and seriously, to the most interesting of all the false processes -- Belief. Firstly, what is Belief? Does acceptance of a belief and identification of the self with that belief create a believer? If true, why does the believer believe? What makes the believer want to believe? Is it perhaps relatively easy to believe or disbelieve? If relatively easy we may be comparing something with something else. OK, with what? If you have difficulty in replying you should expect this and in the very difficulty there is the possibility of the solution discovering you -- thinking for yourself. This depends on you and does not depend upon me, nor on anyone else. Be patient and there is much to be seen and understood by serious people whatever the background. It requires direct experiment neither believing nor disbelieving what is said but remembering what is said. Investigation shows we cannot go to truth and it can only come to us -- usually, when we are quiet and alone and serious. And it we are truly interested to see and to understand something, thinking for ourselves, we must temporarily put to one side all that we have read and believed in the past and learn to discover thinking for ourselves with minds brilliantly and spontaneously alert and without fear. Do not worry about what we put down, it will not be lost and we can pick it up again later. If we experiment with this we may become aware of the false processes, and the understanding that comes from awareness of their existence, and the outcome is joy. This joy is not the transient happiness of gratification that is a confusing and temporary thing, which leaves us desiring yet more and more gratification. It is a serene joy that is renewal from moment to moment. When we understand that we are in action we may then experience and understand a true and profound humility. Humility is not modesty or false modesty, two sides of the same base coin. Humility comes when we are aware of the false processes from moment to moment. For thousands of years we have conditioned ourselves from fear to believe or disbelieve. The false processes were overlooked in the rush to identify our selves with an illusion of security. Belief became popular. We did not really consider the fundamental question: 'Does Belief unite or divide?' At every level we have been in conflict with our beliefs, inward and outward, over the considerable time-period. The history of mankind is a remarkable history of conflict with our and other beliefs. We are now beginning the twenty-first century. Let us re-examine the ways of the past -- condemnation, justification, comparison, belief -- where there was constant and relentless activity and the outcome was conflict and sorrow, inward and outer, individual and collective, noisy and self-asserting. The best-fit hypothesis is that it is too late for us and may be too late for our children but not too late, perhaps, for our grandchildren and education holds the key. We start at the outer to penetrate to the inner. We seek common sense understanding, which is intelligence, and the outcome of an adequate course of action, always.



(Message from the Computer):

Hi! There is an Addendum:


We assume that collective outputs (being of the mind and therefore conditioned and prejudiced) cannot be Truth (which simply is and is not pre-conditioned). Truth is independent of the mind and its outputs. The outputs are one thing and truth is another. The one is a barrier to the other, the one has to cease for the other to exist. The collective outputs are the verbalised outcome of the processes of gratification and/or non-gratification of which the thinker may not be aware. Silent and non-verbalised awareness of the processes as they constantly occur in daily life is sufficient and we can be sufficient if we are aware from moment to moment. We are then aware of our outputs and processes -- which we term Activity -- and then become further aware that we are in Action. It is hard work and extremely difficult to be aware from moment to moment of the four processes that are present in each person's head. The mind is examining the mind and what it sees at first is what it wants to see and not what is. ‘What is’ is revealed when we are aware of the four processes and the constant working of the mind. The processes start to cease by themselves as we become aware of them. It is then possible to observe without the distraction of the noise in our minds. We can then see the "new" and the understanding of the new in the Now comes through that little gap in time.


(End of message. OK? Love, XXXXX.)

Return to System/Menu Click ç “Back”




Help-answer: Screen No. 8





The positions of benefit and non-benefit are determined by the Mind:

 the outcome of Thought and Sensation.


Thought and Sensation is the product of two processes of the Mind – the processes of Gratification and non-Gratification – and the outcome is the position of benefit and non-benefit determined by the Mind, creating the Thinker.


When a person is in a position of benefit relative to a problem it is most unlikely that this person will have the same perception and understanding of the problem as another person in a position of non-benefit relative to the problem. The possibility of understanding is a scientific possibility but mathematical probability is directly related to the position of benefit or non-benefit or the thinker, tending to "one" in the latter and "zero" in the former. The problem may be defined as social, economic, or psychological, real or imaginary.


There is a possibility of true perception and full understanding only where there is awareness of each one of the false processes and a deep and spontaneous interest in the problem. Ideally, a Mind which is truly interested in solving a problem is aware that merely from interest and direct observation, without recourse to impatient activity from the false processes and the old Past, there comes the true understanding and an adequate course of action, always.


For instance: technical problems have technical answers and problems commence for most of us when we begin to make a psychological problem (a problem created by the mind) out of what is, fundamentally, a technical problem.


When Mind is in action there is the possibility of understanding without the resistance of thought -- and thought is resistance in an idealistic theory.


Finally, non-understanding means, fundamentally, non-awareness leading to conflict, which we can see about us every day.




Help-answer: Screen No. 9





Self-deception is deception of the Self by the Self, deception of the Mind by the Mind,

deception of the Me by the Me.


When a person is in self-deception there develops a strange vitality, a dynamic energy.

The greater the deception, the greater the vitality. The vitality indicates the deception.


This remarkable deception can proceed to a stage where there is no longer any conflict in the mind, and this is madness, surely. There is no longer 'Can I, can't I'? 'Shall I, shan't I'? 'Should I, shouldn't I'? The balance of the mind is disturbed and the outcome is serious and often dangerous because it is infectious and can infect another to a similar lack of conflict in the mind.


A salesman may deceive himself that the product he is selling is uniquely best for a given purpose. Probability argues that it is not and that the lack of conflict in the mind of the salesman is deceiving him, perhaps, which may in turn infect an unaware prospective customer to a similar lack of conflict in the mind. And where the output is indeed infectious, the unwary buyer may re-examine his purchase some time later and be disappointed: "What did I buy this for, why did I buy it at all? I do not really want or need it. Why did I accept what he was saying. I was a fool to listen to him. Look what it has cost me."


Similarly: Imagine you are driving down a narrow country lane and approaching a humpback bridge when a fast-driven car suddenly appears coming from the other direction on the wrong side of the road and you are forced into the ditch. What do you want to do? If you allow yourself to become “infected” by the other driver’s lack of conflict in the mind you may want to turn around, furiously feeling for the accelerator, "I'll show him." Fortunately, you are stuck in a ditch.


Where this process is not fully understood there is confusion and since the outcome of confusion can only be yet more confusion, the process may be repeated with different details, presumably, but always negative outcome. Predictably, the Past becomes the Future.


Ideally, caution born of intelligence is the only truly safe protective barrier against the lack of conflict in the minds of others. My children termed and named it  "A lack of cornflakes!"




Help-answer: Screen No. 10





There are two types of problem, and two only:




We describe and explain the different approaches to each type of problem on the grounds that the approach to a problem is sometimes more important than the problem itself. These are such cases.


In (a) -- technical problem solving is based on Belief, Knowledge and Experience.

The outcome is partial or total, positive or negative, in the Present and based on the Past.


In (b) -- psychological problem solving is based on awareness and understanding of the mind processes and their function in creating the psychological problems in the first place.

These psychological problems are created by the mind from a known past remembered with ease:

and an unknown past, which may be remembered with difficulty or not at all.



The analytical approach is the realistic sine qua non in type (a) with a high degree of confidence in problem solving over a considerable period of time. Problem solving can be taught and learned from a book in type (a).


In type (b), it is most unlikely that problem solving can be taught and learned as in type (a), the "new" approach being oblique, observational and non-analytical.


The problem-solving percentage of confidence over a considerable period of time is estimated 'better than 95%’.



(Message from the Computer)

Hi! Investigation of the test-data PROBLEMS is recorded as follows:


My computer crashed. The repairman came. He tried the correct start-up and I lost a weeks work. He tried again and the machine crashed once more. I lost two weeks work. "Sorry," he said, "It must be the machine."


From time to time, we are faced with situations where it is unhelpfully easy to create a psychological problem out of what is, fundamentally, a technical problem. We are all disturbed many times in our relationship with people, things and ideas (which is Life!) and we have to learn not to mind being disturbed if we want to stay sane, balanced and truly enjoy life. What had I lost? Surely not the work. That was recorded in my memory and readily accessible. I had certainly lost the time, but there is plenty of time and probably enough for most of us. And so, what had I really lost? Very little indeed. Certainly, nothing to get upset about. In fact, the repairman and I are better friends than before! On the one hand, it is so delightfully easy and gratifying to explode out of tension and possibly hurt someone's feelings in the process. On the other hand, if we explode all over the place we may lose our self-respect. If we lose our self-respect, we lose respect for others, and they lose respect for us. Did you notice? 


(End of Message. OK? Love, XXXXX.)

Return to System/Menu Click ç “Back”




Help-answer: Screen No. 11





(a) Each process is a Mind response to an internal or external stimulus.


(b) The stimuli and responses create the database of Memory.


(c) The database of Memory responds with Thought and Sensation, clothing the response with words, which results in Activity.


(d) Thought, Sensation, Activity are related to people, things and ideas and our daily activity consists, almost entirely, of unconscious selection based on the processes of gratification and non-gratification.


For instance:


"I like you." (I keep you) -- "I don’t like you." (I let you go)


"I like it." (I keep it) --  "I don’t like it." (I get rid of it)


"I like the idea." (I accept it) -- "I don’t like the idea." (I reject it)



Relationship can only exist between people, things and ideas. It means that as long as we are alive we are in relationship. It follows, presumably, that the only time we are not in relationship is when we are dead.


Unhelpfully, we may further observe that Thought, Sensation, Activity are pre-conditioned by processing and may lead to conflict where one individual may attempt to bend another individual to his will. There is a close relationship between Thought, Sensation, Activity, Politics, Power and War.


The alternative to Activity is not Inactivity, which is merely the negative state of activity -- but ACTION.


When the mind is aware of the difference between Activity and Action, the mind is already in action.



(Message from the Computer)

Hi! A gloss on the test-data GRAT reads:


"And what our minds are, we are!"


(End of Message. OK? Love, XXXXX.)

Return to System/Menu Click ç “Back”




Help-answer: Screen No. 12





(a) Envy is wanting more or wanting less.


(b) Wanting more or wanting less is Thought and its Sensation.


(c) Thought and Sensation stimulate Activity.


(d) Activity results in Conflict.


(e) Conflict is internal and may be projected outwards.



The Mind appears to divide itself into two, the Thinker and the thought, the higher and the lower, the Experiencer and the experienced. The Thinker appears to operate on the thought, the higher appears to comment on the lower, the Experiencer appears to react to the experience. This separation is apparently real in disintegrated thought. But it is not real, it is an illusion.


In integrated thought, there is no distinction between the thinker and the thought,

 the higher and the lower, the experiencer and the experience.


The thinker IS the thought, the higher, the lower and the experience.



For instance:


"I am envious. I acknowledge this and do not like it and neither do my family. I do not like what I feel and the conflict and distress it causes me. I therefore desire to be non-envious, in a permanent state of non-envy, but I do not know how and this worries me again."


In integrated thought, there is spontaneous awareness that desire of the mind to be free of envy is still part of envy. The mind is still envious and now wants something more. The thinker still ‘wants’ but in a wider sense, trapped in a cage of his own thought. The cage effect is well known over a substantial period of time.


However, if the thinker is deeply and truly interested in the process at work in his mind (and not merely how to escape from the problem) the thinker may become aware of the false process and if he does not turn away or try to escape -- then, the thinker may become further aware that he is not different from the thought, not apart from the thought, but IS the thought. The experiencer is not separate from the experience but is the experience. The higher is neither higher nor lower than the lower but is, once more, the Mind in self-deception. In the first moment, and it may be fleeting, there is awareness of the false process. In that fleeting moment, thought is integrated. The thinker is integrated. There is no division between the two parts. I am what I am and I am aware of it. I AM ENVY. Envy is no longer an abstract concept but a reality. It is me. I am now able to observe this reality without thought, without trying or wanting to escape, with total interest. In this direct experience I am no longer concerned with my past worries. There is no past, just observation in the present of experiencing without the experiencer or the experienced and the outcome is freedom from envy, conflict, confusion: and renewal.



(Message from the Computer)

Hi! An addendum notes:


Substitute the word GREED for ENVY in the text and re-test. We have created a society where envy is socially acceptable. The phenomenon is there with an added element of secrecy. No-one really did it to us, no government, we did it to ourselves. We do not talk about it, but it is there. Whether or not we are found out -- it is still there. This truth exists independent of opinion. And if we are interested in the truth of facts more than mere opinion about facts, then this open, honest and factual approach may succeed. Anything else may fail, no matter how much desired and cunningly contrived, and this risk is testable in relationship. We should expect that truth is implicit in everything we say and do. It is independent of mind and time and only approachable with simplicity and humility of the heart. And then Love and Truth are one.


Alternatively, when activity is envy (Envy also known as Greed) motivated by fear working through thought (fear is thought) -- the outcome is noisy, disturbing, repetitive and non-creative.


(End of Message. OK?  Love, XXXXX.)

Return to System/Menu Click ç “Back”




Help-answer: Screen No. 13





(a) Jealousy is Fear: Fear of losing.


(b) Fear of losing results in emotion.


(c) Emotion is Thought and its sensation.


(d) Sensation is the outcome of two cause and effect processes of MIND:

 the processes of gratification and non-gratification.


(e) Gratification and non-Gratification is the true basis of Feelings:

 the feelings of love (little “l”) and hate.


(f) ‘love’ (little “l”) and hate result in Activity.



(Message from the Computer)

Hi! An Addendum notes:


Emotion motivated by fear results in activity, conflict and sorrow.


Where there is hate there cannot be love. It means that love and hate cannot exist together at the same moment in time. The one has to cease for the other to be. For most people, love is a flame and jealousy the smoke. And where the smoke is thick, strong and persistent -- the flame is obscured by the smoke and eventually dies. But this is not Love (big “L”). The love that turns to hate is not Love. If we examine our behaviour in relationship, meaning all that we say and do -- we may observe that we are constantly seeking gratification at one level or another. We rarely do something for its own sake. We do it in order to find gratification and to be gratified. The simplest action of helping someone less fortunate than myself -- a simple act of charity -- becomes a complex and selective means to gratify myself. A truly charitable person is not selective, not at any level, not at the level of the hand nor of the heart. And that person IS Charity.


When we are not truly charitable, gratification plays an important part in our daily lives. Any person or any odd thing, real or imaginary, that appears to threaten or actually thwart our desire for gratification creates fear -- fear of losing -- and that is jealousy. The outcome is conflict and chaos both inner and outer. We have all known conflict and I am not condemning love -- it has its place. The problems start if we place love firmly at the center of life and not in its real place on the periphery and some of us do this from time to time. The problem of love is a problem for many of us but see the alternative just once and for a fleeting moment and the conflict between what is and what should be starts to dissolve. The moment is progressive and creative in relationship. It is sadly true that few of us manage to survive the daily activity of relationship without harm. But in being aware we can avoid some of the deteriorating factors that cause the conflict. Most of us come to this understanding as a conclusion based upon long experience but intelligence understands from the outset, widely and deeply, wider and deeper still. We may try and fail many times. No matter, this is perhaps because we are trying too hard, we may have some end in view, possibly a desire to be gratified, and we may have forgotten in our rush that we cannot go to intelligence -- it can only come to us. Intelligence is a door that once open cannot be closed again, a doorway through which we pass into the light. Some describe it as being in a state of grace. It is a beautiful description. At the same time, it does not really matter what you call it or how beautifully you may describe it -- the word is not the thing. Just experiment patiently with this idealistic theory in integrated thought and see for yourself.


(End of Message. OK?  Love, XXXXX.)

Return to System/Menu Click ç “Back”



Jack LESLAU, Antwerp.
















12. ENVY



Click ç “Back”