INFORMATION PROCESSING VIRUSES AND THEIR CLONES
Digging into consensus realities tends to be a boring occupation if
one considers only what they represent to those incorporated into
But if one investigates how information is processed because of
them, they tend to become very interesting indeed.
As a general rule of thumb in this regard, it can be seen that
information that can be fitted into a given consensus reality is
processed, at least in some kind of way. But information that cannot
be fitted is usually NOT processed at all.
There are very many examples of this that can be identified. But
many of them, if they were pointed out, cause vigorous emotional
responses that sometimes can be lethal.
So I'll select an example that will merely confuse rather than
The general consensus reality about "paranormal" perception
conceives that this IS basically a matter of PERCEPTION.
But if one says that paranormal perception is neither paranormal nor
a matter of basic perception, the chances are that the consensus
reality won't shake all that much -- because the message of that
statement is simply routed through those concepts that processes it
as "idiotic," "stupid," or "he doesn't know what he is talking
about." End of that tiny story.
However, if one goes on to say that the basic issue involves
information transfer and the signal-to-noise ratio BEFORE
perceptions are constructed out of them, then another thing happens.
The eyes of those people firmly locked into the perception concept
are likely to wobble. The wobbling is caused by the person's mental
information processing grids attempting to find a suitable
conceptual basis via which to process THAT message.
If no pre-installed concepts are found, then the message is shed
from the grids like water off a duck's back. End of that story.
The above might be a bit crude as an example. And so it might sound
rather far-fetched at first -- because most people think they can
and do process all information they encounter. Others observing
them, however, often can spot which information is not being
processed, or which information is being mis-processed.
He or she "is not getting the point," as its often said. Or, how he
or she "came to THAT conclusion is beyond belief."
However, if a given consensus reality shared among many does not
contain concepts relevant to something, the chances are that NO ONE
within the consensus reality will perceive it.
If whatever it is does get processed, it will be routed over to the
nearest similar concept and processed through it.
For example, the neo-term REMOTE VIEWING has gained popularity and
is even verging on entering into a very wide consensus reality.
But all evidence to date shows that the "meaning" of RV is being
routed through the familiar concept of "psychic perception." And so
"remote-viewing" is being accepted as an updated replacement term
for psychic perception.
However, RV in its intended original usage was as an adjective
merely to distinguish a particular type of clairvoyant experiment;
and then later used as a concept involving a process having to do
with a refined form of INTELLECTUAL INTEGRATION that depended on
dealing with the signal-to-noise ratio.
Now intellectual integration is considered a normal process that
does or can occur in anyone. And so it is far removed from psychic
perception which is thought of as paranormal.
So the whole of this is like unknowingly getting on the wrong train
Almost all consensus realities hold that everyone can mentally
process, at the most basic physical level at least, the elements of
everything that is in that physical level. And so no one ever thinks
to look for examples indicating that this is not true.
But such examples can be found, and I will now digress to consider
one of them so that it won't seem I'm simply talking that stuff
which comes out of a bull's back door.
When Charles Darwin set sail as a naturalist abroad the BEAGLE, he
embarked on a voyage that was to last six years (1831-1836.) Prior
to this, the theory of ORGANIC EVOLUTION had been around for a few
decades, but Darwin was to firmly establish it -- and shift the
orientation of many consensus realities. For it was on this long
voyage that Darwin felt he had found proof of the theory of
But he encountered another kind of thing that was so alien to any
consensus reality that hardly anything has been made of it.
As the BEAGLE wended its way southward along the east coast of South
America, it came to what was then known as Patagonia, a region of
some 300,000 square miles, now divided into southern Argentina, the
extreme south-east part of Chile, and northern Tierra del Fuego.
And it was in Patagonia that the Beagle's crew and Darwin
encountered an exceedingly strange phenomenon -- one which, in my
somewhat overworked opinion, was more important than the theory of
Unable to moor the big ship, the BEAGLE, close to shore, it was
anchored at some distance from land out in a bay, and some of the
crew and Darwin went ashore in a small boat.
Once ashore they were welcomed with excitement by the local
Patagonians of that particular region. In all this excitement, it
soon transpired that the locals were amazed that Darwin, et.al. had
traversed the great ocean in such a small boat.
Now, the BEAGLE was anchored out in the bay, but it was plainly
visible. And so the crew said that they hadn't crossed the great
ocean in a small boat, but a far larger one. And they pointed to the
big ship anchored in the bay.
Try as they might, however, the local Patagonians COULD NOT SEE the
big ship -- and so a period of confusion ensued. The BEAGLE was
literally INVISIBLE to the Patagonians, not only conceptually so,
but eyeball so.
As it turned out, there WAS one person among the Patagonians who
COULD SEE the ship. This was the local shaman, whose credentials
imply the sighting of things and stuff others do not perceive --
although it is quite possible for them to do so, and as we shall now
Apparently the shaman set about describing the BEAGLE, its location,
the shape of the hull and sails, and did so by comparing the forms
to what was otherwise familiar to the Patagonians.
Soon, and as Hollywood lingo might have it, the BEAGLE "faded in,"
and thus all the Patagonians ended up with eyeball sight of the
This remarkable incident might never have entered historical
sources, except that Darwin noted it in his diary -- after which it
has persisted in existing in that rational limbo of the
But it does need to be explained, at least in some kind of
theoretical way -- in that what it implies is completely relevant
toward activating any of the superpowers.
I'm not saying that the following is the only way, being merely one
experimental way that chances to be somewhat consistent with similar
Roughly speaking, although the Patagonians had a consensus reality
regarding small boats, they did not have one regarding large ships
that might traverse the immense Atlantic Ocean.
One will have difficulty believing that the ABSENCE of this
consensus reality could literally prevent eyeball vision of the
BEAGLE, since we believe we see what does exist whether we
understand it or not.
In other words, the "normal" consensus reality of the Patagonians
had a gaping hole in it regarding big ships. Sounds ridiculous,
There is another more precise way of putting this -- that the mental
information processing grids of the Patagonians had this hole in
them. Meaning that there was no prior established mental grid which
contained information points regarding large, ocean-going vessels.
(Here, please note that an essay regarding mental information
processing grids (MIPGs) is already contained in this database.)
The explanatory activity of the shaman did either one of two things.
By comparing the shape-recognition required to things the
Patagonians did include in their consensus reality, the BEAGLE thus
faded up into visibility. Or, perhaps, the activity of the shaman
caused a new grid to form up.
In either case, the Patagonians finally could eyeball if not
completely understand the BEAGLE, accompanied, it might be expected,
by wonder and awe.
In leaving this incident, it is worth noting that the original
theory of evolution was the theory of ORGANIC evolution -- and hence
applied to organic (biological) systems. "Organic" was later
dropped, and the theory became the theory of EVOLUTION, since
mistaken as applicable to all things.
In this sense, then, evolution is seen as a one-way route, always
evolving, always evolving upward and onward.
The concept of DEVOLUTION is obscured this way -- this a concept we
will need to deal with in other essays since it is pertinent to the
Due to the Worldwide Web, the days when isolated cultures "clashed"
with others is over with, of course, save in the possible case of
extraterrestrials. And so it is hard to notice gaping holes in their
Yet anthropologists earlier in this century spotted quite a number
of them, while those working in the diplomatic services have
encountered many more.
I will take the time here to give one example of each kind.
Take the concept of SNOW. We utilize the term SNOW to denote snow,
and so snow is snow -- that cold white stuff, made up of frozen,
crystallized water molecules.
So we call snow snow, and that's the end of it, right?
Well, not exactly.
The consensus realities of those living in warmer climates have no
need of knowing, or even believing, that there are many different
types of snow. But such was important to indigenous people living
and existing north of the Arctic Circle in Siberia, Alaska and
You see, in those far north climes different types of snow (to say
nothing of different types of ice) could be used in different ways,
while the different types permitted various kinds of expectations
and predictions to be made.
Depending on which sources one consults, the indigenous peoples of
the northern Arctic Circle "evolved" seven to twenty-one different
terms that conceptualized, identified and specified different kinds
of snow and/or ice.
Thus, their understanding of the types of "snow" was very much
intellectually integrated in a number of refined ways, and which
enhanced their understanding of snow over those who merely have one
consensus reality concept for it.
One of the most probable meanings here is that the Arctic dwellers
understood the very many multiple FUNCTIONS of snow/ice, could
discriminate uses, and discriminate STRUCTURAL forecasts of what the
different types implied in terms of weather, building materials, and
so forth. And knowledge of these types often meant whether survival
would be easy, difficult or deadly.
In other words, they had not only definitive consensus realities
about the types of snow, but also possessed intricate MIPGs which
permitted more exact analyses of the implications of different kinds
As it is today, we have only residual echoes of this kind of thing.
Expert skiers have some knowledge about different types of snow,
mostly regarding whether it will pack up or remain fluffy. Park
rangers also like to know if a given snowfall will pack up and melt
steadily, or be loose enough to pile up and avalanche.
For most of us, though, snow is something to put up with and shovel
into piles -- and we need only one bit of nomenclature for that, the
result of which is the beginning and end of the snow story.
So, you may be wondering by now what all this snow stuff has to do
with the superpower faculties of the human BIOMIND.
Well, for example, we have but one nomenclature bit for TELEPATHY --
which is, of course, telepathy.
Thus, IF it should be that there are many DIFFERENT TYPES of
telepathy, we are still reduced to utilizing only one
consensus-reality making term for them -- and that is the beginning
and end of the telepathy story within our present consensus reality.
On the other hand, and assuming there just might be different types
of IT, if one wants to activate one's own telepathic faculties,
well, one needs to know WHICH type to activate.
In this instance, TELEPATHY as a single generalization will be
useless, much in the same way that snow as a single generalization
was useless to earlier Arctic dwellers before prefabricated
dwellings, welfare subsistence and the benefits of tourist trade.
If one examines in detail the literature and anecdotal information
available about "telepathy," one can begin to espy the factual
existence of different types of it.
The research method to be utilized to identify the types focuses on
the apparent FUNCTION of each type -- i.e., what does this type DO
versus that other type? Or what can be done with this versus other
types? Or, which kind of information is transferred via one type
versus the other types?
There can be little doubt that the different types of snow were
identified by employing some such similar method -- with the end
result that each type fell into a more exact functional category.
In other words, the earlier Arctic dwellers DID NOT just learn about
snow as a conceptual generalization, but about different kinds of
snow which enabled the conceptualizations of different kinds of
The meaning here is rather straightforward. If one partakes, so to
speak, of a consensus reality within which only one generalized
conception exists for telepathy, it is quite likely that the
existence of TYPES of telepathy will remain as invisible as the
BEAGLE was to the Patagonians.
Now jumping the gun a little here, and referring to a topic to be
enlarged upon in subsequent essays, all of the superpower faculties
appear to have one thing in common.
Each seems to be designed for a specific function -- meaning that if
mental information processing grids are not set up (installed) to
match each of those specific functions, then the different functions
will be invisible and/or dysfunctional to their potential users. And
this more or less exactly matches the BEAGLE syndrome of the
In other words, and as we shall see just ahead, the ABSENCE of such
grids will function in ways quite similar to information processing
Another way of putting this, although more simplistic, is that the
utilization of a single concept regarding telepathy will probably
disable identification of its many different types. So, you see, if
telepathy is JUST telepathy, then that is the beginning and end of
that story, too.
The remedial ACTION (toward activating the superpower faculties)
regarding all of this is not complicated. Merely by assuming, if
only for entertainment purposes, that TYPES of telepathy exist, the
types tend to become more noticeable.
In the past, I've belabored my suffering MIPGs a great deal, but
finally was able to identify thirty-five or thirty-six different
types of telepathy.
I'll not provide this list -- because I think people accept and
believe more in what they themselves can become aware of by upward
pulling of their own bootstraps.
But one type of telepathy consists of "sensing," as it is put,
sexual availability of others.
This is a rather broad-based telepathic format TYPE pre-existing
throughout our species. And it is noticeable because it has an
undeniably SPECIFIC FUNCTION hardly anyone can miss.
However, this type of sensing should go hand-in-hand with careful
diplomatic approaches -- for reasons that should be obvious to those
who did not arrive on Earth just twenty minutes ago.
This type of telepathy, however, is not usually referred to as
TELEPATHIC at all, due mostly to its licentious characteristics, all
of which have been edited out of psychical and parapsychological
consensus realities in order to make their consensus contexts
appropriate to "proper" think.
This humble author, for example, wrote yet another manuscript
entitled Psychic Sexuality -- which was rejected by so many
publishers I lost count of them. You see, our present consensus
realities about psychic stuff do not permit connecting up any of
that stuff to sex.
Above, I have mentioned the term "diplomacy." My research into the
nature of diplomacy revealed that one of its main functions is to
comprehend consensus realities and try to figure out how to get
around or trick them.
Thus, diplomatic "skills" are valuable in many ways, if only to try
to prevent things going up in flames.
The worst diplomats ever are those who remain completely unaware of
the finer points of consensus realities that both strategically and
tactically contrast with their own.
This was the 1950s conceptual basis, for example, of "the ugly
American" who bounced into contrasting consensus realities (i.e.,
into other "cultures") and who either did not realize very much or
didn't care either which way.
As but one somewhat humorous example, detailed by the venerable
diplomat, historian and author, George Kennan, the Arabic-speaking
countries share a consensus reality conceptualized around the idea
(referred to by the nomenclature bit "Kismet") that the future is in
the hands and determination of Allah, and that mere humans shall not
mess around by trying to shape the future to their own ends and
Having attempted to comprehend the concept of Kismet the best I can,
I am somewhat partial to it because it does have some interesting
and beneficial merits -- if one tries to entertain the larger
picture of things.
That aside, during a great part of this century, the Western world,
and especially the United States, tended to view the Arabic nations
as feudalistic -- which more bluntly meant "backward."
Hence those nations were seen as potential consumers of
modernization products, especially with regard to "building better
futures" for themselves.
Transliterated, this means that Western entrepreneurs foresaw the
merits of causing the Arabs to purchase implements, plans, designs,
equipment, methods and whatnot under the guise of building a better
future -- a concept which the Western entrepreneurs themselves place
much faith and assuming foresight.
Also noted by the entrepreneurs, most of the Arabic nations had
scads of money to effect such future-oriented improvements, for they
had mucho fossil fuels the rest of the world was desperate for.
In this sense, the Arab nations were a bank of unused, but
presumably accessible, money reserves.
The first wave of Western entrepreneurs, their diplomats and
representatives, appear to have been considerably unaware of the
existence of the concept of Kismet, and subsequent waves of them
thought that rational economic logic they themselves pursued would
put the concept somewhat into abeyance.
Now, I've no desire to get into the egregious details of what
thenceforth transpired within what then became known as "world
tensions" because of this "conflict" of dramatically opposing
consensus realities, or to discuss the merits and demerits of
The issue here is the often unalterable STRENGTH and POWER of
consensus realities as might be applied solely to the problems and
situation of the superpower faculties -- given into creation either
by God, Allah or the Ascending Evolutionary Steps.
The point here is that IF a consensus reality is really locked into
itself, it is then really hard to deal with or even to get around it
-- without also setting into action a very dramatic paradigm shift.
Everyone utilizes the basic consensus realities they are part of,
from the fundamental language-nomenclature foundations on upward to
sophisticated versions of them.
And everyone utilizes these consensus realities because that is all
they have to think and communicate with.
If you take a moment here to get the idea of a funnel, for example,
as an implement utilized to get liquids into a narrow-topped bottle
without spilling much, you might grasp all this somewhat better.
Into the wide-open brim are poured the liquid elements of life and
all its very many processes, and which liquid elements are narrowed
down at the tight spout, and thence gotten into the bottle. If we
can conceive of the bottle as a consensus reality, we can use
bottles as handy metaphors.
But to complete the metaphor, we do realize that consensus realities
differ. And so we have to put a filter somewhere in the funnel so
that the elements and processes of life are filtered into the
bottles in only such and such a way.
Now, we can put a label on the bottle, using this or that linguistic
nomenclature for purposes of common identification among those who
utilize it for communicating.
And there you have it -- in a somewhat weak metaphorical sense
anyway: a prepackaged consensus reality, and each society drinks
from THEIR bottle, and causes others also to drink from it.
Naturally, all consensus realities think that their bottle is the
However, to comprehend what actually is in the bottle, we have to
pour out the contained liquid and submit it to detailed analysis,
molecule by molecule, atom by atom, or concept by concept.
As it THEN would happen, we can find only what we already have
concepts for and expectations of finding, since it is easiest to
find what fits into the consensus realities we are utilizing to do
When we find something totally unexpected, well, as is said in the
sciences, we are "surprised."
No consensus reality filter can completely filter out all aspects of
life. Aspects of life inconvenient to the other contents of the
bottle sometimes get through the filter -- especially if those
aspects are indigenous to our species.
You see, each babe born is a container of life, and no one is ever
born a prepackaged format of a given consensus reality bottle. THAT
has to be installed or cloned into each specimen and always requires
some kind of reductionism or another.
For its filters, each consensus reality depends on its approved
concepts -- with the result that if the concepts are not truly
compatible with aspects of life itself, then it will filter only
those aspects which the filters permit. In this sense, then, the
concepts that are incompatible with life will achieve the function
of information viruses which distort, wreck or destroy the aspects
of life itself.
And, regarding the "bottles" of predigested consensus realities, the
chances are very good that upon analyses of them we will find
information processing viruses -- this because the "digestion" of
any kind of information always contributes the preconceived
conceptual "juices" utilized to digest them.
It's a good thing the somewhat shaky metaphors gotten up here are
only for hypothetical purposes. So "chill out" a little. You'll
probably need to "chill" a little in regard to what now follows.
Information Processing Viruses
ALERT! Here we have a topic
that can be seized upon and used to beat up on others regarding
their beliefs, the condition of their knowledge or expertise, and
their supposed intelligence or stupidity if they have any of either.
The "best" people, of course, are those that are not thought of as
being too extreme with regard to either their intelligence or
stupidity, in which case they can be considered among the so-called
"normal," or as "one of us." Each consensus reality establishes a
so-called "normal" band used to determine deviation away from the
fundamental concepts of the consensus reality itself.
Something now depends on which consensus reality is being utilized
as the "proper" one, and which band in it is thought of as the
Then if one falls out of the up end or the down end of the "normal"
curve, one is therefore considered too intelligent or too stupid to
fit into it.
One of the situations relevant to this, though, is that intelligence
and stupidity cannot really be nailed down unless there are
"normative," consensus reality standards to utilize in doing so.
For example, via the prevailing consensus reality characteristic of
the scientific discipline of physics between 1905 until about 1927,
Albert Einstein was bombarded with vocal and PRINTED condemnations
regarding his congenital stupidity and similar invectives.
On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of those hailed as
marvelously intelligent, thereafter proven quite stupid, and whose
names usually end up getting vaporized in historical memory. I won't
mention any names here, for fear of treading on someone's icons.
In any event, one is considered sane (and rational and logical) if
one fits snugly into a given normal band of a consensus reality. And
in this sense, one is a "proper" exemplar not only of the consensus
reality, but surely of our species as well.
If one doesn't fit in, one is thought of
as different, deranged or impaired, or challenged; as
psychologically unbalanced, disturbed, or whose mind functions are
resulting from some kind of pathological condition; or as marching
to a different drummer -- for lo and behold there seem to be
different drums to march to; or as needing help -- the BIG "help"
economy to relocate into the normal band -- and on and on and on
some more, up to and including being politically incorrect as well
as out of fashion, a retard, a retro, fringey, perhaps nerdish,
wacko, or NOC (not of our class, which applies equally to the
wealthy and the poor, the latter, too, having its collective
consensus reality frameworks).
However, if one develops a larger picture of all this, it can be
seen on the one hand that everyone WILL fit into some kind of
consensus reality somewhere; and that all of us will NOT fit in to
some kind of consensus reality somewhere else.
What one wants to do is find "my people" so as to fit oneself in
with them -- and to avoid all those others which are "not my
However, in order to fit in anywhere, one has to clone not only the
concepts, but the concept viruses, the two altogether being
perpetuated as "reality."
At the brink of sermonizing a little, we are all of the same
species, a species which preoccupies itself with setting up, or
inventing or imagining, consensus realities in the first place.
It seems possible that we could therefore modulate a species level
consensus reality which would incorporate most specimens born.
But I digress too far, except to note that SHOULD such a species
level consensus reality EVER "evolve," it would have to include
admission of the existence of the superpower faculties.
The dimensions of existing knowledge regarding the superpowers is
not all that large, and what there is of it is pretty much clogged
with information processing viruses. And so it is necessary to
examine their nature, characteristics and effects on human thinking
The references to information processing viruses in this database
refer specifically to the central topic of this database and to no
And to get good mileage out of this topic, it should be stated that
one can profit only by taking interest in the possibility of one's
OWN information processing viruses -- since those of others are
irrelevant to one's own self-activation of the interlocking networks
of superpower faculties.
The term VIRUS is generally thought to be a bit of biological
nomenclature identifying "submicroscopic infective agents."
But the term is descended on the one hand from an ancient Sanskrit
term, VISA, meaning "poison or venom in the senses," and on the
other hand from the Greek term, IOS, meaning "poison."
Our English term is taken directly from the Latin VIRUS, in which
language it officially referred to slimy liquid, poison or stench,
but was also probably utilized as Latin slang meaning something like
"really smelly shit."
The third definition given in my trusty Webster's is "something that
poisons the mind or soul."
It was apparently first utilized in English in 1599 in the context
of heaping venomous and poisonous abuse on another person.
The earliest definition in terms of pathology date only from 1725 --
at which time it more or less referred to "A morbid principle or
poisonous substance produced in the body as the result of some
disease, especially one capable of being introduced into other
persons or animals by inoculation or otherwise and of developing the
same disease in them."
It is from this definition that I have adapted and adopted the term
"cloning" with reference to exactly reproducing something in oneself
taken or absorbed from others.
The term VIRUS has been seized from its modern biological contexts
and entered into Computerese. There it refers to a nearly
undetectable micro-package of information which can be introduced
into software programs and/or hardware systems with the result of
disorganizing, adulterating or obliterating them.
In its Computerese sense, a virus is actually an information virus
which distorts or erases other kinds of information -- more or less
along the same lines as the filters in the funnels of consensus
Our English term, CLONE, was taken from the Greek word meaning "twig
or slip." Its first noted use in English was in 1903 in a scientific
paper having to do with chrysanthemums and their clonal
A later scientific paper of the same year pointed up that "the
clones of apples, pears, strawberries, etc., do not propagate true
to seed, while this is one of the most important characteristics of
races of wheat and corn."
In this sense, a cloned information processing concept or a clone's
information processing virus may not propagate true to seed either.
In any event, the first definition of CLONE dating from ancient
Greece, etc., referred to a group of cultivated plants the
individuals of which are transplanted parts of one original seedling
or stock, the propagation having been carried out by the use of
grafts, cuttings, bulbs, etc.
In this sense, then, CLONE was the term given to all bud grafts
taken from a parent tree.
This can be extended into the analogy that a given consensus reality
is the parent tree of conceptualizations, and that each of us
specimens can be grafted onto it. As we are, of course.
After the tree is recognized, and communicated within, by the
nomenclature central to the tree, not just the bark of the tree, but
the flow of information inside the tree and which makes it a tree.
The bark of the tree constitutes only its superficial protective
layers, three layers of quite simplified cells which harden --
something like the hard glass of the bottle that contains whatever
is filtered into it.
All the above for whatever it might suggest.
It is not correct to call a concept an information virus simply
because one disagrees with it.
For one thing, all of us completely assume that OUR concepts are
correct and virus-free. And so if we enter into discriminating the
existence of information viruses, we will normally assess the
concepts of others -- not those we might just chance to contain.
The only purpose of entering this topic into this database has to do
with locating information processing viruses within the general
consensus reality we have cloned into -- and must subscribe to in
order to speak, write and read in its unifying language.
Whether an individual or a group of them possesses cloned
information processing viruses is irrelevant -- with one exception.
And if you cannot identify that one exception, then you are already
reading this essay from a viewpoint not at all intended.
Finally, the ENTIRE context of this essay is aimed only at the
possibility that information processing viruses exist and which
might deter or prevent one's own approach toward activating their
own share of the superpower faculties. This is a specific area of
possible interest only for some, not a general one applicable to all
or any other area of human species activity.
In any event, we must move on.
If we search for the singly, largest common conceptual denominator
regarding the superpowers, we will easily find that the concept of
PERCEPTION is most likely to be it. This is specifically to say that
in the English language, perception is assigned to all psychic
This assigning is, of course, over-simplified to the extreme -- in
that there are many different TYPES of perception in both the
quantitative and qualitative sense.
But beneath that slight confusion is another more fundamental one --
an almost universal mis-understanding regarding what perception is
and is all about.
And so in Part 3 now coming up, we will attempt to beat that
misunderstanding to death -- and do so without overtly stipulating
that this egregious misunderstanding is virus-like in nature.
Back to Contents