Board members meeting invitation letter

Nah, don't flatter yourself. You aren't known in Russia.

• Libb Thims) (citations) - Hmolpedia A65.

• Somerset: Who are you, John? Who are you really?
• John Doe: What do you mean?
• Somerset: Well, I mean, at this stage, what harm can it do to tell us a bit about yourself?
• John Doe: Doesn't matter who I am. Who I am means absolutely nothing. (conversationally) You need to stay on your left up here.

This “who I am means nothing” resonates with me well.

• Mills: So where are we heading?
• John Doe: You'll see.
• Mills: We're not just going to pick up two more dead bodies, are we, John? That wouldn't be shocking enough. You've got newspapers to think about, yeah?
• John Doe: Wanting people to listen...you can't just...tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer. Then you'll notice you've got their strict attention.
• Mills: But the question is: what makes you so special that people should listen?
• John Doe: I'm not special. I've never been exceptional. This is, though. What I'm doing. My work.

This is the key section. The “work” that is being done is exceptional, not me. “When a force moves a body through a unit distance, work is done” (Clausius, On the Mechanical Theory of Heat (pg. 1), 76A (1879) English translation by Water Browne). To understand this, which I‘m sure you won’t, you have to understand that the force that moves us to do or perform work, comes from “behind us”, the same way it does for chemicals in a heated ☀️ chemistry 🧪 beaker. All of this was explained in JohannGoethe’s novel ElectiveAffinities.
Once I had read this novel, in A51 (2006), after I had already calculated the 26-element formula (A47/2002) for HumanMolecule, presently cited at Harvard’s BioNumbers here (standard) and here (empirical), and drafted a 3-volume Human Thermodynamics “manuscript”, I decided or rather could “feel” that it was my duty to Goethe to write the world’s fist HumanChemistry textbook, published in A52 (2007).
Now, to clarify, having already noted that Goethe said the following: “not many kinds words were vouchsafed me about that [ ElectiveAffinities, 146A/1809] novel” on 18 Jan 127A (1827), 18–years after his novel was published, at the age of 78, I very clearly realized that I was writing to or rather “for the future”, and tried to write ✍️ each page of Human Chemistry to be readable to minds existive a 1,000-years from now. Compare: TheParty.

• Somerset: Your work, John?
• John Doe: Yes.
• Mills: See, I...I don't...I don't see anything special about it, John.
• John Doe: That's not true.
• Mills: No, it is true. And the funny thing is, all this work...two months from now, no one's gonna care, no one's gonna give a shit. No one's gonna remember.

This one resonates also well with me. I’m sure that if you were speaking freely, you would tell me the same thing, such as: “no one gives a shit about your human molecule, human chemistry, or HumanChemThermo theories in Russia!”
Certainly this may very well be true, particularly for russian language sub members, who likely have never stepped foot in a science classroom.
The point, however, is that the “work” Goethe did, in writing ✍️ ElectiveAffinities (146A/1809), and the “work” I did in writing the 818-page two-volume ✍️ Human Chemistry (A52/2007), and the “work” that American chemical engineer William Fairburn did in writing his 55-page booklet Human Chemistry (41A/1914), which discusses the “entropy” of reactive “human chemical elements”, aka person = HumanMolecule, and the “work” that Kevin Walker did in writing ✍️ the novel turned film) Seven (A40/1995), with which we are now employing in conversation, is something that is “conserved” in the universe, according to Clausius.
This “conservation” of work, however, is something that I’m sure you will never understand, because your mindset is predisposed to defining me as “rude and entitled“ and I guess a nobody in Russia?
Yet if we compare the same question, about letter origin, asked in the previous 5-days, at the following three language subs: learn_arabic, German, Syriac, visually summarized here, we will see that I we have very polite and respectful dialogue.
The problem with your Russian sub, presumably, is that because my photo was shown in the article along side of: Euler, Poincare, Willard Gibbs, Nikolay Bogolyubov (Никола́й Боголю́бов), Lars Onsager, Euler, Sadi Carnot, and Clausius, it set the mood off wrong, resulting in everyone attacking me?

• John Doe: You can't see the whole complete act yet. But when this is done... when it's finished...it's gonna be... People will barely be able to comprehend. But they won't be able to deny.
• Mills: Could the freak be any more vague? I mean, as far as master plans go, John--

I‘m sure you will like to call me a freak too? But as to “you can’t see the whole complete act yet”, this is the situation with the typical person. That most people, aside from a great minds like HenryAdams, cannot “see” 👀 the complete act yet, is evidenced by the fact that there is one member of the ElectiveAffinities sub, launched: 3 May A69 (2024).
In short, the work that I am doing now, and the work that Goethe did 215-years ago, or the work that Nietzsche did 146-years ago, in his Human, All Too Human, aphorism #1, shown below, is work produced by a “force” that only the future, possibly centuries from now, but more likely a millennia from now, will come to realize, as self-evident.

“All that we need and that could possibly be given us in the present state of development of the sciences, is a chemistry of the ‘moral’, ‘religious’, ‘aesthetic’ conceptions and ‘feeling’, as well as of those ‘emotions’ which we experience in the affairs, great and small, of society and civilization, and which we are sensible of even in solitude.”
— Friedrich Nietzsche (77A/1878), Human, All Too Human (§: Aphorism #1)

1. Moral chemistry
2. Religious chemistry
3. Aesthetic chemistry
4. Emotional chemistry
5. Feelings chemistry
6. Social chemistry