Self-publishing or great publishing?

4/11/1997: Self Publishing?

Traditionally, others publish one's own works. Self-publishing has been looked upon with disdain or mistrust. However, in fact a lot of the publications by even the most reputable publishers are self-publishing by the authors. After all, other than some of the sciences, publishing someone's work by outside editors is no more than the latter passing a commercial judgment on the profitability, not necessarily the quality, of such writings. An illiterate killer would get his books published not for their quality, but for their sensationalism to feed public curiosity. In that respect, publishing by commercial presses could equally, if not more so, be viewed with contempt!

On the other hand, a truly great work published by outside publishers is also a form of self-publishing such as the newly unearthed ancient strategists' military writings, or prehistoric cave drawings, etc. In these cases, their publication is only inevitable, or taken for granted. There is no need for outside editors to determine their value : their value is self-evident. Therefore, although others are publishing them, they may as well have been published by the authors themselves. In fact, they did self-publish. The cavemen drew, and the strategists wrote theirs and even preserved them underground for us to reprint.

The same with great discoveries. Cheng has them. Today, suppose he fails to publish them. Tomorrow, 2,000 years from now, people would be busy reproducing them! A diamond is a diamond, and requires no outside appraisal. Cheng knows the true value of his inventions. Instead of having others publish them, he publishes them himself, in the same way the ancient military strategists published theirs and proved their worth on the battlefields, not to outside editors--- people ignored or disrespected them at their own peril!

Besides, for instance, when Cheng has overthrown Darwin, should those brainwashed by him have that objectivity to assess or publish Cheng's scientific refutation of their "brainwasher's" pseudo-science? They simply lack the neutrality to evaluate Cheng's writings, much less edit them! At least, let others have that freedom of press to voice their views instead of "killing the goose before it lays its golden eggs." After publication, then let people have that opportunity to compare and contrast Darwinism with Chengism on the origin of species. Otherwise, we would be perpetuating the "tyranny of evolution!" using the wrong to deny the right!

In other areas, too, should people consider themselves better thinkers than those who have invented correct, new theories? Should people say that they are better thinkers than Einstein, Newton and Cheng, such that they should and must or could edit these great ones' writings before publication? Or else they claim Einstein's writings not worthwhile reading? Newton wrong in his three laws of gravity. . . and Cheng really couldn't have discovered memory and overthrown Darwin? Arrogant to the extreme! Let us publish our works first. You then evaluate. Do not place your own intelligence above ours before reading what we have!

Pride and prejudice!

5/11/97:
Just imagine Einstein or Newton editing and lecturing on his own difficult inventions! Does anyone dare or wish that their writings and lectures be first edited first before giving over to the public? How many people understood or understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity and therefore how many dare edit his work before publishing? We need them to interpret to us, not they need us to edit theirs!

But, you ought to say this: "But, you, Cheng, are not Einstein or Newton; how could we treat you the same way we respect them? " The answer my friend, is not "blowing in the wind." It's right here. You read for yourselves what I have here. Are they indeed logical and scientifically sound great discoveries or just a self-deluding man's rumblings ?

If it's obviously the latter, it can't be far from the former: indeed Cheng has these great breakthroughs on which he is right now the best qualified to lecture.

Leading science journal editorial boards already have concurred that my discoveries are "good, factual and interesting."

As published in Cheng Review I:1, Sci American's Editorial Board in its 19/3/1987 letter considered Cheng's "Mystery of the Mind" to be "a good article." And, Canada's science magazine Sci & Technology Dimensions in its 20/4/1987 letter, just before its own demise, accepted it as "interesting and factual" and wanted a "shortened version . . . of less than 1000 words."

There, when as fantastic a discovery as the mystery of the mind can be so accepted by leading editorial boards, it would be unsound to suggest that I am merely a deluding nuisance. If not, perhaps I AM the best person now to lecture on topics of my great discoveries. In that respect,too, mine is no longer self-publishing, but publishing after external examination by outside editorial boards. They understood and approved my scientific theory. In contrast, Einstein's Theory of Relativity certainly could not have been understood by the publisher before its publication. After all, Einstein professed that only a dozen(?) could ever understand it. Were the publishers among these few? I doubt it very much. But, they were friendly and honest enough to risk their own money to publish it. His was more of a self- or blind- publishing by others just out of trust or respect for his name. Had he been discriminated against or not favoured by his publishers of the day, taking the racist attitude " We don't need Jewish science," his Relativity would never have seen the light of the day. Instead, they put up the money to risk for his discoveries.(7/12/1997) Obviously, they were very friendly to him instead of spitting on his face. Today, we see truth in many of his incomprehensible speculations.
Similarly, just because the publishers were in no position to determine the scientific value of Darwin's theory of evolution , his fallacies in sharp contrast with the soundness of my Theory of Biogenesis make it apparent that his publishers could not have been as competent as I am to evaluate manuscripts. Whether I am boasting, one can easily see for oneself from this site. Once somewhat or absolutely certain that I am so more competent than most such outside editors, what we have is a KC Cheng Press with a most outstanding editor, competently, more competently than those presses publishing Darwinism, publishing truly great discoveries which would have otherwise been grabbed by other publishers . Would you rather buy theirs than mine? If you are buying theirs, surely you have to buy mine. But if you rather buy their and not mine, you are letting the wrong drive out the right--- successful Darwinian brainwashing for over a century! Wake up and read what is right, better than Darwin!(15/11/97)
Another reality is that commercial presses are profit-minded. Hence, when some inventions, though the best and rarest in academic do not have a popular appeal, i.e. too difficult, etc., would not be published by established publishers.

So, commercial presses can be either too profit-minded to publish unpopular great discoveries, or too non-academic to know the true value of manuscripts, or too political to be neutral in issuing even the greatest works done by their "enemies." What `s there to ensure commercial presses not there only to promote their friends' works, and not their "enemies's?" In other words, those wielding that power and money to publish other people's works may very well be playing politics in publishing their own, not publishing others: a genuine self-publishing under the disguise of "other publishing." You friend, I publish. You enemy, forget it! That is in essence the most subtle, most clever,most deceiving and most effective form of political or racist censorship, or if publishing, self-publishing clothed in friends' robes. How now can any intelligent person claim that only works published by other commercial presses than the author's own can be deemed of value? The reality, in view of the factors alluded to in the above, can be quite to the contrary. In these instances. self-publishing could far exceed the so-called other-publishing in quality or worth, for the best works to come out of only the self-publishing firms. Therefore, just like Nobel Prizes, we must exercise our own independent, competent judgment to evaluate the worth of any publication and not let commercial presses lead us by the nose. Look at what are some of the most popular publications on earth! Pornography! Other than some occasionally useful articles, these cannot be viewed as publications of great discoveries! Or can they???!! But they thrive. In that respect, we must seek knowledge from poor, bankrupt, self-publishing firms. That is where knowledge may be, though profit not!(10/12/97)

Who is to lie that all commercial publishers are out there just to truly serve science and the world of knowledge? Why should they monopolize that power of press and create their own values or lack of them in what they publish or don't publish? They are just profit-minded human beings, not necessarily more competent or of greater integrity than you and I !
So, free yourselves from prejudice against a "new kid in town." Read on. Maybe you are witnessing Cheng himself lecturing on his own great discoveries! A rare treat, as rare as but physically more possible than Newton or Einstein doing his own thing--- they are no longer with us.

Besides, since 460+ volumes require a special division of an existing press or an entirely new publisher to issue, there can be no available publisher to assume this necessary but onerous responsibility. Hence, as a responsible person, Cheng since 1975 has established this KC Cheng Press to make it possible for the whole world ever to have access to his knowledge. Once that has been the case, should outside publishers have access to Cheng's best manuscripts just to enrich themselves, leaving Cheng's remaining knowledge unpublished? No! That would be a great disservice to humanity. So, if people want Cheng's best great discoveries, they can get them only from KC Cheng Press.

These compelling determinants make one relationship unequivocal: that in such cases "products of self-publishing may be the best, greatest around," not the other way around.

KC Cheng Press thus is the commercial publishing arm of the Cheng Research Institutes in the same way as the University of Toronto Press is the commercial publishing arm of the U of Toronto.

17/2/1998:
Genuine Top Academic Press

As pointed out in Self-publishing? KC Cheng Press's Chairman is a leading thinker whose judgment in areas of his inventions and writings is equalled by few. Since Chairman Kuan-Chyun Cheng can overthrow Darwin and establish memory, mentation and behaviour, . . . how many top editors in these areas now dare say that they have more competent scientific judgment than Cheng? Few, if any.

That being the case, every article published by KC Cheng Press therefore has gone through the most stringent scientific evaluation and revision before being allowed to get onto the press. What people get is always the best, soundest conclusions possible. No more of this publishing for profit, publishing without first going through a competent editorial board. No trash "science" from KC Cheng Press! Every article is of value. Cheng has judged and revised or corrected for the public before letting anything from KC Cheng Press influence people's thinking or knowledge.

KC Cheng Press therefore is the world's leading genuine academic press, a press edited by a great thinker, not a press publishing only on rough estimates of the authors' talent or just the profitability of a venture.

If you want knowledge, go for KCCheng Press!

Works already published

kccheng@idirect.com

Site Home