| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: | Page: 1 2   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Connecting | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Fri Jun 7th, 2013 12:25 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Sergey, If you read this, then please consider listening to the following link: Parse Syntax Grammar In that link the Speaker claims that Stalin murdered all those people so as to remove the power of accurate language in Russia; but those are my words. Starting at Time 56:00 Quote: "Remove the article from your speech"
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jun 8th, 2013 02:55 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
Well, holy frijoles!!! Nine hours... That I'm most likely NOT gonna go through big thanks to you pointing that moment around 56th minute. Clearly shows a person that blindly trusts mainstream sources (wikipedia lol ex di) on subjects he considers second-rate, while still allowing himself to use such questionable data as supposedly valid example. It's sad for me to see you asking me to comment on that seeing as I consider you a person who DOES research subjects unlike this individual in the link-video. There are some things to understand about conspiracies and control hierarchies inside those. There are a lot of talks going around about Rothschilds vs Rockefellers as in clan vs clan. Or ashkenazi vs sephardi if you prefer. Yet the main problem of all these views is their obviousness. Some certain amount of 'connecting dots' later one might actually question these popular scenarios to uncover some deeper layers. Like levi for once, to which both mentioned above answer to. In the hindsight though that does liberate one to concentrate on material part of the specific problem. Like purposeful dumbing of the language. Which continues to date, by the way... Last edited on Sat Jun 8th, 2013 02:58 pm by |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jun 8th, 2013 04:04 pm |
|
3rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Sergey, I was not asking for you to inform me of my faults, which appear to me to be entirely your construction, but setting that aside, and setting aside the faults of the speaker that may or may not be your construction, the concept of language being willfully manipulated so as to empower the manipulators at the expense of the manipulated appears to be well enough understood in general terms by my reading of your response. Perhaps the medium of exchange is less than it could be as a tool that could be used for conveying ideas accurately. My idea was that you may have run into similar discoveries concerning the actual science of language whereby knowing how it can work as good as math or at least improved to a point where it can work as good as math, when the goal is to convey accurate meaning as compared to a goal of deception. The speaker in the very long link of way too many references to questionable statements of fact spoke about language being specifically used to create false messages, using adverb-verb, or some such combinations, whereby the reader who is untrained in language is led to believe that the message is true, or authoritative, when in fact the message is false, and the message is therefore only authoritative by deception. I don't know if those words can be understood, those words I just wrote, by anyone, at this point. The speaker spoke also of language being present tense, not past tense, nor future tense, but here and now speech, as that relates to the concept of authority. The speaker also spoke about speech, or language, broken down into negatives and positives, which I found to be another source of potential control by those who resort to deception, threats, and violence upon their targeted victims. A sign that appears to say one thing, when it actually says the opposite thing, sounds familiar to me. I hope that you are making the best of your time here on Earth, and if it means anything to you I even trust that you are doing so as best you can.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jun 8th, 2013 05:03 pm |
|
4th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
Alright, I'll play along. Don't mind fancy wording, I wasn't actually trying to put pressure on you or "informing you of your faults" - that was just me emphasizing my point with red lettering as they say. But anyway. So I assume (hate me for that later) that you have a certain amount of experience in linguistics. At least that seems to be the case judging from your analysis of the language control scheme possibilities presented above. So let's break it down. 1. Language core. Base of the language which reflects its purpose. Math in the most direct sense applies to the core of Hebrew for example. So why am I pointing out the subject of the core? From the core spurs the basic language structure. And if language initially wasn't tampered with - formed structure becomes an authentic form. Anything added later that contradicts that form in any way 'feels' like it doesn't belong. 2. Broken language. Language that has been stripped of it's structure. Formed structure cannot be destroyed. But it can be lost, disconnected for perception. And even substituted with something else. And there are many ways to do that. If language is based on another language (like Ukranian) it usually being created with certain amount of tampering. Now this tampering can be willfully damaging to acquire control, but not necessarily. 3. Outcome of control. Language both reflects and shapes people's mentality. So in a way that is obvious weak point, one controlling which leads to controlling the other. We spoke earlier about music and direct effect of it in the hands of social parasites. It seemed to me at the time that you have absorbed what I had to say on the matter quite quite appropriately. So no obvious reason for me not to accept your take on language control by social parasites. Even if I didn't know about these methods (although I did). I've pointed out these three moments just for presentation structural measure, not to make them more significant than other details. So no - typical math cannot technically account for language work, not in case of Russian language at the very least, considering that in its base it has levels of relevance that cannot be outworked by mathematically counted methods (and I don't mean absolute mathematics, just what social parasites are using). This language is more overarching than that math. Not Hebrew though. And certainly not English or Latin. Little food for thought, eh? Yes, directing language to a binary logic use is a common example of attempt on language control. When subjects viewed 'as opposed to' or adverbs 'colored' by comparison to the opposite. Idea behind this is to limit choice to 'yes/no'. People get used to thinking in these conditioned categories and then their thought-process is put under more stress with direct confusion between the opposites. An example: Russian language has prefix "Без-" which means same as English suffix "-less". In the last century language got a government reform saying that "Без-" should be written (and read) as "Бес-". That last letter sound automatically becomes consonant (like if 'z' suddenly became 's') where applicable basically. And justifications for that were that "it's a natural linguistic transition to a better language" (made-up reason) and that "we read it as consonant anyways" (another made-up reason). So what it did actually? On the first glance - nothing. And naturally even native speaker wouldn't notice it consciously. But then... "Бес" in Russian means 'imp' or some evil demon of sorts. Even though consciously you can miss this connection - unconsciously it is made. So when someone say a word like "Бесчестный" (dishonest) subliminally you get "бес честный" (imp is honest). Or "Бесстрашный" (fearless) becomes 'imp is fearful'. You might think of it as a stretch, but it actually isn't. What it does is confuses a person of what is a virtue and what is a vice. And when a person has a moral pressure - person no longer has a firm stance - person was conditioned not to. I think I've touched all specifics related to control you've mentioned in your post. But I can talk about it for days, and I would hate to accidentally start another book-like effort just because I can. I'd rather not, so if we happen to have a traction in this subject - we better specify it before I go complete medieval "let god sort'em out" kind of attitude. I hope that you are making the best of your time here on Earth, and if it means anything to you I even trust that you are doing so as best you can. I can't leave Midgard just yet. You see that requires going through planetary step of self-development. And for my entity it took who knows how many incarnations to get where I am now. And by looks of things I might need quite some more to get there. If I was getting close I would remember much more previous experience for once. Although being aware of all this puts me in somewhat safer spot that many others, much of which fall prey to social parasites and other parasites on lower levels. Ehhh, I'm elaborating on things we have no common point yet too much again. Pardon me for that. Last edited on Sat Jun 8th, 2013 05:18 pm by |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jun 8th, 2013 09:25 pm |
|
5th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Sergey, Thanks for the work on replying. "So no - typical math cannot technically account for language work, not in case of Russian language at the very least, considering that in its base it has levels of relevance that cannot be outworked by mathematically counted methods (and I don't mean absolute mathematics, just what social parasites are using). This language is more overarching than that math. Not Hebrew though. And certainly not English or Latin. Little food for thought, eh?" I'm not sure why the word "no" is being chosen by you in that sentence. My guess is that you think that you are answering a question previously asked, and I can't find the previously asked question. I think that math is a subset of language, for my own sense of accurate perception, what I don't think is that any connection between math and language can be very useful when the goal is deception, the opposite, in my view, is true, whereby a use of math to speak, in any way, is bound to confess the true motive of the speaker, or it is not math. I know that math can be counterfeited such as might be discovered in the deceptive uses of statistics, but that is the example that might prove the rule of the perception I am trying to convey with English. In other words, the use of deception with words is the way statistics, which is math, is the connection between words and math, and it is the math part, of that connection, whereby the deceivers can be caught red handed. The math is the true part, and the parts that are false, or counterfeit, are the stories (lies) told concerning what the math means, so the targets of the intended deception are then able to check the math, and find the deception, if there is a willful deception, or even if there is merely mistake, the math documents the facts, or it is not math, or my idea of math is not accurate, or something else is at work that is beyond my capacity to know at this point, as type, in the here and now. "Yes, directing language to a binary logic use is a common example of attempt on language control." That appears to be more in line with my thinking, especially concerning the information reported in the link sent; since that information concerned a power struggle involving the most powerful deceivers and possible rivals, whereby the goal appears to me to be a need realized by the parasites to maintain control over their own, so as then to maintain control over their victims of deception. Liars have a hard time with lies because the process of lying can cause the liar to be victim to their own lies, in other words. The link was very long, I didn't finish it, and I want to return to it, but I see that your help is very valuable, so it may have been a good idea to stop and look for you. Thanks for the help. Even though consciously you can miss this connection - unconsciously it is made. So when someone say a word like "Бесчестный" (dishonest) subliminally you get "бес честный" (imp is honest). Or "Бесстрашный" (fearless) becomes 'imp is fearful'. You might think of it as a stretch, but it actually isn't. What it does is confuses a person of what is a virtue and what is a vice. And when a person has a moral pressure - person no longer has a firm stance - person was conditioned not to. That is more valuable to me than my imagination could have invented, as far as I know, at this point. Your words are therefore proof to me that I can certainly use your generous help. I can't leave Midgard just yet. You see that requires going through planetary step of self-development. And for my entity it took who knows how many incarnations to get where I am now. And by looks of things I might need quite some more to get there. If I was getting close I would remember much more previous experience for once. Although being aware of all this puts me in somewhat safer spot that many others, much of which fall prey to social parasites and other parasites on lower levels. Ehhh, I'm elaborating on things we have no common point yet too much again. Pardon me for that. I find it funny, or odd, there is probably a better words somewhere, as to what your words claim to be my thoughts, since much of the time it appears as if your estimate of my thoughts are often opposite of my thought as I know my thoughts to be; thanks again.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jun 9th, 2013 02:27 am |
|
6th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
>>> My guess is that you think that you are answering a question previously asked, and I can't find the previously asked question. It was in fact an answer - an answer to your particular suggestion about particular relation to math in a particular way I understood your particular use of said word. So - no was to that. But anyway - this is just me using red lettering again, much like there. Math in itself is not a pre-existing idea in reality. Otherwise it would suggest a typical unjustifiable 'creator'. So in a way there is no 'absolute math', because that math is way to describe how everything works which requires knowledge of everything. Math as a language has a very specific purpose. And - you guessed it - using it outside of said purpose compromises the language. Yet it's not that easy to spot. Use of statistics for deception is not what I meant - it's kinda trivial compared to what we talked about in music thread, don't you think? >>> the process of lying can cause the liar to be victim to their own lies We almost at a complete agreement here. Just change 'can cause' to 'causes' (undoubtedly, inevitably, inescapably, immediately) and that's it. >>> Your words are therefore proof to me that I can certainly use your generous help. I can do that, as long as you specify what you need in a more more narrow fashion. I'm not sure if that is asking too much for comfort. >>> I find it funny, or odd, there is probably a better words somewhere, as to what your words claim to be my thoughts, since much of the time it appears as if your estimate of my thoughts are often opposite of my thought as I know my thoughts to be I find it funny that I don't ever claim your thoughts, or to know them. But I have to account for possibilities, don't I? And that requires writing as I do. Though I don't go guns blazing about it - don't have enough patience for that. I suggest that when you feel that I say that I can read your mind and whatnot - you mentally redact that and react to the message without all of those cases first. Then apply possibilities.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jun 9th, 2013 11:20 am |
|
7th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Sergey, Thanks again, and if you quote the particular sentence (no need for red letters as far as I can tell), then I can know which words I wrote as a question about math was the particular question where no was the answer offered to that particular question. This follow example is an example of your words followed by my response to those words in particular: Math in itself is not a pre-existing idea in reality. When I read words like that my idea from those words involved me thinking that you think I think that math "itself is" "a pre-existing idea in reality," which I is not my idea, so my question then is to ask if I am correct in thinking that you think that I think that math exists before it was an idea, or some other thought, in other words, along those lines, which are thoughts I do not think. I think that math is an invention, a tool, a way of perceiving, so there is no way, in my view, that math can exist without someone perceiving, and then as perception is used by the inventor, that inventor invents an accurate way to perceive, so Math is the word used to label that which I am calling math now, which is this inventive way to improve the accuracy of perception. 1. Invention 2. Discovery Even if a perceptive being discovers, or stumbles upon, math, there is yet a process not discovered whereby the original perceptive being who originally invented math did so, and left math there to be tripped over, or discovered by someone else. I'm not saying that two perceptive beings can't invent math in different places at different times, all I am saying is that there is a difference between invention and discovery. 1. Invention is necessary in order for there to be discovery 2. Discovery happens as a result of perception, including the discovery that it is possible to invent better was to discover new things to perceive. I discovered English language, if I can use the word discovery in this way effectively, so as to distinguish the difference between the way I stumbled upon English language, and the way I invent sentences in English. I invented that sentence above, but I used English, and English was not my invention. If someone has invented a way to use math to represent English language, then my guess is that that is a new invention, but it isn't so much a guess as a demonstrable fact, so long as the perceptive being demonstrating the fact is not resorting to deception. Someone who may have discovered a way to connect math to English may have stumbled upon it, and then that person makes a false claim of having invented it, when there was a previous inventor, and the person discovering it is taking credit where credit is false. My inventions of these arrangements in English, experiments, whatever, don' t often work, so the concept of being misunderstood is appearing to be understandable in that light. I am not an effective inventor of English symbol arrangements. Use of statistics for deception is not what I meant - it's kinda trivial compared to what we talked about in music thread, don't you think? I don't think that deceptive use of statistics is trivial. Have you heard about personality tests, and "mass marketing"? The word trivial is, to me, a word describing how I can enjoy the weather when it is within the range of 65 degrees to 110 degrees, so it is trivial for me to speak of bad weather within that range. Yes, I can say, you may not like the weather, but to me it is a trivial matter. A personality test can be improved, not perfected, with the use of statistical data, as statistical data can sample the behavior of mankind much in the way that "The Wisdom of Crowds" works. How big is the crowd when there is any case of The Wisdom of Crowds at work? If the Crowd is every human being that has ever lived then that is 100 percent accurate as being every single measure of each individual making up the Crowd, in any case whatsoever, but it is impractical, or unworkable to measure the whole Crowd, to know with 100% accuracy, so leaving 1 out, leaving out 1 measure, introduced that measure of potential error. Sampling a larger number of the whole can improve the accuracy of the statistical data, and those improvements can be measured. Statistical data can be used to improve the accuracy of statistical data, at least that is how I understand statistics to work dynamically. A representative sample of the whole can generate statistical data and a value of accuracy placed upon that data can then be tested over time with the results used to reach the goal of the data, and over time the data used to reach the goal creates statistics, proving the fact of either reaching the goal or failing to reach the goal, and that data can then be used to improve the process of gathering the statistics, failures show up as failures, while successes show up as successes, over time, and if the concept is a personality test, the end result is an improved, but not perfect, tool used to reach the goal of those doing the testing, or mass marketing. I don't know if my arrangements of symbols works, and I may never know. "We almost at a complete agreement here. Just change 'can cause' to 'causes' (undoubtedly, inevitably, inescapably, immediately) and that's it." I think that you have improved the arrangement of symbols, so we are in agreement in that case. Less effective: >>> the process of lying can cause the liar to be victim to their own lies More effective: >>> the process of lying causes the liar to be victim to their own lies I think that is proven to be true with the use of statistics as a means of reaching the goal of deception, such as mass marketing. I think that deceivers are deceived themselves since they actually cause the statistical data to become what it becomes and they are then deceived into thinking that their victims deserve what they get. I've actually heard a person claim that they are doing their victim a favor by stealing from the victim, something along the lines of helping the victim realize how vulnerable the victim is in fact. "I can do that, as long as you specify what you need in a more more narrow fashion. I'm not sure if that is asking too much for comfort." I can work at it. I ran into this type of help with bear, since too often in the past, and still too often now, my replies were seen by her as attacks, and so I can work on improving my inventions of arrangements of symbols when asking for help. Biting the hand that feeds me, is an old saying, along the lines of The Wisdom of Crowds at work, which may or may not work in this case. I may fail to convey what I mean to convey, which is the norm, not the exception. In my view I succeed every time, with nearly 100% accuracy, otherwise I would not hit the Post Reply button, but the feedback I get should tell me something about the wide gap between what I think I write effectively and what is actually proven to be effective writing. Case in point: "I find it funny that I don't ever claim your thoughts, or to know them. " Why is that funny? I did not write words that say "claim your thoughts," or "know them." I wrote, and you quoted: "as to what your words claim to be my thoughts" Your words are not your claims, obviously, and measurably, so that is why I chose "your word," and that is why I did not say "your thoughts." If you see no difference, or if you don't see the point of error, then I can explain the difference, and the point of error, but that would require words to do the work, since you can't read my mind, at least you prove that you can't, to me, and I know I can't read your mind, so I have only words to read, and in this case the words are black and white. I wrote: "as to what your words claim to be my thoughts" You wrote: "I find it funny that I don't ever claim your thoughts, or to know them. " I don't either. So what is funny? The words appear to me to suggest that you think you know what I think, and much of the time those words you write that appear to suggest to me that you think what I think prove otherwise, since the words you write appear to convey thoughts, attributable to me, that are opposite of what I think, and this is a case in point. I don't think that you think, since I'm not a mind reader, all I get is words to read, I don't get a mind to read. 1. "as to what your words claim to be my thoughts" 2. "I find it funny that I don't ever claim your thoughts, or to know them. " That is a case in point. Here is another: Math in itself is not a pre-existing idea in reality. Otherwise it would suggest a typical unjustifiable 'creator'. Those words suggest to me that you think I think that math is pre-existing, and I don't think such things, so this is another case in point, where the words suggest to me that your thoughts are such and such. Not this: 2. "I find it funny that I don't ever claim your thoughts, or to know them. " I don't know what is funny. I have not made such a claim, and that is why I chose the word words. 1. "as to what your words claim to be my thoughts" How much better would it be to accomplish mind reading, without the often proven case of miscommunication? I suggest that when you feel that I say that I can read your mind and whatnot - you mentally redact that and react to the message without all of those cases first. Then apply possibilities. Again, here is a case in point, I did not write, in words, that "I can read your mind..." and I know that I can't, so your suggestion, in words, appears to me to be the opposite of what applies to me, since at no time have I thought that I can read your mind, so how can your suggestion apply to me? Let me be very clear here, with words. I did not write anything that intended to convey to you that I feel as if I can read your mind. Is that clear? If I wrote, by error, words that could be misunderstood by you as you are then inspired to think that I feel as if I can read your mind, then that is my error, if that happened. Here: 1. "as to what your words claim to be my thoughts" If that inspired you to write this: "I suggest that when you feel that I say that I can read your mind and whatnot - you mentally redact that and react to the message without all of those cases first. Then apply possibilities." Then that is a case in point. Your words, your words, your words, often inspire in me the idea that you think you know what I think, in this case your words appear to suggest to me that you think that I feel as if you can read my mind, and that is opposite of what I actually think. I think that I do not "feel" this idea, rather I think that your words prove to be the source of miscommunication, and as for your intent, to cause deception, or to convey accurate meaning, I cannot know, not unless you convey accurate meaning one way or the other. How do you convey accurate meaning if not with words? I am not guilty of this charge that your words appear to attach to me in the form of guilt. This: "I suggest that when you feel that I say that I can read your mind and whatnot - you mentally redact that and react to the message without all of those cases first. Then apply possibilities." Specifically this: "...you feel that I say that I can read your mind and whatnot..." Specifically this: "...you feel..." "...I can read your mind..." I am not guilty, I know I am not guilty, so that is a case in point. Your words.... "...you feel..." "...I can read your mind..." Your words suggest to me that your idea of what my thoughts are are opposite my thoughts, and this is a case in point. I am not guilty of this: "I suggest that when you feel that I say that I can read your mind and whatnot - you mentally redact that and react to the message without all of those cases first. Then apply possibilities." That above is not me. If you got that above from this: 1. "as to what your words claim to be my thoughts" If your words of guilt placed upon me are inspired by those words above, then I am happy to report to you that my choice of using the word words was done because I did not want to be misunderstood, and instead of being misunderstood, my word choice intended to convey my actual thoughts accurately, and effectively, and yet I failed again. I am guilty of failing to find the right word choices. I am not guilty of this: I suggest that when you feel that I say that I can read your mind and whatnot - you mentally redact that and react to the message without all of those cases first. Then apply possibilities. Those words suggest to me that someone, somewhere, is guilty of feeling as if someone can read someone's mind, and that is certainly a false claim, but I don't feel that I can read someone's mind, so I am not guilty as charged in those words aimed at me.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jun 9th, 2013 03:50 pm |
|
8th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
>>> no need for red letters as far as I can tell Well, I don't use actual red colored font now, do I? My English is just that bad. Red lettering is figure of speech for unnecessary beautification of one's wording to make it look more fancy/funky. I tend to do that a lot, being a rhetoric scholar. And me noting it just so you have easier time adjusting to/expecting it from me and thus adapting to my manner of speaking. >>> When I read words like that my idea from those words involved me thinking that you think I think that math "itself is" "a pre-existing idea in reality," which I is not my idea, so my question then is to ask if I am correct in thinking that you think that I think that math exists before it was an idea, or some other thought, in other words, along those lines, which are thoughts I do not think. Same as I said before - I'm too impatient to write around these obvious failures of English as a language (meaning contextual dependence). I see these particular response of yours as a good example of binary logic conditioning to see in 'as opposed' manner where it's not directly implied. How exactly me stating that math is not a pre-existing idea says something about what you think/say/feel in actuality or the way I perceive it? Nohow. It's a binary logic assumption that this statement as opposition to something. And by the way - this is partially due to a reason of English being as it is - designed along the lines of what I told about language control. Now contextual dependence is annoying to work around thus I opt to inspire (or wait/expect) people to rise up in their abilities over it. My English is not good enough to make those workarounds to have enough integrity to hold the flawed language structural loops. So, hopefully, I've made this whole 'me reading your thoughts' shebang somewhat clearer. >>> I am not an effective inventor of English symbol arrangements. Ahem... Between you and me you are superior at that, because you are educated AND a native speaker. So there is not much use telling that to me - I'd be a second fiddle at best anyways. >>> I don't think that deceptive use of statistics is trivial. Have you heard about personality tests, and "mass marketing"? Sure. Yet it is still trivial as compared to direct manipulations that are done through music. Sure enough, for mainstream it's just a dulling noise that degrades one's entity and body, but there are other inventions in this regard, more suited to be called a weapon. As for statistics manipulation - try looking at it from a perspective of information control. It's completely 1-dimensional, with only limiting factor being available computing power. Gather as much data as you can get your hands on and the hold crucial parts to speculate opinions. Gentle approach is necessary - true - but it's just a matter of calculus in the end. And I mean low-end calculus at that. So it is trivial as compared to music. It's not trivial on it's own, but neither is it sophisticated. >>> I don't know if my arrangements of symbols works, and I may never know. Sure, you may not, if you condition yourself not to as willfully as this statement seem to indicate. >>> I've actually heard a person claim that they are doing their victim a favor by stealing from the victim, something along the lines of helping the victim realize how vulnerable the victim is in fact. Typical example of confusion between virtues and vices. >>> I can work at it. I ran into this type of help with bear, since too often in the past, and still too often now, my replies were seen by her as attacks, and so I can work on improving my inventions of arrangements of symbols when asking for help. Oh, those religious people... All I was asking is that you try and narrow things thematically (whatever the holding point). I realize that it's hard to dissect whole topics into little pieces, but I just have too much to say about it as a whole, so I will be forced to make explanations of explanations of explanations... And I really wish to avoid doing that this way. >>> Biting the hand that feeds me, is an old saying, along the lines of The Wisdom of Crowds at work, which may or may not work in this case I'd say one should work on becoming self-sustainable, not to eat from someone's hands or lick someone's boots. >>> Why is that funny? I did not write words that say "claim your thoughts," or "know them." It not only funny - it's hilarious. No matter how many time I say that my English is at the level of neanderthal and that I don't mean to suggest that I know what you think and don't put any intention to express that I in any way think that I know it - you continue to poke me with "you say that I think, while I do not" and blah-blah-blah. My skull is of a decent quality and I know better than to ram it into the stone wall, so would you please stop directing me at that wall? Red lettering here heavily. >>> Your words are not your claims, obviously, and measurably, so that is why I chose "your word," and that is why I did not say "your thoughts." Addressed above. >>> Again, here is a case in point, I did not write, in words, that "I can read your mind..." No case present. Specifically for that I used the word 'whatnot'. This word shatters specificity of the sentence - much to my desire to do so. That means that any word used there can be substituted with a certain synonym. You constantly complain about me misinterpreting what you say and whatnot, about me putting words in your mouth and whatnot. Yet me stating VERY CLEARLY that I DON'T DO ANY OF THAT is not enough to balance things out. And after 69 mentions about how terrible my English is I refuse to listen to same broken vinyl yet again. My wording in English is not going to improve just like that, though I appreciate the effort to make it better. Maybe the reason is that I'm no longer in line with the language design flaws (both intentional and unforeseen). >>> Your words, your words, your words, often inspire in me the idea that you think you know what I think, in this case your words appear to suggest to me that you think that I feel as if you can read my mind, and that is opposite of what I actually think. Case in point. Now can we get to an actual discussion? >>> How do you convey accurate meaning if not with words? It's ignorant to say/think/assume/whatever that words is the best/only/whatever way of communication. And - _NO_ - not in any way/shape/form/whatever do I indicate/say/suggest/whatever that you say/think/assume/whatever that words is the best/only/whatever way of communication. Now - doesn't it feel disgusting to read this kind of explaining sentence between every other. And - believe me - I can make them even more crunchy. That would make a wonderful reading experience now, wouldn't it? Everything is articulated in the most boring unmemorable way so one has a hard time nitpicking every single word. Again - in no way/shape/form/whatever do I indicate/say/suggest/whatever that you are nitpicking my every single word. Someone kill me, please... I personally am incapable to convey an accurate meaning of any worthwhile complexity in any way. So I adjust for that fact and deal with it. Instead of getting stuck on it - I account for it and move forward. And for the last time - I do not suggest that you do stuck on it, no matter whether you think/say/whatever I do or not. >>> I am not guilty, I know I am not guilty, so that is a case in point. You're not guilty. Here, here... Now back on track - no case present. Addressed above. >>> I am guilty of failing to find the right word choices. If you're guilty of anything - then it's getting a tad bit overly meticulous and expecting the same from me. But then again - what do I know... >>> Those words suggest to me that someone, somewhere, is guilty of feeling as if someone can read someone's mind, and that is certainly a false claim, but I don't feel that I can read someone's mind, so I am not guilty as charged in those words aimed at me. Pretty much your whole reply consists of what I marked under 'when you feel that I say that I can read your mind and whatnot'. I don't feel the need to specify exactly - hence the 'whatnot'. I told ya that my English doesn't work, didn't I? Now let's get over it already, we've spent 69 times more time on face-palming over this trivial matter that it's worth. Just know that I never in any way pretend/say/suggest/whatever that I have an accurate grasp on what you tell me including assessment of you thinking/whatever, no matter what my writing may appear to suggest. When it comes to important bits - I DO NOT use red lettering - I just flat out TELL IT. And if my mood wasn't as good as it was - I wouldn't go through the mind pain to say all this stuff yet again and now in such a great undeserving detail. It's like a toilet plunger encrusted with diamonds. For my sanity's sake, let's not do this ever again (at least until one of us actually learns telepathy).
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jun 9th, 2013 06:39 pm |
|
9th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
"It's a binary logic assumption that this statement as opposition to something." Sergey, Here is more of the examples that appear to be a case of words failing to arrive from you to me without the words indicating that you are projecting or transferring what you do onto me, and I am wondering who is the target of your projections, since I am not guilty as charged. I do not see the point in changing the actual words into something other than the actual words, as your words appear to be doing, as if there is something, it is there, and instead of it being what it is, you switch what it is into something it is not, or as if your words intend to make the measure of it more accurate, and instead of actually accomplishing that goal, the opposite is the result of your word choices. I do not, as far as I can tell, suffer from, or am guilty of, this "binary logic assumption" process, and instead what I am accomplishing with words, which is a process, is a record of your words being what your words are, in fact, and reporting, accurately, what your words inspire in me, in fact, and the report goes on to report that your words appear to create one thing, and my thoughts are not that one thing, so there are now two things where there is, in fact, my thoughts. 1. Your words stating my thoughts as far as I can tell. 2. My actual thoughts. 1 is what it is. 2 is what it is. 1 is opposite 2. This happens again as your words are "binary logic assumption," and my thoughts are what my thoughts are, and my word choices intend to report those thoughts to you, intact, and your words are not indications that can confirm to me that my word choices accomplish the goal intended, since your word choices appear to me to indicate the opposite has resulted from the exchange. My intention was to convey my thoughts concerning how your words appear to report to me, at best, that my word choices fail to accomplish the intended goal. Your reply, in this case, as far as I can tell, creates something that is not what actually happened, so your words, as far as I can tell, are unrelated to what happened, unrelated to my thoughts, and of some inventive construction on your part. 1. Me intending to convey my thoughts, but me again reading your words and finding a message that indicates that my goal was not reached. 2. "binary logic assumption" 1 is not 2. 1 is 1. 2 is 2. If you have some other subject in mind, other than my intending to convey my thoughts, but me again reading yoru words and finding a message that indicates that my goal was not reached, then that is another subject, not the subject that concerns my intention of conveying my thoughts intact, and finding words that indicate to me that my goal has not be reached. If your goal is to speak about "binary logic assumption," then that subject can replace the subject of my intention being to convey to you words that express my thoughts, where your words return to me whereby your words indicate to me that my goal is not realized. "How exactly me stating that math is not a pre-existing idea says something about what you think/say/feel in actuality or the way I perceive it?" To me your saying that math is not a pre-existing idea can be compared to me saying to you that the staring at the Sun for hours at a time is probably not a good idea, or me saying to you that breathing is a good idea, and I don't know if my goal of trying to convey the intended message will be reached, and if past experience is any measure of future probability, then it is not likely that my goal will be reached. "It's a binary logic assumption that this statement as opposition to something." It is my thoughts, and the words "binary logic assumption" is your measure of my thoughts, apparently, if I understand the message contained within the words you choose. If I do not understand the message in the words you choose, then that failure, to me, confirms the accurate identification of a problem concerning the failure that repeats as the intention may be to convey thoughts accurately. We can test to see if we can actually communicate, and how could we know when that goal has been reached? I find, repeatedly, that the goal of communicating accurately fails often. I base my measure of failure to communicate often on the fact that the messages I read, in the word choices you choose, are opposite, or unrelated, to the thoughts that are my thoughts, as your words target me, or account to me, thoughts that are not my thoughts, as far as the message I get in the words you choose. "And by the way - this is partially due to a reason of English being as it is - designed along the lines of what I told about language control." My thoughts, perhaps not your thoughts, are such that the above sentence is my thoughts, which is a stark contrast to evidence that suggests to me that your words are opposite, or unrelated, to my thoughts. 1. Examples of your words indicating that your viewpoint of my thoughts is opposite my thoughts, of which there are now many examples that can be listed. 2. Examples of your words indicating, to me, that your viewpoint of my thoughts are unrelated to my thoughts, again many examples can be listed. 3. The example quoted above, where your words suggest to me that your thoughts are much like my thoughts, or are in agreement with my thoughts, as I would arrange those words in much the same way as you arrange those words that exemplify this condition of agreement. "So, hopefully, I've made this whole 'me reading your thoughts' shebang somewhat clearer." I do not think, or feel, the things your words appear to claim that I think or feel, and that is clear enough with, or without your help. So it is trivial as compared to music. It's not trivial on it's own, but neither is it sophisticated. To me that is helpful, as those arrangements of English symbols agrees with my understanding of how those that you call parasites (Kazarian Parasites?) cause their victims to be powerless and one measure of that powerless condition is a low frequency or base functioning of the brain, on a low level, and therefore the maintenance of control requires that those who are in control speak at that low frequency, so as convey messages (demands, orders, directives, whatever) accurately. Those who manage to regain power, regain control, are those who access higher frequency, or higher brain function, or whatever arrangement of English symbols work best to label the actual fact that some people are rendered powerless to communicate more accurately, and other people are more powerfully able to communicate accurately. A. Closer to mind reading. B. Not so close to mind reading. There may not be two levels, precisely, or only two levels, but on one end of a scale is an example of a very weak, very confused, very difficult to use tool, or language, and on the other end of the scale is a more ideal form of Language. English in it's present condition is here, for example, and geometry is over here on the scale of tools that can be use by those who can use one, or the other, or both, and I am not saying that there are no other, no more than 2, tools in the tool shed, and I say that because I am trying to communicate words that may help avoid your words appearing to claim that I am guilty of some thing that may be labeled as "binary logic assumption"or who knows what else your words may claim that I am guilty of such things. Sure, you may not, if you condition yourself not to as willfully as this statement seem to indicate. The statement in question is what it is, and your word choices above appear to reinforce the concept of failure on my part to convey accurate meaning with words. Typical example of confusion between virtues and vices. The statement in question was an actual message told to me by someone who was lying at the time, as far as I could tell, but the point here was to point out that the person doing the speaking, to me, at that time, in that place, was someone who may have reached the point at which he convinced himself that he was telling the truth, despite the obvious measure that what he was saying was a lie. He was not, in fact, intending to do anyone any favors, as he was, in fact, intending to steal things from the targeted victim. I'd say one should work on becoming self-sustainable, not to eat from someone's hands or lick someone's boots. I find agreement in those words, but those words are difficult for me to connect to the words quoted before those words, as if those words and the words before it are unrelated. The concept of biting the hand that feeds it was a reference to someone asking for help, which is something I am doing in this case, and then the source of the help is punished for the apparent crime of helping, and again there is an old (or not so old) saying that applies in this case as the saying goes: no good deed goes unpunished. I don't know if your words of what a person should do is connected, or relevant to, the concept of my too often asking for help, and then my too often response that can be seen as punishment for the deed of helping me. I know that I am helped, often, and if I want more help, it seems to me, that punishing those who help me is not a good way to increase help from those who I punish as if my goal is opposite my words. If you can help me, for example, it could be done in such a way as to show me how my words end up becoming me feeling as if I can read your mind, which is anything but my actual thoughts, as far as I know. In other words if I am so completely fooled, so completely powerless, so completely self deceptive, as to fail to know my own feeling, and I fail to know my own thoughts, then having someone be able to show me these failings would be exactly the type of help that I need, rather than any help I may think, or feel, I need, since my condition of utter failing to even know what I feel, or know what I think, reasonably precludes me knowing what is help, and what is not help, to me. If I am so far gone as to be like the person who told me that they were helping the person they were stealing from, if that is my actual condition, then I may actually be beyond help. The case in point, again, is the case where your words indicate that I feel as if I can read your mind, and as far as I know my own thoughts and my own feelings, that is simply not true. If it is true, then I may be beyond hope, or help, which to me is a measure of powerlessness. "My skull is of a decent quality and I know better than to ram it into the stone wall, so would you please stop directing me at that wall? Red lettering here heavily." I could, at this point, self-censure, and delete the words I've already arranged before that last quote, for reasons that may be understood I won't. My wording in English is not going to improve just like that, though I appreciate the effort to make it better. Your persistence in helping me when I ask for help, despite what can be measured as me "biting the hand that feeds me," or me exemplifying "no good deed goes unpunished," your persistence despite all that "flak," proves to me that you do appreciate the help, and so your words above are agreeable arrangements of English once again, as far I my feelings (vibrations?) and my thoughts are concerned. Maybe the reason is that I'm no longer in line with the language design flaws (both intentional and unforeseen). Those words focus my attention back to the actual subject matter of specific things that can be known about specific languages, and your earlier words which compared language, math, and music, add to my measure of your help in this matter. The amount of information can be either confusing or the amount of information can be helpfully arranged and that last sentence is helpful in my view, thanks. Here are my words: >>> How do you convey accurate meaning if not with words? After you quoted those words I read your words in reply to those words, and I did not find an answer to the question. While reading your words after the question I did think, and feel, as if the answer was music. Now I think and feel that you may find use in my feelings and thoughts that concern my inventions of music, whereby I play music, and English words appear to be spoken from those inventions of music. I can report to you a particular song, a song I can't report to you without actually performing, recording, and then having sounds reported to you where you can then listen to those sounds. I could then describe to you that this song was a song I invented while I was helping my mother while she was dying. It took her awhile to die of lack of oxygen, so I spent a lot of time playing my guitar during that time. This particular arrangement of sounds, a song, had no words to it, not until my mother died, and now the words, or some of the words, appear to find their way to my mind from my ears, so to speak. I don't know if that answers my question, with your help. My question: >>> How do you convey accurate meaning if not with words? I don't know how to convey the feelings, thoughts, meanings of the music I arranged, with English, and I don't think that the music, the song, will be in any way understood by you, other than sounds you hear that you may find to be this or that, sounds, pleasant, or disturbing, I don't know. I've invented an illustration of my present feelings, and thoughts, on language concerning a road where vehicles normally drive fast over a blind hill followed by a bridge, and the bridge is suddenly destroyed, so the person finding the destroyed bridge is thinking about making a sign to place on the road before the blind hill. I have offered that illustration previously, and I've included a real time story about that illustration, where a person videotapes a car passing by as the car passing drives off a road where an earthquake in San Francisco had destroyed the road, and there were people in the car who die. Anyway, the question can be seen in that context. I don't know >>> How do you convey accurate meaning if not with words? I don't know the answer fully, as if there is this best way, and no other way is better, but in the case of a sign I think a Stop sign or a Warning sign, or a barrier placed on the road before the hill with a message that intends to serve to avoid drivers driving over the cliff can be specifically tailored to fit that situation. It's like a toilet plunger encrusted with diamonds. For my sanity's sake, let's not do this ever again (at least until one of us actually learns telepathy). In context of my current thoughts and feeling, whereupon I sought to get your help, and you help me, and I can say thanks. In that context: The language spoken by the host, the same host that the parasites are destroying, is relatively powerless for the host, while it is relatively powerful for the parasites, but the power is destructive, so, what can the host do if the idea is to gain productive power? How can language be improved in such a way to move closer toward telepathy? If you can offer an general answer, with few words, that is fine with me, like help added to help. Thanks.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 10th, 2013 10:32 am |
|
10th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
You know that word - anguish? That is what my mind feels after another dose of "your words stating my thoughts as far as I can tell". I've already said all I'm going to say about that. So there is a favor I have to ask from you as my friend. If you from this point forth in any reply directed at me while composing it will have an incentive in any way to write these or similar words - please do not. Words are always secondary to the meaning the are supposed to convey. Thus I give you my word that in no circumstance did I or will I mean to state/suggest/indicate/project/whatever your actual thoughts. Consider that my native laguage is context-free. Maybe that will help to get over this. In any case - I am not going to reflect upon these "your words stating my thoughts as far as I can tell" and alikes any longer. >>> Kazarian Parasites? What is the nature of the question? >>> "binary logic assumption" That is pretty much how it sounds like when we get rid of irrelevant surrounding upholstery such alleged words that supposedly appear to claim something. Binary logic assumption = conditioning of an individual or a group of individuals as result of binary logic implementation. Do you recal and old rule? - People are stupid - they will believe any lie if they want to believe it or if they are afraid that might be true. The typical problem with this that there is no reverse rule to easily detect this being applied in any given case. Rings true? And it also contains a safety measure from being broken. Yet as long we stop viewing the situation from a binary logic perspective - the whole thing immediately falls apart. But you try that trula on any of your acquintances - you'll see aforementioned conditioning with your naked eye. That is a binary logic assumption at it's most obvious. I think this information should be enough for you to pick up what I meant initially. >>> The statement in question was an actual message told to me by someone who was lying at the time, as far as I could tell, but the point here was to point out that the person doing the speaking, to me, at that time, in that place, was someone who may have reached the point at which he convinced himself that he was telling the truth, despite the obvious measure that what he was saying was a lie. He was not, in fact, intending to do anyone any favors, as he was, in fact, intending to steal things from the targeted victim. I didn't doubt it, did I? Yet my words stand tall and true - typical example of confusion of virtues and vices. Lack of knowledge or false knowledge if you prefer is one way to name the cause. >>> I find agreement in those words, but those words are difficult for me to connect to the words quoted before those words, as if those words and the words before it are unrelated. Relation is indirect. >>> The concept of biting the hand that feeds it was a reference to someone asking for help, which is something I am doing in this case, and then the source of the help is punished for the apparent crime of helping, and again there is an old (or not so old) saying that applies in this case as the saying goes: no good deed goes unpunished. This last saying is stupid in terms of general meaning. Because it confuses. Actuality goes as following: No good deed goes unrewarded. No bad deed goes unpunished. >>> I don't know if your words of what a person should do is connected, or relevant to, the concept of my too often asking for help, and then my too often response that can be seen as punishment for the deed of helping me. There is nothing wrong in asking for help when one feels that his own power is not enough to get through some problem in a relatively appropriate time. 'Helping' is a relative term I think as well. As noted by you above - person can convince himself that doing what he does 'helps' while actually it isn't. Same goes for any approach relevant to this relative term. >>> The case in point, again, is the case where your words indicate that I feel as if I can read your mind, and as far as I know my own thoughts and my own feelings, that is simply not true. No case present. I'm sure that you are not able to read my mind. And never stated anything like that. I did use 'read mind' in relation to your constant remarks upon my words indicating that apparently I (or my words or whatever) claim to know what you think and blah-blah-blah as if I was able to read your mind. Not the other way around. Just a little clarification. Not diving into that cesspool of a topic. >>> I could, at this point, self-censure, and delete the words I've already arranged before that last quote, for reasons that may be understood I won't. Well, there's one difference between us. I would self-censure in such a matter. But anyway. >>> feelings (vibrations?) Elaborate. >>> Now I think and feel that you may find use in my feelings and thoughts that concern my inventions of music, whereby I play music, and English words appear to be spoken from those inventions of music. From I gather - this is not what I need. But it was interesting to find out about your attitude towards music. This song you speak of would not of much use to me right now, as I'm still far from enough knowledgeable on the subject to be able to analyze it's effect. What I would 'feel' about it is of miniscule importance in this case if I'm unable to narrow the specifics, and I yet lack that ability. I understand that this reply is vague, but it's all I've got cooked up at the moment. Thank you for your generous offer regardless. As for the question of conveying information. Here's a little abstract. Tow people working/doing something together. It's a hobby or it's a job or whatever is not important. They do the something (as part of something bigger or not) one together. They absolutely require communication seeing as both are convinced perfectionists. Thus they speak. Nothing is perfect and it frustrates them, but they both are convinced perfectionists and there is non other to help them in what they do, and neither they would ask for someone else. Their communication develop into some sort of slang. Words are shortened, cause they are used to hearing them or those are the common words both of them use in a similar fashion. In time they only need to indicate a word - and a partner already understands what need to be done. What they are doing is dynamic, it's not the same repetition the same way over and over. Their skills increase. Soon there is not longer a need for verbal language - body language is enough, even though it may seem dull in comparison. They may not consciously understand it, but now information they communicate is no longer limited to their hearing and visual sensory input. Every bit of information has intended taste and smell and feel. No longer conditioned, tied down by the context of a verbal language information runs much more efficiently. One parthner needs only to look into the eyes of another and he/she already understands what had just been communicated. And that is the end of this abstract. >>> what can the host do if the idea is to gain productive power? What the host should do anyway - learn about this. Knowledge is the power in a sense that awareness provides both shelter and control. If one is aware of conditioning, mental blocks placed on him - he's likely to eventually get rid of them, even if for non-conformity's sake. Somewhat other way would be to change one's thinking into a more consistent language. Meaning changing the language you think on. At least in terms of thoughts that quickly formulate into words. >>> How can language be improved in such a way to move closer toward telepathy? Telepathy requires potential (which is essentially one's entity's bodies). Higher the level of convergence of matter types in one's entity - higher the potential. And of course progressing to said levels of converged matter types grants awareness related to them. And subsequently - the transfer of information this way - telepathy. So any cange in language should first get rid of flaws created for the language control. And then improvement should come naturally, as long as other areas related to psyche affection are not under social parasites' control. That is as general answer (containing something of substance) as I can manage I think.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 10th, 2013 02:14 pm |
|
11th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Sergey, Have you ever heard about The Kazarian Parasites? I look for people who offer defensive remedies against attacks by Criminals with Badges, and I found this: Ucadia In those Episodes (recorded phone calls) the person Frank O'Collins identifies a group of people he calls The Kazarian Parasites, and he says that this group is the most powerful people currently causing the most harm, and he says that the people in that group are insane. It occurs to me that you use the word parasites and so I am now wondering if your use of the word is merely a general term or is it a term that is more specific to a specific group of people who have been labeled as Kazarian Parasites? Kazars In my effort to look for more information on Kazarian Parasites I found that link, and if this is of no interest to you, then I can request that you do not waste any of your time on it, on my behalf. The typical problem with this that there is no reverse rule to easily detect this being applied in any given case. Rings true? I call that Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question, so my answer is yes, that rings true. Lack of knowledge or false knowledge if you prefer is one way to name the cause. In the particular experience reported, while I was there, and as I think of it now, that person was, at that moment, destroying his capacity to separate accurate measure from false measure, and he wanted me to help him reach that goal, or he wanted company on his path to reach that goal, and he was not going to listen to me speak about any progress away from that goal, he wanted to reach that goal, and no amount of effort on my part, it seems to me, would work to deter him from reaching that goal, where his goal was to destroy his capacity to accurately measure life as it exists. Elaborate. My words were questioning, or intending to be a request for help, as it is my condition to be infected with a non-productive language, and therefore I work to reach the goal of replacing the non-productive language with a productive language, and so I need help in finding better words, such as "feeling" being less that useful, while "vibrations" may be better that "feelings" when reaching for the goal of accurate communication without error. I don't want to feel as if you are helping me, for example, I'd prefer that I know that you are helping me, and how can I reach the goal, how would I know if you are helping me, when my feelings may be the source of error? What is the origin of feelings? What is the origin of vibrations? If I ask a question, I am at a point where I don't feel as if my viewpoint is ringing true, so I seek the answers that ring true, or feel true, and one question is, how will I know if the frequency is ringing true? How do I know if the answer is accurate? Is feeling inaccurate compared to some other perception that is more accurate when answering the question? Question: How do I know the difference between accurate perception and inaccurate perception? 1. Feel it, it feels like the accurate answer, and the inaccurate answer feels like the inaccurate answer. 2. Know vibrations, vibrations indicate the perception of accurate answers to the question, and vibrations indicate the perception of inaccurate answers to the question. If I open a door and I see an injured person on the floor in a room ahead, and I ask myself the question, can I help? If the answer is yes, but I feel scared, and I feel vibrations that I perceive as a warning, then I may recall information taught to me, told to me, communicated to me, that was information that was ringing true to me, and is ringing true to me now, whereby it may be an accurate answer to say yes, I can help, but only if I do not become injured by the same cause if injury that injured the person who is injured in the room ahead, so don't rush in to help if doing so merely piles another injured body onto the same pile of injured bodies. And that is the end of this abstract. Can one person communicate an abstract thought without words, and how will the other one confirm that the abstract thought was accurately communicated without words, or do I fail to understand the meaning of the word abstract when abstract is a word? I understand how teamwork works, and how members of a team become aware of how the other members work, but that is specific to work being performed, including work that involves random variables, or non-routine actions, so that the members of the team are required to adapt, and one member who adapts to random variables can be communicated accurately to other members of the team, specifically relevant to the action of adapting to an unexpected occurrence, as well as a communication that is specific to the ability to adapt generally, such as any actions that improve awareness, so as to recognize the need to adapt. Abstract, in that way, is the accurate measure of the existence of random variables, and the ability to adapt to random variables, but at some point, it seems to me, the ability to communicate abstract thoughts is comparable to the ability to communicate creativity. Individuals communicate to individuals in individual time and individual place and the individual thing being communicated travels from the sender to the receiver through a medium of exchange, so a random, or abstract, is sent by the origin, or the sender, and that abstract, or random thought, is received by the receiver, through the medium of exchange. What is the source, the origin, of an abstract thought, or a random thought, and since there are two words, not one word, there will be individual answers for those two questions, since it is not one, individual question, it is two. 1. What is the source of any specific, individual, abstract thought? 2. What is the source of any specific, individual, random thought? If the individual abstract thought is accurately identified from the source of it, can it be called a random thought too, the same abstract thought, from the same source, and it is one thing, or one process in time and place, a origin, a before, a during, and an after, in which the abstract thought became that abstract thought, from that origin. It is what it is, when it happens, the way it happens, at the source of it, when it happens, where it happens, so the name of it is merely attached to it, to accurately identify it as being it. An abstract thought = it. Examples of abstract thoughts include your offering of an abstract thought? This: And that is the end of this abstract. That, which occurred, and ended, can that, can it, be called a random thought? Is there a better example of a random thought, if the accurate answer is no? So any cange in language should first get rid of flaws created for the language control. And then improvement should come naturally, as long as other areas related to psyche affection are not under social parasites' control. Specific flaws, once specified, are steps along the path leading to that goal. Example: Yes, directing language to a binary logic use is a common example of attempt on language control. When subjects viewed 'as opposed to' or adverbs 'colored' by comparison to the opposite. Idea behind this is to limit choice to 'yes/no'. People get used to thinking in these conditioned categories and then their thought-process is put under more stress with direct confusion between the opposites. An example: Russian language has prefix "Без-" which means same as English suffix "-less". In the last century language got a government reform saying that "Без-" should be written (and read) as "Бес-". That last letter sound automatically becomes consonant (like if 'z' suddenly became 's') where applicable basically. And justifications for that were that "it's a natural linguistic transition to a better language" (made-up reason) and that "we read it as consonant anyways" (another made-up reason). So what it did actually? On the first glance - nothing. And naturally even native speaker wouldn't notice it consciously. But then... "Бес" in Russian means 'imp' or some evil demon of sorts. Even though consciously you can miss this connection - unconsciously it is made. So when someone say a word like "Бесчестный" (dishonest) subliminally you get "бес честный" (imp is honest). Or "Бесстрашный" (fearless) becomes 'imp is fearful'. You might think of it as a stretch, but it actually isn't. What it does is confuses a person of what is a virtue and what is a vice. And when a person has a moral pressure - person no longer has a firm stance - person was conditioned not to. Do you know if the basis of Western Music on 440 Hertz Frequency is willfully designed by specific people to gain control of the people who are adversely affected by that specific Frequency?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jun 11th, 2013 05:49 am |
|
12th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
>>> Have you ever heard about The Kazarian Parasites? ... It occurs to me that you use the word parasites and so I am now wondering if your use of the word is merely a general term or is it a term that is more specific to a specific group of people who have been labeled as Kazarian Parasites? The term - yes, I've heard it. I use the term social parasites as to distinguish them from biological parasites. A lot of thing mentioned there about Kazarian parasites fit the social parasites profile. Yet in my understanding the structure among social parasites is more complex. Because every criminal, without any direct connection to the group mentioned is also a social parasite. And those who pull string on said group are social parasites. It's not a structurally sound organization, because of a great deal of seemingly random elements. The control point about it possibility limitations and general directing in a suggestive manner. Otherwise independent entities do the rest of the work. Obviously these people are insane. I don't think that a rapist can be sane for example. That doesn't mean that all (or any) of them should be given a second chance though. Khazarian Kaganat same as ancient Persia (biblical reference) is a good example of what happens when fanatics are in control. That is in fact where social parasitism had it's main hold during the time. Yet Khazarian Kaganat was destroyed by Russian leader Svetoslav Horobre (Svetoslav means 'one who praises light (knowledge)' and Horobre means 'brave') to stop social parasititsm. And it did set them back, though not for long, unfortunately. I can elaborate on this subject in more detail if you want me to. >>> I don't want to feel as if you are helping me, for example, I'd prefer that I know that you are helping me, and how can I reach the goal, how would I know if you are helping me, when my feelings may be the source of error? Alright, I'll try to do some explaining. What is feeling? Feeling is a reaction to an outside stimuli. But it is also a reaction to an inside stimuli. So how exactly does that work. Do you feel pain when you hit your finger with a hammer instead of a nailhead? Do you feel pain when something unjust happens? Outside stimuli is information recieved through organs of sense. Inside stimuli is a reflection upon information we already have and we are trying to understand it by running it through ourselves. And after certain amount of that meticulous activity we can say that we know something about that information, meaning taking information and producing knowledge out of it. This knowledge is a building brick in a polygonal wall of our worldview. But before we know - we feel. What we feel is not necessarily what is seems from the start. An example: a woman giving birth feels pain. Yet in many cases pain is viewed as indication of something going wrong. Yet it is not necessarily true. So can we skip that step and get directly to knowledge? Hardly. So the source of error here is not the core feeling, it's more in the filter of information interpretation. Just thiking about it this way, being aware of it increases your ability to counteract it's effects. >>> If I ask a question, I am at a point where I don't feel as if my viewpoint is ringing true, so I seek the answers that ring true, or feel true, and one question is, how will I know if the frequency is ringing true? How to know if anything is true? Make a building block of it and if it fits the polygonal wall. True knowledge has a virtue of never contradicting both its reasons and its consequenses. True knowledge never creates axioms that create even more axioms. True knowledge eventually leads to a decrease in number of suppositions. And what you can't know quickly enough - you bear in mind until you do. That is how I do it at least. >>> I understand how teamwork works, and how members of a team become aware of how the other members work, but that is specific to work being performed, including work that involves random variables, or non-routine actions, so that the members of the team are required to adapt, and one member who adapts to random variables can be communicated accurately to other members of the team, specifically relevant to the action of adapting to an unexpected occurrence, as well as a communication that is specific to the ability to adapt generally, such as any actions that improve awareness, so as to recognize the need to adapt. Point is that communication in general can be applied to this abstract. This abstract was an example of answer to your question, nothing more. Meaning - if not with words - then ... Under abstract I understand lack of specifics for major details. Random though - is another matter entirely. Random for means irrational, rather than unfortunate/fortunate. And in this way random and abstract are incompatible in my example. >>> That, which occurred, and ended, can that, can it, be called a random thought? Not in this case. I was just literaturely remarking upon the boundary of the abstract designed to limit the nature of it strictly to its unspoken purpose. >>> Is there a better example of a random thought, if the accurate answer is no? Technically thoughts are not random. No invention was ever cenceptualised out of nothing. And random sucggest irrational choice to me. Maybe I'm not understanding your use of random? >>> Do you know if the basis of Western Music on 440 Hertz Frequency is willfully designed by specific people to gain control of the people who are adversely affected by that specific Frequency? No, I don't have that kind of knowledge yet to answer with plausibility, sorry.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jun 11th, 2013 01:22 pm |
|
13th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Sergey,What is feeling? Feeling is a reaction to an outside stimuli. I see an opportunity to suggest that here is a point of departure concerning the different meanings of the word feeling. I do not use the word feeling to mean a reaction to an outside stimuli, so your defining of terms is a good thing, in my view, because I can then work to avoid confusing your use of the word with my use of the word. This knowledge is a building brick in a polygonal wall of our worldview. Here is where the goal of me gaining help from you is becoming less likely to happen since the word "feeling" is already confusing and the term "polygonal wall" is expanding the possible meanings further and therefore adding to confusion. Here are 2 things that appear to help me: But it is also a reaction to an inside stimuli. Inside stimuli is a reflection upon information we already have and we are trying to understand it by running it through ourselves. Those arrangements of symbols appear to resonate, but the feeling of clarity, as if the word epiphany or the saying "a light bulb moment" is not an inside reaction occurring so much as those words appear to identify a process that appears to be describing what I try to label with the word feeling. To me there is a power at work whereby I can feel my way around in the dark, and I can access this power when I want to avoid destructive power and when I want to find productive power. When this power, this feeling, works, I find productive power. When this feeling does not work, I do not find productive power, and often is the case that destructive people find me, and I am on some measurable way destroyed by them. If I can access this feeling better, then I can completely avoid being destroyed by other people, and I can completely avoid destroying myself, and I can find more productive power as I find this feeling better and better. So your words resonate in that way, if not precisely that way because the goal of communicating to you precisely what I feel is difficult at best, none-the-less there is this feeling I get that your words, quoted, are words that I feel as if they are productive in that context of gaining productive power such as the power to communicate accurately. So the source of error here is not the core feeling, it's more in the filter of information interpretation. Just thiking about it this way, being aware of it increases your ability to counteract it's effects. To me there is a power that destroys, and having a power to recognize that power of destruction in any form, is a good thing, a good feeling, and what is done with that good felling, or what is done with that recognition of that power to destroy, in whatever form it may take, is done by that entity, person, human being, power of will, power of choice, and if it is me doing the choosing, then my choice is to defend against that power, which is best, to me, if it is entirely avoided. The example of a woman having bearing children is not workable to me as well as another example since I am not a woman, and pain is not the feeling I had in mind, more so the feeling I had in mind is to work toward the accurate identification of the source of feeling. External powers other than the individual power of will, or the self aware being, powers external to the self aware being, to me, are not the sources of feeling, and therefore not the idea I had in mind when I use the word feeling to reach the goal of accurate communication. Internal powers, or reactions, point more toward that origin of feeling that I intend to focus attention upon when I use the word feeling. The more I discuss these perceptions, with you, seeking the goal of accurately communicating with you, the more, at this time, I find my command of English to be powerless in reaching that goal. How to know if anything is true? Make a building block of it and if it fits the polygonal wall. True knowledge has a virtue of never contradicting both its reasons and its consequenses. True knowledge never creates axioms that create even more axioms. True knowledge eventually leads to a decrease in number of suppositions. And what you can't know quickly enough - you bear in mind until you do. That is how I do it at least. If I were to take the time to arrange all the words you write to me, the words I read, in order of least helpful to most helpful, then those words quoted above are words that I feel are words that can be moved far to the helpful measure and far from the less helpful measure for reasons that I can explain in greater detail. Those words fit. Those words agree. Those words answer questions. Example: I had little power in using the term polygonal wall before I read those words, and now that term fits, agrees with, and answers questions. Example: The words axioms that create even more axioms are words that fit the routine of deception, whereby one false communication generates the need to create more false communications in answer to questions that expose, or question, the first false communication. Those examples are not intending to be axioms, to me, those examples are intending to confirm why and where those words fit, and if they are axioms creating a need for more axioms, then that is evidence that fits the concept of me suffering self-deception, as far as I know. Random for means irrational, rather than unfortunate/fortunate. Random and abstract are words that label two things, not one, if I understand the context of these current words accurately, while the context of my combining those two words into one thing being labeled by those two words, in that context, is the concept of where those thoughts originate, random thoughts originate from here, as if to point in that direction and say that is where that random thought originates from, and then to point in the direction of an abstract thought, and then try to put a label on the originated source of that abstract thought. This is to me an example of an abstract thought, or random thought, whereby the origin of it is like a hard drive and the random access memory or RAM is pointing at the Hard Drive and finding the source of this abstract, or random, thought, gathering up stuff from that Hard Drive, and then assembling that stuff into something, for some reason. It would be irrational for the RAM to seek something from a memory card that is on the desk. It would be irrational for the operator of the computer to command the computer to pick up the memory card on the desk and place the memory card into the card reader connection on the computer. Where does the being in control of the power of will get the inspiration to do anything, anything random, anything abstract, anything irrational, or anything rational? Pointing to that source of inspiration was my intended message to be communicated accurately in those words above, and in words written previously, as if asking anyone, anywhere, to measure, quantify, know, understand, record, report, explain, that source being pointed at for that purpose of accurately identifying it. Maybe I'm not understanding your use of random? My abstract thinking, at this point, is such that random means not of specific control by an individual power of will. An example can be a goal of solving a particular problem, such as the invention of a way to attach a piece of wood to another piece of wood, and do so efficiently. A random thought might be a clear memory of an past event whereby that clear memory of a past event has no use in solving the wood problem, and therefore that random thought works against the willful goal of solving the problem. If the will power is regained, then the random thought is discarded, and the power of will returns to complete the goal efficiently; yet the problem persists, so the power of will is used to find the solution. The solution may be in the hard drive, or the solution may be on the memory stick on the table, or the solution may be in the tool box in the garage, and the will power is then directed, controlled to focus that power upon that solution. Where can I find that power of will that is inspired to focus that power of will upon that solution, and if random thoughts are allowed, by that power of will, can there be a better solution to that problem, and where does that better solution come from, where is the origin of that better solution when that better solution is found where that better solution is found at the source of it? If it is not in the hard drive, not in the RAM, not in the memory stick, not in the tool box, yet is is found, then where is the origin of it, the solution, once it is found, and there will be a connecting medium, at the exact point at which there is no solution found, and then there is a solution found, so reasonably, that connecting medium connects the finder with the thing found, or is that irrational, and unreasonable? I can try tuning my guitar based upon 440 Hertz and I can try tuning it at other frequencies and in that way I can test to see which is which in which ways.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 12th, 2013 06:56 am |
|
14th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
Polygonal wall: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YSVUDNoeNJQ/UbA5qYTWnJI/AAAAAAAADSM/x31HWOcnTNU/s1600/31060_original.jpg So let's not delve into how and why that could be constructed right now. Important part is what it is - an extremely sturdy construction, actually the most sturdy type of wall that exists (apart from complete monolith). Thing is that every block in that kind of wall is unique in a way that it cannot be produced as a series, every single block has its own unique place and purpose and other block can't fit into that place or purpose. So that's the analogy I was pushing through. About 'random' and 'abstract' The way I see it - abstract reflects reflects a thought which purpose and origin are not yet understood or to some extent hidden. While random reflects a thought which purpose is only in being random, nothing else. And I seriously doubt that this view of random as a concept allows to name any thought as random. At least - that is what I immediately associate the meaning of the word 'random'. That maybe confusing, I need to work on that. About origin of an actual solution. Problems the way we as being see them - are manifestations of... how do I put it... details stuck inside the mechanism. If goal is indeed convergence, then solutions come from realizing how to approach that overarching goal. Even on minor scale - it unification which is the general idea of solving any problem. And of course at any point there is the most efficient solution given the amount of power in our possession. Oh, darn, this is too vague. I'll get back to you on this. Probably.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jun 16th, 2013 12:24 pm |
|
15th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
All things are relative to my current power to exist in this form, time, and place.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 17th, 2013 08:37 am |
|
16th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
Now that is a vague sentense. I feel obligated to say something. So I'm going to give a piece of mind, that may seem irrelevant. People here on Midgard prodly name themselves "Homo sapiens", which means like sapient/reasonable/sensible/intelligent human being. Yet this should be inexorably corrected. Humans are only potentially sapient/etc.. Whether they become such or not - is another matter. And, looking around us, we can notice that those who did become sapient/etc. are in a significant minority. There are very smart, just smart, stupid and very stupid, ignorant and plain imbeciles; overall - everyone is different. Question: Why is human called sapient/etc. and not something less pretentious? Quite simple - only human can be truly sapient/etc. (with certain restrictions to be sure), but both animals and humans can be smart. Only person who seeks self-development, walks the path of light (meaning evolving himself) can become sapient/etc.. That is a difficult path, but who says that going uphill or up the ladder or whatnot isn't? And those who follow a principle of "the less you know - the tighter you sleep" of course take the easy way (going down is certaily easier and supposedly more "fun"), often not realizing that this way leads to degradation. So that person can become smart, but never sapient/etc. by definition, since the objective laws of nature. On the way to become sapient/etc. one should develop and follow moral values (consequences of knowledge), because knowledge itself, however true - is just a barebone of a system, in itself not enough to become sapient/etc.. Moral values such as these (do include but are not limited to): Be scrupulous Be fair Be principled Be competent Be literate Be patriot Be selfless Be polite Be modest Be patient Be magnanimous Be kind Be responsive Be good Never betray Never lie Never curse Never be rude Don't be cruel Don't be apathetic Don't consume alcohol Don't smoke Don't consume drugs Don't believe in religions Don't trust parasites Don't flatter yourself Don't be lazy Don't hurry "And also you have to be able to see the difference and thus strife for undesrstanding of information that enters your mind. Only information that is understood can become Knowledge, and only carrier of Knowledge can become sapient person, one who understands the laws of nature, from which he came, and ralezes the responsibility for his every action..." excerpt from one specific Code of Honor. However smart a person is - without following through with moral values no one can become sapient/etc. No amount of scientific degrees can move one closer to it. Without enlightenment by knowledge even geniuses can be evil, but never sapient/etc.. That is the law of nature and it's not going to change, even for a huge sum of money. So if a person chooses the way towards sapience, there ppears immediate and inevitable need to find answers to fundametal questions such as: How does our world works? How does it develop? Which laws does it follow? What is my place and purpose in it? To get any answers to these questions one should study (and/or develop on his own) many teachings and then choose one teaching or theory, which could in non contradictory form explain all processes happening in our world based on actual laes of nature. And of course it is imperative to study these laws themselves. There are some good bsic principles to profess while doing so: - Definitions (common language, being on the same page). Providing everything with explicit definitions, leaving no room for secondary meanings. - Following the rule of complexity: from simple towards complicated. Without understanding of the basics one shouldn't opt for the high-end level results. Meaning that one shouldn't try to jump over steppes of understanding. - Do not confuse cause and effect connections: always keep an eye on sources and consequences to never confuse them and thus compromise everything. Having all of the above one can start learing the "alphabet". When we talk about real laws of nature we should have a firm grasp on: what is reality? "Reality (supposedly from late latin 'realis') - something that actually exists; there is objective reality (or material world in every form and appearance), which is independent from human consciousness, and subjective reality, which is basically the sum of images and states of consciousness..." Little clarification - rality for us is everything that exists around and inside us, while one of borderline types of subjective reality is virtual reality (reality created with technological devices). And all of that is a reality with which we interact constantly. Many people today close their ways towards devvelopment by living more in subjective reality. While you can only develop living and breathing in objective reality. Question: how does the rule of complexity apply here? Hence the actual laws of nature (which no one can change, you can only accept them as they are) are formed on the levels of macro- and microworlds in "objective reality" - it is consistent and logical to start there. So in our first stage "objective reality" is the subject of our studies. Reality, which is independent from our consciousness. So let's analyze different points of view, each of which pretends to be true, on the example of a question of how our world came to be and how it develops. Let's try and find something which would non-contradictory and objectively explain our world's occurence and processes in it. Ever y person chooses for himself what to accept, not necessarily having any actual traction with objective reality. So... All religions state: everything that exists is created by "God". Most esoteric teachings do the same, though with minor differences: "God" has much more fancy names there - "World's Mind", "Absolut" etc.. So how reliable is this information? To not create a huge tractatus and analyze every last one of them (you can do it on your own) let's take a look at same old so-called "Old Testament" as one of the most popular books, which has a chapter describing creation of the world in six days. Little clarification: it has been expressly stated many times that this book is in no way a fiction and that every world belong the "the God" and so any change or interpretation of this text is inexcusable. It takes a completely ignorant person to take this for granted. Person that wouldn't know that sun and moon are not the same, person that would believe that "God" could have actually "fixed" those along the stars in the solid skies. A question arises: who or what is "God", who could could do something like this? And there is no definitive answer. Some say that "God" is such a being that is perfect, nothing can be more perfect or higher than him (yet if it's a being - then it's material, isn't it?). Revelation tells us that "God" is pure Spirit, not connected to any body thus his nature is completely immaterial (so what is Spirit then?). Others sa that "God" - is everything around us! "God" - is light, love, happiness! In schools they teach children that "God" - is the highest subject of religious beliefs, supernatural being with exceptional qualities and powers. And such perfect and supernatural being as "God" assures us that Earth was created on the first day of creation but sun, moon and stars - on fourth, etc.? Bedtime stories for children. Even very young children today know that there is big difference between Earth, Moon and Sun. And no priest can deny it (and they don't even try). Then what - cild from kindergarden know more that "wise" priests who continue to say that creation was done exactly as it is written in the "Bible"? Ludicrous! Since there is no even approximate definition of who or what is "God" - everything that is based on this vague term is irrational in its core and cannot be real. And those people who fail to discover this - form religious worldview based not on knowledge, but on blind faith in what priests say - servants of the church, who think themselves to be higher than their "God" , because they allow themselves to interpret "His" words as they see fit - meaning changing the meaning of the "Bible"'s text, when it suit their purposes. Which means that they simply lie, not only to the people but to their own "God" as well. For instance: in medieval ages those who questions the "Biblical fact" that Earth is the center of the universe could be easily burnt alive because of that. And it was called justice, mind you. And now it came to things like priests "blessing" rockets-carriers which are being sent into orbit. Ridiculous! For information: blessing of rockets in Russia takes 170k roubles (5.7k usd) from the budget per launch!!! As they say - nothing personal - just good business. Doesn't stop rockets from failing. Yet before all that you could faind the problem and fine someone or do something. Now there is a great excuse - "God". You can't fine or punish "God". Interesting fact: the only submarine blessed by Russian Orthodox Church was "Kursk". Rings any bells? This is no longer ridiculous - it's retarded. Question: can you, after analyzing "Bible"'s information about creation of the world, state that it is true, consistent with objective reality, and that it explains how world works? I think not, though every person makes his own conclusions. Modern science has accumulated a stockpile of information about physically dense matter which is by their own account at most consists of 10% of world's matter. Yet they are clueless about the other 90%+, which they call "dark matter". And this is the reason behind their inability to create non-contradictory picture of the world - it's is lack of knowledge and information about it. Yet with their sheer authority they force their "10% assumption" views upon the world like if it was an absolute truth. And those, who defy their version, are being branded "pseudo-scientists", all works and projects and experiments of those defiant people are branded "pseudo-science". And consequences follow. So how official science explains the creation of the world? Most popular theory is a standard model "Big Bang", based on "singularity" - so-called state of infinite density at the moment of "Big Bang". This model explains everything that happened after that zero point so the most agonizing question for its followers is whether there was anything before that moment. If we view singularity ans the starting point there is always a question of what was before that point? Since there is no reliable answer to that question it is considered inappropriate to even ask it. In this case to answer "What was before there was nothing?" they say "God knows". Comedy continues. For information: 22nd of November 1951 Pope stated that "Big Bang" theory doesn't contradict catholic views on the creation of the world. Orthodox Church also professes a positive attitude to this theory. Conservative protestant christians also welcomed the theory as one supporting historical interpretation of the ctreation of the world. Some muslims started to say that Koran (Quran) has mentions of "Big Bang". What a unanimity! Seeing that one can understand why Russian Orthodox Church opens religious lecterns in technologicla universities. They're on the same terms on the matter of creation and their views are probably mutual in other subjects as well. Modern science has many different hypotheses about creation and all of them are (more or less) based on real facts. Yet because of lack of understanding of "dark matter" their conclusions do not reflect objective reality creating false assumptions. Let's take a look upon another "scientific" hypothesis - theory of "physical vaccum". Acoording to this reality consists of three planes: rough reality, thin reality and plane of higher reality. This last one has three levels: Absolute "Nothing", primordial vacuum and (just) vacuum. Let's analyze these last three. "After Absolute "Nothing" - Creator - created levels of primordial vacuum and vacuum, primordial vacuum gives birth to thinmaterial plane, represented by primordial torsionic fields... Presence of primordial torsionic fields makes vacuum structure unstable, resulting in creation from vacuum elementary particles - simplest representations of roughmaterial plane. This plave consists of all types of matter which have an energy. Here you can distinguish 4 levels of reality: solid body, liquid, gas and elementary particles..." Question: what is Absolute "Nothing". It cleraly states that it is Creator ("God"), from which everything came about. thus everything else is secondary to that. Factually it is based on belief in "God" so it has nothing to do with objective reality. Can one, after absorbing and analyzing this information, call it reliable? Conclusion everyone makes for himself. And there are plenty and then some theories which can be analyzed but I'll leave it to your own discretion. For the purpose of this piece what has been said should be enough. It all comes down to the simple fact that there is no certainty on the subject of creation neither in religion, nor in modern science. Even more so - their point of view are coming together and becoming one and the same. Science becomes a religion. What a surprise. So there is another, quite different theory. I won't go into it deep right now, but I'll express the barebone. This theory has 2 postulates: 1. Space. Infinite "value" with constantly changing features and qualities. 2. Matter. Finite "value" with constant features and qualities. For information: since creation of this theory 1st postulate has been experimantally proven. Anisotropic nature of space is a scientific fact now. This theory is the only ever theory among those I have studied that does follow the rule of complexity, doesn't confuse cause and effect while having all definitions laid out. Throughout my time I have seen a great many efforts to disprove it (all of which have failed). It is the only ever theory of those I know, that doesn't have contradictions. And I even don't have to tell any conclusions that author of this theory (some people call it "theory of everything") provides. Base is already said, so technically nothing else is needed. So maybe we can delve into it sometime and compare notes? But anyways. There are three definitive conclusions to make to sum things up: 1. Religious point of view, based of priests' ignorance and lies has nothing to do with reality, lack any knowledge whatsoever. 2. Official science due to lack of understand about 90%+ of reality naturally can't explain how the world works. 3. Last word in acceptance or defiance is left for each person himself. Freedom of choice. And resposibility for it. Before yourself more than anything.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 17th, 2013 01:02 pm |
|
17th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Sergey, The words I wrote down were meant to be merely factual, along the same lines as saying that perception exists. So perception may be originating, in my case, in this place where I am right now, and then a minute from now I may be still in the place, but it will no longer be the same time, so relative to me being here now, and me being here in a minute, there is that difference in time, and as far a the me that is the origin of my perception, there is yet a lot of room for more accurate perception other than the two symbols m and y or my. I stuck that thought about relative perception here because I did not find a better place for it, and it was not meant to be an answer to anything. I don't think that the thought is vague, or ambiguous, I think it is factual, and I think it can be demonstrated as being factual. I don't know where to put the next thought I want to write, before I forget it, and that thought has to do with political economy, which are relative measures of perception too, but more specific to specific people in specific places at specific times. There are risks associated with the consumption of stored power, as the store of power may be consumed without any benefit realized during the consumption of the stored power, and when an individual has exclusive access to the store of power then only the individual will be subject to the cost or benefit of whether or not the decision to consume the store of power was no more than an expense of it or in the opposite direction the consuming of the store of power realizes an increase in the store of power over time. Now I have that out and recorded, so I can read and comment on your welcome words. "Now that is a vague sentense. I feel obligated to say something. So I'm going to give a piece of mind, that may seem irrelevant." I don't think my sentence was vague. I think it is precisely accurate. There are very smart, just smart, stupid and very stupid, ignorant and plain imbeciles; overall - everyone is different. That sentence, to me, is missing the concept of dynamics, in the sense that there "are very smart," who may become very stupid soon, and very stupid who may become smart a long time later, on and on. I am not saying that the sentence was meaningless in context, I am just responding to that sentence alone, because I thought about the concept of gaining or losing power that occurs with each individual perception. "sapient/reasonable/sensible/intelligent" I find that to be very useful since my sense of what is meant by the word sapient further on in the writing is much more understandable to me, since I was not, and still not, very familiar with any meaning of the words sapient; other than it being a word combined with homo, and homo is a funny word. I say Homeowner, for example, in a funny way, like this: Homo...ner, and sometimes other people smile slightly, but most are just annoyed. And those who follow a principle of "the less you know - the tighter you sleep" of course take the easy way (going down is certaily easier and supposedly more "fun"), often not realizing that this way leads to degradation. I don't know anyone who says that or does that, in those words, but I think those words above are measurable as perceptions communicated by people who think that way, in their own words, and the principles are the same in each case, and the principles I think that work that way are common to criminals, but I cannot know for sure, since those are not my words, and those are not my perceptions; but they sound familiar to me in that arrangement quoted above. The list offered rings true too, and I am immediately inspired to categorize, or arrange the symbols in such a way to simplify them down to a more understandable principle, before branching them out into specifics. Example: Be scrupulous Be fair Be principled That is part of the principle of Liberty, or agreement, or voluntary association, whereby those words apply to connections between one individual perspective and another individual perspective, and one will be scrupulous while connected to others, be far, and the principle here is "Do No Harm," which can be measured as voluntary association. Example 2: Be competent Be literate Those two, to me, belong in the principle of employing physical power in such a way as to increase physical power, and absent in this category is any relative reference of any connection between one individual perception and any other individual perception. In other words, there is no association among perceptions, in those symbols, specific to those symbols, as I read them. I can measure my power to perceive at this time and place, and relative to this time and place my own measure of competence is measurable as an increase in my power, failing to increase my power and not knowing that my power is decreasing is a measure of incompetence. Writing things down, if I can identify a lack of power of memory, lending to a loss of my power, in that sense is an invention called language, and so long as language is accurate, I can store my power of knowledge with language, and my knowledge won't be as perishable in that way, since I have competently solved the loss of my power of knowledge competently. Be patriot Be selfless Be polite Be modest Those to me are returning my perception back to association, and against the principle is to be agreeable, or voluntary, or absent the intent to do harm to others. Be patient To me that one is internal, not external, to the individual perception, and therefore not necessarily having anything to do with association between one and other perceptions. Be magnanimous Be kind Those to me are belonging to voluntary association again, or do no harm to other human beings or other perceptions connected to an individual perception. While responding in this way, to categorize, or to make those arrangements of symbols relevant to me and how I perceive things, it occurs to me to return to a perception of me now looking at me in the future, and I can be kinder, to me in the future, and in so doing I can work to gain more power, so that me in the future is helped in that measurable way. Therefore I am, in that way, volunteering to associate with my future self, and I am being kind to my future self, and that perception works the other way, as I am happy to know that my past self was kind to my present self for many kind things done for that reason. "huge sum of money" Money is meant to be something when someone uses the idea in connection with someone else, and often is the case, it seems to me, that the idea is to deceive, or to harm, so that form of money, so called, is opposite the form of money that I have in mind. My perception of money is not agreeable to those whose perception of money has anything to do with a willful intent by one person to harm other people. Since there are two opposite meanings of the word money, the quote above is quoted to offer a response to that specific identification of that specific diametric opposite meanings for that one word; in context the word used appears to be the destructive form of money. "- Definitions (common language, being on the same page). Providing everything with explicit definitions, leaving no room for secondary meanings." Such as, for example, the word money or the word sapient, whereby the goal of transferring accurate perceptions does not easily reach agreement, if ever. "- Following the rule of complexity: from simple towards complicated. Without understanding of the basics one shouldn't opt for the high-end level results. Meaning that one shouldn't try to jump over steppes of understanding." That is why Political Economy, in my view, can be boiled down to one sentence, which agrees with every test I've tested so far. Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production. "- Do not confuse cause and effect connections: always keep an eye on sources and consequences to never confuse them and thus compromise everything." Here is where I see something I think is as absolutely true as any other competitive perception, and you see a notion of mine; so my response here is to offer a perception that is communicated with the following arrangement of English Language symbols: It is easier said than done. Little clarification - rality for us is everything that exists around and inside us, while one of borderline types of subjective reality is virtual reality (reality created with technological devices). My notion is not agreeable, so my responses to that are potentially as incapable of reaching agreement. I can say that I agree with those words in my own words, since my notion, to me, is the basis of my perception. I know that perception exists, so that is one real thing, I perceive things so that perception of things other than my perception lends some evidence to the realization that other things exist. Perception is self evident; that which is perceived is evidence of other things, other than perception, existing. Hence the actual laws of nature (which no one can change, you can only accept them as they are) are formed on the levels of macro- and microworlds in "objective reality" - it is consistent and logical to start there. So in our first stage "objective reality" is the subject of our studies. Reality, which is independent from our consciousness. My guess is that it would take years of work in constant effort to understand what is meant by that arrangement of symbols since too much of it is disagreeable to my work, so far, in reaching for more accurate perception. Of course I can be going in the wrong direction. If I were going in the wrong direction then my notion, as you call it, would be proven wrong and I would be incapable of perceiving how wrong my notion is, because I can't perceive where my notion is proven wrong, but me being just me, each time I try to prove my notion to be wrong, it proves to me true, each time. Each time I use my Political Economy notion, which I call Joe's Law, it proves to be true too, which again, can be my error in going in the wrong direction, going away from more accurate perception, and going toward less accurate perception, without any means by which I can correct my self made errors. I can proceed where I have focus of attention focused into clear view, or I can go places that appear to be very hard to see anything. I can't make head or tails of this: Hence the actual laws of nature (which no one can change, you can only accept them as they are) are formed on the levels of macro- and microworlds in "objective reality" - it is consistent and logical to start there. So in our first stage "objective reality" is the subject of our studies. Reality, which is independent from our consciousness. I reach the words "start there," and I look back to where the words accurately identify the place to start, and then I get lost, since I have to start from where I start, which is what you call my notion, and then from where I start I go looking for whatever your words suggest to be "start there," and I see nothing but darkness. Start in "laws of nature," or start in "objective reality," and start in macro or start in microworlds? I start at perception being a fact, and then I go to my next step from that start, and all that is done, principally, before I can get to the step where I read words in English written by other people. If there is no agreement in the definitions of words, then to me that is a clue as to what needs to be done if the goal of accurate communication is an agreed upon goal, and that agreement is communicated accurately. So let's analyze different points of view, each of which pretends to be true, on the example of a question of how our world came to be and how it develops. Let's try and find something which would non-contradictory and objectively explain our world's occurence and processes in it. Ever y person chooses for himself what to accept, not necessarily having any actual traction with objective reality. So... Those word, to me, are again off the chart in my capacity, or my power, to understand any agreeable meaning; but that is not the exception, that is becoming almost routine. When I write something that I see as being strictly accurate, you respond with a description of what I see as being strictly accurate with words that appear to be disagreeable to me. It is routine for me to find words that you write that are agreeable. It is routine for me to find words that you write that are disagreeable, and it is routine for me to find words that you write that fall into the category of failing to convey to me any sense of accuracy to me, such as that paragraph above, since that paragraph above, to me, would require a lot of work to get to a point at which I could begin to understand what is being communicated in that paragraph. All religions state: everything that exists is created by "God". Most esoteric teachings do the same, though with minor differences: "God" has much more fancy names there - "World's Mind", "Absolut" etc.. So how reliable is this information? To not create a huge tractatus and analyze every last one of them (you can do it on your own) let's take a look at same old so-called "Old Testament" as one of the most popular books, which has a chapter describing creation of the world in six days. I do not feel as if I have anything to do with those words above, other than to say that I have recently found information offered by Frank O'Collins on the subject of historical records of the writings, and histories, of people I call Legal Criminals, and Frank calls these people Khazarian Parasites and The Roman Cult. If you are speaking now about Legal Criminals who masquerade as religious people then knowing that might be a good idea if I have anything to do with any conversation on the subject of religion. If I am being engaged with you into a conversation and discussion on the subject of religion then that would be entirely separate from any conversation or discussion on the subject of Legal Crime hidden behind false religion, or, on the other hand, a conversation and discussion could include both, separate, topics, combined into one, and then there would be a need to keep one separate from the other, and not confuse one with the other, or said confusion would be cause for more confusion. Little clarification: it has been expressly stated many times that this book is in no way a fiction and that every world belong the "the God" and so any change or interpretation of this text is inexcusable. Here is a link, and a quote in reference to those precise words quoted previous to this sentence. Link: http://one-heaven.org/canons/sovereign_law/article/161.html Quote: (xix) Of the works claimed to Shakespeare but written by the fraternity of the Jesuit College of English in Rome--comprising of some eight hundred eighty four thousand (884,000) words contained in thirty four thousand eight hundred ninty six (34,896) lines and spoken by one thousand two hundred eleven (1,211) characters - thirty three percent (33%) were histories of immense and unprecedented historical research, thirty two percent (32%) were comedies of greater wit than any previous author, twenty nine percent (29%) were tragedies as great as anything from ancient Greece, four percent (4%) were poems and two percent (2%) were sonnets; and (xx) One of the most extraordinary contributions of the unnamed Jesuit scholars in Rome through the Shakespeare brand of the 16th Century was the use of no less than twenty eight thousand eight hundred twenty nine (28,829) unique word forms, effectively doubling the vocabulary of English since the time of Chaucer and introducing an entire and completely new framework of law, social sciences, history, commerce and trade, accounting and reckoning. Such words as accused, addiction, assassination, bandit, bar, cause, case, contract, court, courtship, crown, employer, investments, law, bond, lawyer, majestic, judgment, negotiate, security, inhabitant, resident, submit, understand were all borne out of Shakespeare. This was achieved mainly through the combining of Latin words as abbreviations to create new English words but also through the introduction of ancient Persian words as well as even Hebrew and Ancient Greek words; and (xxi) A significant departure through the works of the Jesuits in the 16th Century as Shakespeare compared to the earlier works inventing English at the end of the 15th Century was the ascribing of meanings to the twelve thousand (12,000) to fourteen thousand (14,000) new word forms introduced through Shakespeare that completely contradict the meaning of their etymological roots. In other words, the way in which many of the words introduced by Shakespeare are defined in public is completely opposite to their secret or private meaning – thus converting the English language to the most occult language in history; and (xxii) The deliberate modification of English to being not only a commercial language but the primary language of occult knowledge and usage was confirmed by the massive undertaking in the creation of the “Authorized Version” of the Bible also known as the King James Version and the KJB or KJV. A further one thousand (1,000) words were introduced into the English language out of approximately eight thousand (8,000) word forms used in the text. Most significantly, the use of the Persian word God / Gad as the public name for Sabaoth, also known as Satan was introduced to replace Yehovah (YHVH) of the Catholic Church since the 8th Century as the primary deity worshipped, making the Church of England the reformed Aryan (Persian) religion of Menes, later known as Judaism. End Quote I don't know if that quote from that source above can offer anything agreeable to anyone other than me. Back to the welcome words offered by Sergey: A question arises: who or what is "God", who could could do something like this? If I ask that question I arrive at an accurate answer. A power, such as the concept of ectropy, is God, which is what it is, even if I don't perceive it, or "who," if you will, but to me the question and the answer is simple and easy to understand. God is the power of creation, and from a perspective such as mine, created by a power that I cannot perceive without perception, I can say, or offer, that God = Truth to anyone who may agree with that offering of those arrangements of English symbols intending to communicate accurately. If I am not asking, or answering the question, then I am not asking or answering the question. I think my answer is as good as any I've seen so far, if the measure of good is to know better as to which competitive answer is more accurate at reaching the goal of finding an agreeable answer. And there is no definitive answer. As you say, and I can agree that you believe your perception is accurate. I do not agree with my understanding of the meaning of your words, or, in other words, I do not agree with the message I read out of your words. I think the definitive answer to the question is that God is the power of creation; such as the concept known as ectropy. Some say... I can work at explaining what I perceive to be true, or accurate, and other people can work at what other people work at, so again I'm wondering what these arrangements of symbols have to do with me. I've read many arrangements of symbols written by you that I find to be true sounding, or ringing true, and therefore agreeable to me, and therefore connecting to me, and therefore relevant to me, but not those words after "Some say..." Some people argue as a rule. Some people do so willfully. Some people are inspired to argue as a rule because that is what they are told to do by other people, and they follow instructions well, and they may not question their orders at all. 1. Willful actions called argument; for the sake of argument, or for some reason not confessed. 2. Argument as a habit, or routine, or for reasons that could be expressed as "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" or "going along to get along." I have invented my own term I call Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question, and I have my own reasons for inventing that term. Since there is no even approximate definition of who or what is "God" Again that is disagreeable to me, those arrangements of symbols have no connection to me, no reference. I have what I consider to be a very competitive arrangement of English symbols whereby the intent is to convey my measure of God with a precise, not just an approximate, definition. God is the power of creation. I can approximate the definition by saying that God is approximately relative to the concept of ectropy. God is approximately the concept of Truth as a perceptive being may gain the power to know anything precisely. To offer further precise definitions of God I can say that any perceptive being that can accurately know the power of creation is a perceptive being that accurately knows God. Example: What power created the first measurable form of matter? If no perceptive being, to date, has ever accurately identified that power that created the first measurable form of matter, then that fact does not cause the power that created the first measurable form of matter to vanish, or to fail to be the power that created the first measurable form of matter. In other words, if someone offers to me words that say that God does not exist, then that person is saying to me that nothing exists, which to me is precisely stupid. Since there is no even approximate definition of who or what is "God" - everything that is based on this vague term is irrational in its core and cannot be real. And those people who fail to discover this - form religious worldview based not on knowledge, but on blind faith in what priests say - servants of the church, who think themselves to be higher than their "God" , because they allow themselves to interpret "His" words as they see fit - meaning changing the meaning of the "Bible"'s text, when it suit their purposes. Which means that they simply lie, not only to the people but to their own "God" as well. There are words that ring true to me in the context of Legal Crime. I can offer to you evidence that connects your words, to my words, to this evidence here: http://one-evil.org/content/texts_papal_bull_1302_unam_sanctam.html Quote: Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. End quote That is what I call Legal Crime, and it is as opposite true religion as good is opposite evil - precisely so, if English can convey accurately meaning effectively. Yet with their sheer authority... I have a term for "they" if I understand your words, and my term is Legal Criminals. If I use my term, then your words ring true, if I don't use my term, then your words can mean anything imaginable when you write "they". Legal Criminals have no authority, they have the power of deception, the power of threats, and the power of aggressive violence as their source of power, they do not have authority from my point of view. Accurate perception is the power of true authority, but that is merely English words arranged by me and offered to you. So how official science explains the creation of the world? Again if you are speaking about Legal Criminals then those Legal Criminals do not access, or use, or have, authority, so they are not actually, or truly, officials, in the sense that authority is true, they are not, so what are they? If they say something, in an "official" manner, the odds are that what they say is, at best, half true, while the intent of what they say is to deceive, so as to transfer power from their targets to them, that is what they do, and they do that very well, so they are the authorities of Crime made Legal, if they know anything about how the words was created they have borrowed, or stolen that information, and if that information would empower their targeted victims then they would have good reason, from their viewpoints, and their authority over Legal Crime, to keep that information scarce, like they keep every form of power scarce, so that their victims remain powerless against their Crimes made Legal. If any information is powerful, then those Legal Criminals steal it, and then they have it, and they do not find good reason to let anyone else have it, just like every source of power that they can steal, they do steal, keep for themselves, and block that power flowing to their targeted victims. They, the Legal Criminals, are authorities on how to make power scarce for their targeted victims, and how to make power produced by their targeted victims flow to them. They know how to fool their targets into believing that they, the Legal Criminals, must have all the power, so their targeted victims work harder to give their power to the Legal Criminals, and the trick is to convince the targeted victims that the solution to their misery is to work harder and send more power to the Legal Criminals. That is how that works. It is easy to see, and it is easy to measure accurately, if someone cares to do so. Can one, after absorbing and analyzing this information, call it reliable? Conclusion everyone makes for himself. To that I am immediately inspired to quote from Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn. As the Russian saying goes, "Do not believe your brother, believe your own crooked eye." Anisotropic nature of space is a scientific fact now. I know of one fact only. Throughout my time I have seen a great many efforts to disprove it (all of which have failed). That applies to the one fact I know. So maybe we can delve into it sometime and compare notes? If you offer a measure of "this theory" then I can perceive it, so far you have words that point to it, and therefore I can't perceive "this theory" at this time. 1. Religious point of view, based of priests' ignorance and lies has nothing to do with reality, lack any knowledge whatsoever. If you are combining the work of Legal Criminals with anything other than the work of Legal Criminals then I will be confused by that confusion of two things into one thing. 2. Official science due to lack of understand about 90%+ of reality naturally can't explain how the world works. If you are combining the work of Legal Criminals who are officials of Legal Crime with any competitive perception of accurate perception, then I will be confused by that confusion of two things as if there were one thing instead of two things. 1. Legal Crime 2. Not Legal Crime One is not Two, or Two is not One, or Both are not the same thing. 3. Last word in acceptance or defiance is left for each person himself. Freedom of choice. And resposibility for it. Before yourself more than anything. That rings true to me, or I agree with it, and I see no cost to me as power from me flowing from me, in that case of me reading those words, in other words, I see those words as help to me as if power flows to me from those words, so thanks.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 17th, 2013 01:50 pm |
|
18th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
Decent analysis. And that is exactly why I said "may seem irrelevant". Not saying that you haven't thought through your response enough, but let's just say I was expecting a different response. I thought I've already explained how your absolute truth is a direct consequence of this 'matter exists' axiom yet you continue to speak of it as if it were a revelation in and of itself. Maybe part about confusing cause and effect is indeed extraordinary difficult. But anyway, there goes that idea...
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 17th, 2013 03:56 pm |
|
19th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Sergey,your absolute truth is a direct consequence of this 'matter exists' axiom That, to me, measures a general lack of power to communicate. I can merely compare what you wrote with what I've written, and offer to you a measure of agreement. I can write, again, that each time I try to refute what I see as true, each time, without fail, the true perception in question proves to be true, without exception so far. I can offer that and I can offer to compare that to your own words here: Throughout my time I have seen a great many efforts to disprove it (all of which have failed). I can even use, borrow, your words with minimal changes: Throughout my time I have seen a great many efforts to disprove (perception exists) and in each case all have failed. I do not see a connection between your words compared to my words and then somehow your words and my words are connected to this: your absolute truth is a direct consequence of this 'matter exists' axiom Who uses the words 'matter exists' axiom? I do not. If that perception can be connected to my perception that perception exists, each time I test for perception existing, or not existing, each time, every time, then I fail to see the connection, and I'm wondering, since communication appears to be so full of land mines, if you think there is a connection. Perhaps there is no connection between what you have called my "notion" and what you are labeling as 'matter exists' axiom. I know that perception exists, each time I check to see if it does, or does not, exist, and each time it proves to exist. I know that much, if I know anything. I do not know what is, or is not, a 'matter exists' axiom. I see no connection, and if there is a connection, then I have to depend upon 2 things, at least, to find it. 1. Communication 2. Perception It, or this 'matter exists' axiom, if it exists, is not perceived by me as existing, but I do know that I perceive the label of it, so my thinking is that communication has to exist, in some form or another, so as to allow me to perceive what is it, if it exists, or as far as I can perceive, it is merely a label, or it is merely an arrangement of symbols in English. I did read your words, and I think I perceive a measure of understanding, in those words, when you wrote this: So I'm going to give a piece of mind, that may seem irrelevant. In places where I perceived relevance I worked to convey agreement, and I may be wrong in my agreement with the following meaning: Decent analysis. I can agree that those words are perceived by me as a measure of agreement. I don't know what your scale is, but those words are perceived by me as a measure of agreement.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jun 18th, 2013 02:06 am |
|
20th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
I think I've brought this example already, but repetition never hurts. Rene Descartes. Famous mathematician and also philosopher, most known in that last field for revolutionary (at the time) conception: "I think - therefore I exist". And that stood as the cornerstone of philosophy for quite a while actually. Before it was easily logically brought down by showing a simple and yet brilliant confusion of cause with effect. Martin Heidegger managed that. "I think because I exist". Simple, yet brilliant. Perception is always secondary to existense if existense takes place. Existense is the cause of perception, not the other way around. Yet perception doesn't account for everything. There is no duality perception/not-perception as there is with matter/space. Perception and existense of perception will always be secondary to the existense of matter. Even if perception doesn't exist - it says nothing about matter. Yet if matter doesn't exist - there can be no talk of perception. They are directly connected by perception existense being nothing more than a direct logical consequence of matter existense.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 02:24 am | Page: 1 2 |
| Power Independence > Fight Night > Math > Connecting | Top |
