 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
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.