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