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