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