 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
...
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.