s1eep

Yes but I'm in a word system. Take dogs for example, they don't live naturally, well those who are caught in reality.

The family or village should be the perspective of the theory. We are on Earth, not in space or back in time, more pressing issues lie ahead... Sorry.

You care too much about human life and too little about the life of the planet. If you were wise, you would know the two are combined, and if the planet becomes unhealthy, we will suffer. Words glorify the individual, but truly the family or village is the strongest principle. We should be worshipping ourselves-- we wouldn't be somebody because we had cameras around us or if we were good speakers like politicians, we would be somebody working for the family or village, with the same ultimate objective. Increasing human life expectancy doesn't address a significant amount of our future concerns, and humans are living dangerously. Nature intended for some of these people to die; keeping them alive for longer only reduces the health of the planet. Humans waste far more than other animals. Maybe population reduction would be in order to halt waste output and change humanity's current path. In other words, them not having died does not mean you are doing a good job, that depends on how much you value human life over the life of the family or village, including Earth on occasions. I guess our relationship with Earth is not mutual, our behaviour is to plunder our environment, but we are related to Earth, and we should be kinder. Speaking is the same as rote-education, you repeat yourselves, so the first word system that traps the humans tongue into a particular dialect causes everyone to become word teachers, it's like a virus (it could be called a word virus). Our minds are more intelligent than the word, and our intelligence would be based on our wisdom and understanding, what we knew and produced. A good and healthy family, excellent hunting skills, and anything else that related to our character that was ultimately good for the family or village. Word intelligence, being self based, does not have any relation to the family and family cannot be properly conveyed when inside a word system. We are trapped by the word, it's not free speech because words are truly perverse and unfair, although they can be fun at the same time, and the fun factor in life I don't think outweighs the competitive and youthful factor of life. I definitely think living in the wild would be fun, especially if everyone did it. Are words really complex words? Can't we make simple grunt noises at certain times to convey a wider picture? Aren't we animals meant to compete to survive, and isn't our vocal ability meant to be used for this? I'll contradict any theory I want, because theories are written by humans, and humans pursue education which is self based (because of the word), and it doesn't coincide with the family or village.

You didn't address all of my post, and I disagree with your evidence-- because we can be vocal doesn't mean we had to convey complex ideas with words, and anything we do evolve is for our survival, and probably meant to be used tactically. Teaching of language is unnatural because it's done through rote-education; no other animal teaches by rote-education, they teach by example. Our general intelligence is only classed as intelligence because it is supported by the word. In all fairness, it is word-intelligence-- what do you know apart from strings of words or numbers? Stop comparing us to other animals because we are way too different and we live much eviller lifestyles. The words the first speaking humans used were grunts, and we should still be grunting now if we want to live a long life as a species, and prevent inevitable suffering.

It's not only unnatural, it's also anti-nature with waste output. We only waste as much as we do because we adapted so much with the word. I imagine it was dragged along by the rich and people were educated stupid to be social androids who hold the word, and education, in high regard. We don't have the resource to live in this luxury, and it's unfair to enslave humans under the enmity between the rich and the poor just to satisfy wants. You're wrong by thinking words are part of the self, and that it's natural to use them, because I'm sure they have to be forced through human effort into the mind-- it does not come from thin air, and it began at some point, it hasn't been around since the beginning of time. I assert that your idea of a high-intelligence is diminished by your love for the word and egotistical hate for the natural world.

A word is not part of the body, it's man-made, entirely fictional. It's stupid to compare it to a giraffes long neck. No tool should be the dominant factor of someone's life, unless you are seeking a profession, a hammer is a dominant part of the blacksmith's life, a word is a dominant part of the word-mammals life; and the tool is too destructive, so much so that in under a thousand years the Earth will be a desolate wasteland, or at least too unhealthy to live in stability. We cease to be natural when we start using words, a tool which we let dictate our lives. It is not part of our evolution, it's something teachers invented and taught through rote-education to the populous. Words do not come naturally, we have to be taught words either by our parents when we are young, or in school, but our parents were educated, so the source is education. Why do we let education dominate our lives instead of the purest natural world with a natural untouched mind? Animals bark, or grunt, or send messages that relate to prey, food, or things which are important for survival. A human can, and will, become obese, waste lots, and many other stupidities, primarily because of civilization, and the word and what it allows us to accomplish. Do we really accomplish anything if the accomplishment kills us? I don't think so. You are unwise to think the word is not deadly, you are too lost in pseudo-science to care about the world falling apart around you because of the education you support-- so highly.

It's obviously nothing like "I'm looking forward to dinner guys", be accurate. And I wouldn't convey this idea, I would be doing other things like surviving in a competitive world.

You don't mention waste output, something which spurred from the pseudo-intelligence that comes from the word. That is a but one of the downsides. The downsides are so numerous for the future of Earth that it's stupid to use the word.

But they use these things tactically and make use of their tactical minds. No animal uses words to the extent of humans. You don't mention any of humanity's downsides; there are a lot of things wrong with the word, especially if you take into account it's beginning and end.

How can you say that words, a human creation, are not dominant over our lives more than the natural world?

4 corners are present for circular wheels, and everything else in the universe. I said earlier, the Sun squares the Earth perpetually; humans square what they see perpetually. Anything you look at has a back, front, top, bottom, left and right (or cubic dimensions), your eyes see 4 corners of any thing, as the Sun encompasses 4 corners of the Earth. The circle wheel has a back, front, top, bottom, left and right; and it can rotate because four corners are present.

4 is the most significant number in the universe. For rotation to occur and things to remain opposite and harmonious, one only needs 4 corners. There is a dynamic duality at the Earth's equator (i.e. rotation between four corners), and a static duality with the North and South pole. A corner is one of the 4 opposite vertical edges of a cube that are stood between the top and bottom, or the four opposite corners of a square. If you place a circle inside a square, there is a harmonious correlation between the 4 right angle corners of the square and the centre of the circle embedded within the square, which can be found by adding two lines to create a cross. If the circle rotates, the four right angles of the square each rotate in opposite directions and opposite integrity remains.

The Day is proof of this. Does milk exist? Where's the proof that milk exists? Milk itself. Do 4 days occur at once? Where's the proof that 4 days occur simultaneously? The day itself.

Who cares whether you and others think it's crazy? We are adults, not children. Adults rationalize and come to a stable conclusion as to why something is crazy. Children call names and cower from debate. Are you a child or an adult?

This is influenced by Time Cube.

No, I say that the Earth is composed of four quadrants and the Sun creates four time points around those four quadrants-- I am saying that the Earth is more 4 than it is 1, you are almost on the same wavelength.

It does not satisfy a want or a need, it's what is true, and would prove our way of life to be an abstract lie. And I'm stating that the definition we have for a day is incorrect.

I would like to speculate that in one Earth rotation four simultaneous days occur. Synergy between the Sun and the Earth creates four separate days: midnight, morning, midday, evening. In one full rotation, each time-point rotates through the other three time-points; for example, midnight will experience morning, midday and evening, and the same for each of them. Neither of the four days are an entity and they exist together as opposites; and opposites cancel each other out to zero-value existence. In other words, there need not be a name for each time-point across a squared equator, but the names I suggested are easy to remember representations of each of the time-points-- all that matters, is four time-points are present. These are not arbitrary points, the Sun creates all four simultaneously. I assert that everything in the universe exists between or as opposites; male and female, Sun and Earth, top and bottom and so on. A squared equator is opposite to the rotating equator; the Sun squares the equator perpetually. Debate 4 days.

I like science, but I don't like modern science, or how conformed the "pseudo-scientists" are to people's theories about life, rather than the structure and behaviour. I think you restrict people's imaginations, which doesn't allow them to understand more comprehensive theories, theories that allow them to see beyond the theory. I think it's egotistical to name your ancestors savages when that lifestyle brought about the likes of every animal and thing in the universe. I suppose it's how you see stupidity, you believe in yourself that you are not stupid and you think you can prove it; but I see it as your weakness-- you don't want to be stupid. You never know, I believe you are stupid a good percentage of your life; people are not perfect, yet. Yeah I'm sure it was healthier, you create a much worse environment, have you not seen the effects of pollution? How you think is let's march on blindly leaving behind death and destruction, not caring about the damage you cause is stupid, and this one you have come to terms with. And I said to evolve in special ways; we do not have people pursue evolution like they would a sport. It's something which should be valued by the self, like the healthy habitat; these things are not evident physically, you cannot scientifically be wise, but by being wise you can see that humans breed and future generations need a healthy habitat to survive. You do not know the self well enough to unbind yourself from the egotistical pseudo-science illusion. If apes began to use words, I would say that we should stop them, as I am saying to you, you should stop using them, or use them for a greater good. You can build a house without words, it's not so bad, it's a wise creation, little waste comes from a house alone. Give it some thought will you, come off your high horse and understand the universes greatness above you.

Other animals don't use words, humans are the only animal to be classed as a word-animal. We hold the word in higher regard than we do the labelled subjects, we are pseudo-animals, and the science you speak so highly of is pseudo-science (to do with the word-reality we created and not the labelled nature). I'm not asserting that we must know things, I don't need to know what nature's optimal health is, but I'm sure it was healthier before we polluted the air and spread waste across the environment. We should live in the wild, not in advanced houses filled with technology to help us accomplish things that were accomplished in more challenging ways back before civilization. We are docile, we have reached the end of our evolution, in our opinions, but life could go so much further, it's potentially infinite. Why be creators when a great enough life was already created for us?

I'm passionate about nature, not angry, but my dedication to voice relatively similar concepts can make me come across as angry, or wrathful. The difference between human reality and natural reality is great; if we were like other animals, if we didn't talk and create pseudo-reality, nature would have been at optimal health, and we would have been in the perfect conditions for our own evolution. Because we don't hunt like other mammals, we don't have the capacity to evolve in special ways-- we halt our evolution with our less natural lifestyles. What is evolution to somebody? Why would we value evolution? Is it through what we could become, or is it just a insignificant natural process? What I'm suggesting is that there is a life long lost with the presence of human reality. The lives we lead are an abstraction; they are not natural, we do not live how we should live for the betterment of ourselves. It doesn't matter if we have improved, and the improvements themselves are not enough to counter our waste output. The only way to truly perfect planet Earth would be to destroy modern civilization and remove the human ego that separates us from nature-- give no aid to anyone, remove money and close down all shops, and allow humans to slowly return to natural living.

No we don't, that is what makes us pseudo-unique. We are more entwined with our own ego than we are nature, I guess to simplify it for you I would need to call it illness. We are anti-nature by worshipping natures anti-side, individuality, 'oneness', singularity. We have names, and this is not a tactical decision, this is to categorize us like cattle. We use words which are unnatural-- everything we do is unnatural but we have natural roots, we are still nature, but we deny it in so many ways, and are ultimately anti-nature. To nature, we are anti, and if it is all nature and nothing to do with any singularity then we are aligned to natures justice, we are an abomination.

To begin I would like to announce that I do not believe in God, but I believe that Nature is more significant than myself, and I worship our bond. I am all the small things, I prefer to be alone, I tend to associate with one or maybe to people; I like to see how things interrelate, and often find cool representations like fire, it's effects, being related to anger and it's effects. Did humans inherit what relatives left behind? Can I be angry because fire is possible, do these two states connect? Reality, to me, is evil-- if I had my way a lot of things would change; for instance, I would be kinder to nature and prioritise it; being wise, I don't want future humanity to perish due to global pollution. Everything in our world created by us is unnatural (i.e. not created by nature); these inventions are not only different to nature, but they are against nature-- in the light of humans being greater. Most unnatural things plunder nature and harm the environment either by waste or poison (and a lot more I'm sure). Are humans progressing in a different direction to nature, and could we be more natural for our own prosperity? If this is the case, then I would like to assert that the entirety of nature existent is one thing and life is experience orientated, a part of the meta-consciousness that is nature. Where nature comes first, there should be no unnatural. Humans are egotistical to deny their natural roots, and the respect it deserves, and continue to build an unnatural world, that kills them. Are humans educated stupid? Are humans evil (in accordance to what is wise)?

Who cares if they care?? We can care because of them.

I think it's fair to give the planet life, for it gives us life; I love nature. I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm trying to help you learn a little respect and stop being so egotistical. A flame can reproduce an infinite amount of times as long as there is something to keep it alive; flames could consume the entire universe if there was an event powerful enough to conquer that feat. Even space is not inanimate, it is filled with wonder, wonder that is related to the space so it can subside-- we are more alike space than we are any scientific theory about ourselves, we might as well call ourselves "space", as it's what consumes us all as entities. Your opinion about omnipotence is noted but I don't think you have the imagination to think outside the box. You keep using other peoples mistakes to try and prove me wrong; why don't you confront my words only instead of putting words in my mouth. A sky fairy and wisdom are different. There must be a wisest action; being wise is like finding comfort in your nature. I assert that life is "cushioned", and we're all supposed to be following the same wise path.