marieltrokan

Throughout the months I've spent using deductive logic, or scientific thought. The only materials I can reference are books of notes, based on deductive reasoning - and that's what I've been doing on this page.

I have used science. Close the thread if you want.

There are no sources to cite, because the research is my own (notebooks of deductive reasoning).

But why do forests get perceived? "Nature" magazine. Poetry. The use of nature in the horror film Scream. It all must mean something - something which political leaders should reference in public. JK Rowling is another example: was Harry Potter unique to her, or is Harry Potter or Scream or the history of the WWE what one could think of as content of reality? I know it sounds bizarre, but if my perception of Scream is real, should that have any bearing on if nations exist?

I don't suppose there is a solution then. I just believe that life forms should say that they are what other people are: I suppose I have to accept though that even that is futile, in which case all one can do is be true to themself. My philosophy is that because a forest can exist after anything anyone says, nations should be ended.

If you saw Cristina De Kirchner or Jeremy Corbyn say in public that anyone in Tehran or California were as much the meaning of life as someone such as Ridley Scott (the filmmaker) or someone like Nelson Mandela what would your reaction be?

Why wouldn't they have time? Can't David Cameron just say on a platform that "anyone on Earth is the meaning of life", or if not him then Assad or Obama?

I've heard of the phrase you reference, but I'm just saying that only once reality is shared does it get better; people who lived 1,000 years ago are anyone who's using the internet today, so therefore it's error that 1,000 years later I'm needing to write this sentence. 1,000 years from now, anyone of that time will be anyone of today: the end of the United States and all other nations could've existed 1,000 years ago, therefore it's wrong that they still exist today. My point is that political leaders should speak in public how I'm speaking on this post.

The source of existence. Why reality exists. The link between reason and difference is a deduction in a long line of deductions made by myself, through months research; another deduction is that need and power are identical - because need is the power to be something, power (or reason) in of itself is problematic in that its actual meaning conflicts with its intended meaning. Latest data suggests that absence is the signifier of co-existence and the state of co-existence being separate, presence being the opposite. I think the part about not duplicating reason in the process of making it no error is clear.

Yes. Political leaders across the world should say that either anyone is why reality exists, or that no one is; the political leader can be from any country, it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that once viewing publics had heard this kind of talk, problems such as you've referenced would no longer have reason to exist. More precisely: whoever does the talking, in public, that talk should try to consist of ideas like all people being formula and context, or trees and forests, or this or that kind of specific life experience (e.g. the speaker could detail a life experience that's either theirs or someone they know, and then say that all people on Earth are that very experience).

No. The topic is the opposite of reality, so of course any attempts at representation will inevitably mean the kind of reaction you gave. The source being difference is inherent error, therefore the point is to convert reason without committing the error of duplication.

Research carried out by myself tells me that at the source, reason and difference are the same; because of this, I think that perhaps the point of existence is to separate the two, but to do so without betraying principle. The principle is to not duplicate anything; reason being the removed means that it can't be the remover, the same applying to difference. Neither reason or difference can separate themselves, and so the removing force must be neither reason or difference.