Strict Laws, Strict Science

[mississippichem]

7th:

 

What does your theory predict that can be tested?

=Uncool-

 

Yes, I don't even think it makes a prediction at all, most less a testable one.

[7th]

...999.0 + 1 = ...000.0 = 0

0 - 1 = -1

 

ergo

 

...999.0 = -1

 

Each human that is born into modern-society is forced to walk down a path already paved. We have constructed the chain of events below to explain exactly what this path contains and where it will lead humanity in the near future.

 

1. You are born as a pure minded human; no academia and essentially untouched by society.

2. You are taught through your guardians how to live amongst a society which they consider to be reality and you learn how to recognise your environment. Their knowledge is tenaciously biased through education practices: school, college, university -- and media: television, newspapers, books, and so on. Resulting in a completely pro-state initial outlook on existence.

3. Once you are old enough to attend school you are forced by either: your guardians, the fear of being isolated from society or the government to do so (or not do so). There are only two choices of schooling/not schooling, those that involve “God” and those that involve “No God.”

6. After time you no longer have an open ‘pure-mind’ instead a ‘one-quart’ imagination and common sense. Through the teachings of God / No God you begin to lose grasp of what is real, and consider the pro-state reality as complete-actuality. As you proceed further through education, or no education your belief in the state (religion or no religion) views becomes stronger, under the false impression that they are your own, and that you have freedom of belief.

7. Once you are ready and have reached the end of schooling you are inclined to help the state unknowingly; writing books, becoming an actor, destroying nature for advancement (for the state) and other pro-state areas. Your imagination and common sense undergoes conversion into either: complete advancement for the state, complete control and sedation (to yourself and others through moral religious teachings) for the state, or part of state society increasing income for the state (in the middle, don’t care but aware; unknowingly agnostic).

8. Resulting in delusion and human senselessness. You no longer have your natural instincts to protect the planet (your mother) you live on and you don’t notice the damage you do to her – not to mention not caring. If you’re siding with “God” then you are morally bound to pleasing “God” and you do not do anything to break free from the system as you do not recognise it. If you are bound by “No God” then you only care for advancement or betterment of self, for you don’t feel the need to please anyone but the state unknowingly, or knowing but through fear or fame.

 

Conclusions:

1. Destruction of Nature

2. Depletion of Resource

3. Literally Dumb-Thinking

4. Slowly Destroying Humanity

5. Creating a Hell-Like Earth

 

The human mind is cubic.

Therefore God/No God is ONE QUART

 

1. God/No God

2. ????/????

3. ????/????

4. ????/????

 

You start at 4/4, and you are educated to 1/4. So you are offically dumber than you were at age 1.

 

2. Wisdom Good/Bad

3. Imagination Real/Fiction

4. Common Sense Survial/Love

 

ALL REMOVED

 

The Jews (and those who come from the Mesopotamian tradition in general, really) are the greatest example of the unitary lie that put belief in dichotomous (cubic) creation to death. One may note that the same people who created writing (what allowed them to put word above truth) also created god (what allowed them to put one above four) and also created the state (what allowed them to put experts/teachers/science/adults above nature/humanity/children).

[7th]

>Except our language DOES have basis in reality. For example, THE WORD REALITY. THE NUMBER TWO. Ñ! >Two, a word referencing having more than (none) zero, more than one, less than three, less than four.

 

Of course. How could I explain reality to you otherwise?

>The problem with 'perceiving in reality' is that you define reality to exclude our biochemical interpretation of reality. Which only leaves a semantic debate about what reality is. You can't really perceive things in your definition of reality because your reality disallows perception.

 

I don't exclude any true thought process, only the conceptual lies you surround your thought process with. What you describe is one of the four thought processes by which we arrive at truth. Your problem is that you exclude the other three, because it goes against your belief in unity (god).

 

>As for the four side thing: No. That's not what a side is. >Side: a surface forming part of the outside (or inside) of an object

 

See, now you have given up on truth and are using the words of the religious education system to deny what is common sense.

>The top of a cube and the bottom of the cube are two distinct surfaces. They are only related because they have an opposite local position.

 

"Only related"? All things are created through opposites. Things cannot exist in reality without their opposites, they can only exist in concept (word). A cube without a top and a bottom is an abstraction, and doesn't matter to the real world.

 

>Stop redefining very basic concepts.

 

It doesn't matter how basic a concept is, what matters is its truth. You are asking me explain truth to you using lies; that cannot be done (in reality; perhaps it can be done in word!).

 

>I don't believe in unity. Nor duality, pantheism, or what have you. The best description of me using spiritual/religious doctrine would be panentheist.

 

The belief in a unitary god isn't usually expressed in "religious" terms. It's a (flawed) perception of reality, based on word.

>I find it funny that you're spouting common sense as important when your doctrine states that most people believe in 1/4 non-cubism whatever. That would make 1/4 non-cubism whatever the common sense, as it were.

No, common sense isn't "subjective" (conceptual). You're just been taught to think it is, because all thought processes must be subservient to the scientific/state-championed, "objective" process.

>A cube without a top would be an open storage crate.

 

A crate has a top, because it still has thickness.

>Besides, the 'cube' is an abstraction too, as every object is formed via atoms.

 

These atoms have a fronts, backs, rights, lefts, tops, bottoms, pasts, and futures too. That's the whole point, that's the foundation of real (non-conceptual) existence.

>I'm going to start using a trip for this conversation. First of all, if you suggest we abolish language entirely, how do we communicate?

I'm saying language must be real, not conceptual. Communication without basis in reality is a string of lies. It would have been better to have said nothing.

>concepts

>I HAVE THREE APPLES

>Sure, these apples represent themselves fine, but what if they weren't in front of me? If I were thinking about them, I wouldn't summon an apple in my eye, I would create a mental representation (bear with me, I know that thinking is entirely alien to you) that I would identify as apple. Are you saying that when you think you're forging ZIONIST LIES?

 

Things do not need to be in front of your eyes to be perceived in reality. In fact, people rarely perceive reality in front of their eyes. Eyes are not your mind, they do not actually see. When the mind sees apples it sees reality, because apples are real. This is Common Sense, but it is impossible to see this through nothing but the logic of "science".

>Side note, your cubism theory would actually be represented by a pyramid, as cubes have SIX sides.

 

Both (real) pyramids and (real) cubes have four sides; your mistake is that you think sides are unitary. All reality is formed of opposites. A cube (that is real) has a top and a bottom, but these are side. The other sides are a front and a back, a right and a left, and a past and a future (note; no real thing can exist outside of time. That is an abstraction).

 

>Knowledge through observation is the only objective practice which can determine reality.

 

There is a difference between observation of truth (through the four cubic thought processes) and observation of an abstract concept created by the word-god-state social complex (through the one word/state-"logic"-based thought process).

>All other practices are subjective constructs and will vary from person to person, and can NEVER accurately be determined to be "truth".

 

Now who's using circular (read: self-referencing/unitary) logic?

 

>Your beliefs are based on assumptions and validated by subjective data. This is, really, "building a temple on shifting sand".

No, it's building a temple that exists in all spaces and time. You're the one attempting to build a temple of one dimension; a such a thing can only exist in word, it isn't truth.

>Logic is universal. If it weren't, our Universe simply wouldn't work.

No, logic only comprises 1/4 of cubic reality. Your problem is that you favor logic-based observation over truth. Thus, you only perceive 1/4 of reality, and are satisfied with the congruency between your lack of perception and the lack of reality that your perception has lead you to believe.

 

You're the equivalent of a deaf, blind, and numb person who declares that truth about reality can only be derived from taste/scent because that's all you think (truthful/cubic) reality is composed of.

 

-Previous discussions.

Edited September 12, 2010 by 7th

[Klaynos]

I'm sure I've seen all this before and you never answered uncool's question.

[mississippichem]

We've all heard the cubic time, cubic god, language and education are evil stuff before, 7th. We dismissed it as nonsense last time because the guy presenting it kept talking in circles and kept trying to redefine well established concepts and definitions. All your arguments sound disturbingly similar, you've been here before haven't you? Klaplunk?