I Know My ABC's Of Life - Do You Know Your ABC's Of Life

[HappyHouseSpider]

I understand the core of the Universe, hence my contributions to A. Consciousness, B. Experience/Observance, C. Suspecting the design similarity between how males and females spread seeds and volcanoes/soil or exploding stars/black holes spread seeds, D. Insanity/Silence, E. A result creating what appears to be a thing consensus, F. Teaching people how to use an illusion to allude to an allusion, G. Consciousness/Subconsciousness & Projected/Projector, H. Physical/Metaphysical instead of Life/Death, I. Ego/Id/God/Universe, J. Energy, frequency and vibrations on a level that Tesla did not cover, such as the colors of sound waves, our moods and stages of thinking being based on those colors and the entire planet we live on evolving on a physical level in the same pattern as the colors ROYGBIV, K. My analysis on the relation between bees and electrons, and my ability to take an already profound statement and evolve it into a practical statement that does not leave the profound statement behind, such as the electrons are evidence that subatomic particles evolved by reaching a slower state, rather than the rapid state, e.g "Gamma > Ultraviolet > Radio", L. The Self & The Shadow, M. Dreams/Imagination ~ using Rimeann's Hypothesis to explain Dream/Imagination on a mathematical level, N. Psychology/Philosophy/Ontology being used all at the same time, rather than selectively, O. Cross-analyzing the human design to the Universe's design to have the knowledge and expertise to be confident in saying things that make your head want to explode, which is why I can say, right now, "the feeling of having your head explode, is the same feeling the Universe experienced when it expanded from a singularity"; this feeling is dark matter breaking into new matter, which becomes light matter, much like ignorance becomes information, which become intelligence, P. I know the Universe on an experiential, chemical, mathematical, mental, physical, ontological and fundamental level, Q. Einstein did not know philosophy; Tesla did not know dreams; Junga did not know science, while I know all three, and then some, R. I have wrote profound literature on relation points and how nothing can "be" without an extension of itself, much like a line cannot be made with one point, but two, which is fundamental and old, however I've extended this notion on a level of human experience to give people an idea why their entire existence, their definition, their future, their life is dependent on their relation point being drawn to other relation points, for without relation points, we're nothing, that information is built on relation, S. Hypocrisy/Psychopathy, T. Emotion/Machine, U. Infinite/Finite, V. Holism/Nihilism, W. Reality/Story, X. Information/Identity, Y. I know my brain is connected to every element, molecule, aspect of the Universe whether it be tangible or non-tangible, to the point I can ask this profound question, "Imagine if our ideas and our thoughts were on a physical level, this world would be a cake walk, rather than a cosmic walk.", Z. I can say this with a confidence that is hard as a rock, soft as a sponge and flexible as the ocean, "The wise man learns from water, fire, wind, earth, void, light, up, down, left, right, juxtapositions, self-reflections, allusions and illusions."

 

[Thor]

I have wrote profound literature on relation points and how nothing can "be" without an extension of itself, much like a line cannot be made with one point, but two, which is fundamental and old, however I've extended this notion on a level of human experience to give people an idea why their entire existence, their definition, their future, their life is dependent on their relation point being drawn to other relation points, for without relation points, we're nothing, that information is built on relation

1. I'd like to read your profound literature - is it online or somewhere I can access it? If it's not, why not?

2. A point can be made with one point. Where is the extension of itself?

3. I do not understand how rocks extend themselves either. As far as I know, they are just rocks. Those that float in space, we do not know of them, yet they "be" as well - what extends them???

4. I understand my future is necessarily tied to others, but I am unable to define myself on my own? Do you include plants as the others? If not, why cannot a man go to an uninhabited area with some plants for food, find a well, and live on his own forever? Does he not have a future, even as he may live and prosper and observe the beauty of the world and find satisfaction in his hard work and simple yet fulfilling life of enjoying what the earth offers?

5. If you understand the core of the universe, what is it? Or why is it? Or ... maybe I'm not phrasing this properly, but I think you see what I am trying to ask.

the colors of sound waves

How does a sound wave have color? Or rather, what about the science of sound waves is flawed such that you believe they have color?

the feeling of having your head explode, is the same feeling the Universe experienced when it expanded from a singularity"; this feeling is dark matter breaking into new matter, which becomes light matter, much like ignorance becomes information, which become intelligence

Ignorance may also lead to an attempt to find information, which leads to false facts, lies, and a sense of knowledge that is deceptive in its fullness yet no truer for it. This is empirically proven.

 

[HappyHouseSpider]

1. I'd like to read your profound literature - is it online or somewhere I can access it? If it's not, why not?

You are reading it right now.

2. A point can be made with one point. Where is the extension of itself?

A line can be made with one point* A point has no dimension, as so: . When a point connects with another point, it creates a line as so: __ When you apply lines diagonally inwards from each end of this line, you create not only a triangle, but a dimension.

3. I do not understand how rocks extend themselves either. As far as I know, they are just rocks. Those that float in space, we do not know of them, yet they "be" as well - what extends them???

A rock is a rock because other things around the rock are not a rock. If you remove the things, except the rock, where did the rock go? It has no relation point. Objects are contrasting each other to create concepts. The rock (stone asteroid) in space can be found in a miniature form by observing kidney stones and the calcium/iron similarities.

4. I understand my future is necessarily tied to others, but I am unable to define myself on my own? Do you include plants as the others? If not, why cannot a man go to an uninhabited area with some plants for food, find a well, and live on his own forever? Does he not have a future, even as he may live and prosper and observe the beauty of the world and find satisfaction in his hard work and simple yet fulfilling life of enjoying what the earth offers?

When you say "I", you are very far from the truth. When you say "Information", you have thus figured out the Universe. Refer to what I wrote before:

Environments and influences define us through information. We are animated, shaped and evaluated based on the pre-existent faculties of the Universe, as cosmic sponges that absorb information - we do not become anything more than information, hence why nobody "is", they are always "changing" and "evolving", learning new things. The brain is not a sculpture that's finished when it's sculpted; the brain is a cosmic wardrobe that allows us to pick anything out from the Universe to wear it, but too many people put on a mask and forget they are wearing a mask at all.

No, he who gains wisdom from chaos, but leaves the chaos with the wisdom to prevent the chaos, is he who is no longer wise, but selfish.

5. If you understand the core of the universe, what is it? Or why is it? Or ... maybe I'm not phrasing this properly, but I think you see what I am trying to ask.

The Universe is existing on two different systems at once - there's the vacuum that produces everything eternally; the eternal point; the infinite eye of the cosmos; the zero point - everything that is projected outside of this has a beginning and an end, but the vacuum, itself, is eternal.The Universe contradicts itself because of the way it evolves. It comes from a vacuum that's eternal, which creates everything as cosmic procedures via stars exploding, these star seeds being absorbed by a black hole like a uterus, and the black hole turns into a galaxy of colors, and creation.

I can tie the Universe's behavior to Man's behavior. Because "Man" is part of the "Plan", so to speak.

How does a sound wave have color? Or rather, what about the science of sound waves is flawed such that you believe they have color?

Are you familiar with the northern lights? They are electromagnetic waves - electromagnetic waves are sound waves - sound waves consist of either white (when above radio waves), or the colors of the rainbow (when in radio waves).

Ignorance may also lead to an attempt to find information, which leads to false facts, lies, and a sense of knowledge that is deceptive in its fullness yet no truer for it. This is empirically proven.

The thing is, he who is wise is he who is guided by their brain; he who is unwise, is he who plays his own game. The Universe speaks to the former, not the latter. One does not make connections, see things others cannot see, based entirely on the illusion of truth - when he finds out that their body and mind speaks via energy, frequency and vibration, that's when he is more than a person; he is one.

 

[LarsINTJ]

@ HappyHouseSpider

The Ancient Chinese basically observed the world around them and attempted to explain everything with predefined mysticism in their inability/refusal to reason from first principles. They completely lacked the humility of Western philosophers such as Socrates who understood what they did not know given the limitations of their era. Making up answers is never an option.

Now I'll ask:
Where did the Scientific Method originate from?
Modern branches of Physics?
Chemistry?
Evolution?
Modern Medicine?
Psychology?
Classical Liberalism?
Economics?

According to Eastern 'philosophy', a table is the same as chair if they're both made of wood. Applied consistently, they should also say that a pig is the same as a human because it represents equivalent substance. This is a metaphysical fail on so many levels. Substance and attributes can only be descriptively applied to an abstract concept of an object, they are not fundamental to the concept. These descriptors separate different objects which share aspects of the same concept. No two objects are exactly the same, even if we must resort to comparing the space they occupy, although many different objects can represent the same concept. Remember, substance is not a concept in and of itself.

What is a 'wooden'?
What is a 'metallic'?
What is a 'plastic'?
Meaningless relativism, that's what it is.

You know something is wrong with your a mode of thought if it immediately breaks a = a, the Law of Identity.

 

[HappyHouseSpider]

@ HappyHouseSpider

The Ancient Chinese basically observed the world around them and attempted to explain everything with predefined mysticism in their inability/refusal to reason from first principles. They completely lacked the humility of Western philosophers such as Socrates who understood what they did not know given the limitations of their era. Making up answers is never an option.

Now I'll ask:
Where did the Scientific Method originate from?
Modern branches of Physics?
Chemistry?
Evolution?
Modern Medicine?
Psychology?
Classical Liberalism?
Economics?

According to Eastern 'philosophy', a table is the same as chair if they're both made of wood. Applied consistently, they should also say that a pig is the same as a human because it represents equivalent substance. This is a metaphysical fail on so many levels. Substance and attributes can only be descriptively applied to an abstract concept of an object, they are not fundamental to the concept. These descriptors separate different objects which share aspects of the same concept. No two objects are exactly the same, even if we must resort to comparing the space they occupy, although many different objects can represent the same concept. Remember, substance is not a concept in and of itself.

What is a 'wooden'?
What is a 'metallic'?
What is a 'plastic'?
Meaningless relativism, that's what it is.

You know something is wrong with your a mode of thought if it immediately breaks a = a, the Law of Identity.

Then refer to my mind exercise about relation points, Lars.

A rock is surrounded by objects, someone says, "I bet you I could remove everything around the rock, and make the rock disappear." The people said "you are stupid, that can't happen! PROVE IT", so then the man removed the objects, and asked them "where did the rock go?", the people said "IT'S STILL THERE! YOU LIED.", then the man said "it is not a rock, but an object that we called a rock when objects surrounded it. We could say it was a rock, because everything else was not a rock, but now that we removed the objects, there is no relation point. The rock cannot exist without objects defining its intricate properties, as a man cannot exist without others knowing his existence." The people then hung him, because they thought he was a demon, The End.

 

[LarsINTJ]

That's what's so ridiculous about Eastern thought, they do not pay attention intrinsic properties, but rather define objects by their surroundings. A rock in the desert does not magically change if you throw it into a lake, it's still the same rock. A rock stuck in an empty void is still a rock.

This relativism in Eastern philosophy is simply an excuse to enforce social conformity. 'In order to be happy, you must please others, in order to please others you must conform to their preferences'. 'It is impossible to be happy if you displease others because your emotional state is defined by the collective emotional states which surround you'. No wonder they have such a high suicide rate...

Reason = Virtue = Happiness
That is the core of Western philosophy when it comes to living a healthy life. Refer to Aristotle.

In order to be rational, we must understand the consistency of existence (metaphysics), truth (epistemology) and ethics as they relate to one another. Most of society fails at universalizing ethics because they focus on defining what is good rather than bad, that's our longstanding issue.

Eastern philosophy is a regression into mysticism, it does not lead to happiness, it leads to insanity.

 

[HappyHouseSpider]

That's what's so ridiculous about Eastern thought, they do not pay attention intrinsic properties, but rather define objects by their surroundings. A rock in the desert does not magically change if you throw it into a lake, it's still the same rock. A rock stuck in an empty void is still a rock.

This relativism in Eastern philosophy is simply an excuse to enforce social conformity. 'In order to be happy, you must please others, in order to please others you must conform to their preferences'. 'It is impossible to be happy if you displease others because your emotional state is defined by the collective emotional states which surround you'. No wonder they have such a high suicide rate...

Reason = Virtue = Happiness
That is the core of Western philosophy when it comes to living a healthy life. Refer to Aristotle.

In order to be rational, we must understand the consistency of existence (metaphysics), truth (epistemology) and ethics as they relate to one another. Most of society fails at universalizing ethics because they focus on defining what is good rather than bad, that's our longstanding issue.

Eastern philosophy is a regression into mysticism, it does not lead to happiness, it leads to insanity.

You have much bias towards eastern philosophy, it's no surprise that you only look at the bad side of it. It's very wise, just like any other school of thought, which is why it's best not to characterize philosophy or label philosophy, as what people do with it does not have relevance to its principles.

Insanity is something great minds throughout all walks of life experienced, for "insanity" is nothing more than us travelling down a spiral. Life is there, not out here.

 

[LarsINTJ]

You have much bias towards eastern philosophy, it's no surprise that you only look at the bad side of it. It's very wise, just like any other school of thought, which is why it's best not to characterize philosophy or label philosophy, as what people do with it does not have relevance to its principles.

Eastern thought has a bias against reality, any sane person should have a problem with that.

 

[HappyHouseSpider]

Eastern thought has a bias against reality, any sane person should have a problem with that.

What is reality to you, Lars? Because all I see is illusions, labels, distractions and toys people misuse. The wise know very well what is real and what is not real, as well as what appears real, but is not real; and what appears not real, but is real.

 

[LarsINTJ]

What is reality to you, Lars? Because all I see is illusions, labels, distractions and toys people misuse. The wise know very well what is real and what is not real, as well as what appears real, but is not real; and what appears not real, but is real.

The wise do not constantly proclaim they are wise under the guise of vague mystical superiority. You've made it blatantly clear that you don't understand the first thing about either metaphysics or epistemology, nor are you even curious enough to bother processing concepts which fall outside an airy-fairy realm of spirituality.

What is reality? What is real? Reality encompasses anything which falls under the categories of matter and energy, verifiable by empirical observations.

E.g. The concept 'chair' is not real, concepts do not exist in reality, but a construct which similarly represents the shape and/or function of 'chair' is real.

 

[HappyHouseSpider]

The wise do not constantly proclaim they are wise under the guise of vague mystical superiority. You've made it blatantly clear that you don't understand the first thing about either metaphysics or epistemology, nor are you even curious enough to bother processing concepts which fall outside an airy-fairy realm of spirituality.

What is reality? What is real? Reality encompasses anything which falls under the categories of matter and energy, verifiable by empirical observations. E.g. The concept 'chair' is not real, but a construct which similarly conforms to the shape and/or function of a chair is real.

Actually, I have evolved from the self-humility that wise men hone; I still have it, but I do not give it to people for the same reason the town's people in comics treat their hero like toys. So I wrote this, just for people like you: "He who calls himself a fool, is a fool; he who plays the fool, cannot be the fool, for he was himself before the fool." Basically, when a wise man says "I am a fool", they have made a grave error, as the truly wise create a relation point between themselves and the concept, while the unwise wear concepts, so it looks like this:

Wise: self/something else

Unwise: (something(self)else)

Therefore you have encouraged the oldest fallacy in the history of wise men.

Philosophy is the father of science, so you cannot say reality is based on empirical evidence. Everything we understand right now, was once a philosophical question that people also thought couldn't be true, or made no sense, but through time, things are made into reality from this ideological plane the wise hone within, and as such, people still never learn from the past, because people still live in the past.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Philosophy is science, they are two sides of the same coin. Granted, a philosopher is different from a scientist, they represent specialized areas of expertise. Being a philosopher does not make you a scientist, vice versa, although most people seem to think that being an anything is sufficient enough to be labelled an experienced philosopher with valid thoughts and opinions.

To be wise is to be humble first and foremost, one must be intelligent enough to admit their own short-comings then explore truth through observation and experimentation. It is fundamentally arrogant to embrace the delusions of grandeur associated with feeling 'one with the universe', pretending to be 'enlightened' because you sat with your eyes closed under a tree holding farts in all day.

A mindless barrage of regurgitated platitudes is so typical of Eastern philosophy. They're never able to validate their words of wisdom, whatever suits them is treated as axiomatic. That's not to say Western religions aren't like that too.

 

[HappyHouseSpider]

Philosophy is science, they are two sides of the same coin. Granted, a philosopher is different from a scientists, they represent specialized areas of expertise. Being a philosopher does not make you a scientist, vice versa, although most people seem to think that being an anything is sufficient enough to be labelled an experienced philosopher with valid thoughts and opinions.

To be wise is to be humble first and foremost, one must be intelligent enough to admit their own short-comings then explore truth through observation and experimentation. It is fundamentally arrogant to embrace the delusions of grandeur associated with feeling 'one with the universe', pretending to be 'enlightened' because you sat with your eyes closed under a tree holding farts in all day.

A mindless barrage of regurgitated platitudes is so typical of Eastern philosophy. They're never able to validate their words of wisdom, whatever suits them is treated as axiomatic. That's not to say Western religions aren't like that too.

Philosophy is not science, for it's of concept, not of object. And as you can see, everyone can philosophize, but not everyone can control the information they take in to be a philosopher, let alone take the concept and turn it into an object, thus to become a scientist - and not all scientist originally became one, they copied genuine scientists, while they have no spirit of the original scientist with the original philosophical spirit.

I admit to all my mistakes, which is why I am as passionate and confident as I am today. I have always taught my people that it's okay to have a shield, but you must be able to shift its weight so when you need to take pain, you'll have the opportunity to do so, otherwise building giant shields, and not having the strength to move them similar to how many people have trouble getting out of bed due to its comfortable nature, is going to hold you down. I also teach that one must learn more than one way to take down their enemy, for the enemy can shift their weight to shake you off. I do not fight with weapons, but with words.

I'm not sure if you have ever realized, but the wise men who speak these wise words of the eastern philosophy, such as martial artists, truly have demonstrated in a physical manner what they have done with their mind and body. They have chiseled their body and mind right underneath our noses, but how? You have to understand your internal wisdom and unleash your inner potential to comprehend what they have done to achieve this physical, yet "spiritual" strength that allowed them to rise over people who thought on a social, emotional and personal level, instead of a mental, universal and existentially questionable level. I assure you, if you tried to fight one, you would be out-smarted and out-maneuvered.

 

[Thor]

Just gonna say one single thing on something that was said here:

a man cannot exist without others knowing his existence."

Robin Crusoe (I believe that's the book where a man is stranded on an island all alone. Even when he sleeps, he knows himself to exist, therefore he exists.)

Descartes - I think, therefore I am. I can reason and know things for myself, so I know I exist because I could not do these things if I did not exist.

We are self-contained beings - we would exist even when others think we are dead and therefore do not exist as alive (such as when people are searching for bodies and the miracle person is still alive - even though we knew NOTHING of his existence as a live human being, and "KNEW" him to be dead, he was alive).

These three points would seem to me more than sufficient to disprove this claim entirely.

But don't mind me much - I'm mostly just reading this because I feel like it.

 

[HappyHouseSpider]

Just gonna say one single thing on something that was said here:



Robin Crusoe (I believe that's the book where a man is stranded on an island all alone. Even when he sleeps, he knows himself to exist, therefore he exists.)

Descartes - I think, therefore I am. I can reason and know things for myself, so I know I exist because I could not do these things if I did not exist.

We are self-contained beings - we would exist even when others think we are dead and therefore do not exist as alive (such as when people are searching for bodies and the miracle person is still alive - even though we knew NOTHING of his existence as a live human being, and "KNEW" him to be dead, he was alive).

These three points would seem to me more than sufficient to disprove this claim entirely.

But don't mind me much - I'm mostly just reading this because I feel like it.

You're taking a parable to a literal level, when literal-thinking is intellectual illiteracy in disguise. Why would you ever try to name and own a world you have no answers to? Because intellectual illiteracy. A world of labels, is a world that's unstable.

Descartes does not "think", for ideas come to him, he does not come to them. Who is doing the thinking? It's not us - it's the Universe. All we do is observe and our observation triggers electromagnetic waves, which connect with microscopic holes of the Universe, (like a cosmic sponge), which information is sent/received to and fro.

This is literal-minded understanding of "non-existence". I do not mean physical; I mean metaphysical. If one man lived in this world, he would fall into nihilism and solipsism faster than anyone who has relation points (other people) to cross-reference their existence with. It's easy to lose yourself when there's no objects around you to establish a relation point between your state and the space which surrounds it.

We are not the clock work; we are experiencing the clock work. The brain, the body and the mind work, react and operate without our conscious knowledge because we are each a ghost in a machine that all come together as a reflective property of the father machine.

 

[FirestormNeos]

Annoy OP.
B**** about Sonic games.
Chocolate Milk.

Done.