|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 24, 2020 17:34:51 GMT
In dividing an apple into 2,3,4,5...etc. pieces is to divide the apple into singular entities in themselves given each piece is equivalent to one. One cannot be observed on its own terms except through other ones thus necessitating each individual piece as empty in itself.
This can be seen in a line where the line cannot be observed except in relation to other lines which it both composes and is composed of.
Dually this same nature can be seen in 0, through a 0d point, where the point on its own terms cannot be observed given it is fundamentally nothing. The point is observed through its progression to another point with this progression resulting in the form of a line. In 0 progressing to 0 an equation of 0=0 occurs which is embodied spatially under the line. This 0=0 results in the first one given the line as a quantifiable entity begins its existence. One begins it equivocation to another one, as 1=1, when the line changes into another line through the 0d point.
Even then the point is only observed as the change from one line into another and as such is not so much a thing in itself but rather a mode of change
Thus 0=0 progresses to 1=1, as formlessness into form, where this equivocation is expressed under x=x given equality under the symbol of "=" occurs through a repetition of said phenomenon. Equality is only observed through repetition.
Under one portion x=x is the equivocation of forms, in another respect it is an equivocation of changes (formlessness) thus necessitating x as a variable equivalent to both form and change.
One as intrinsically empty in itself can be observed under the line fundamentally as a sideways loop, given its beginning and end points are the same 0d point as 0=0, thus necessitating 1 contains zero much in the same manner a loop contains emptiness. This empty nature of 1=1 occurs through its equivalence to the variable of x=x which further equivocates 1 to 0 given both 0 and 1, through the number line, are equivalent to x=x.
In simpler terms the number 1 as an empty loop contains 0=0; thus 1 is a mode of change to further numbers given it cannot exist on its own terms due to its premise being grounded in the emptiness of zero. Zero cannot be observed on it's own terms given it is nothing, and with the number 1 being grounded in this same nature it follows 0 as a mode of change given 1 must change into another 1 if it is to exist.
1 as empty is 1 as a mode of change to further 1. Form contains formlessness, as evidenced through the loop, and this formlessness is the means of change into another form.
1 is an empty loop evidenced by the line containing 0d points because it contains other lines and the fact the line contains both the same beginning and end points as the 0d point. 1 as an empty loop is 1 equating to 0 given all numbers change to further numbers, all ones change into further ones, due to their empty nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by timefuljoe on Aug 28, 2020 7:41:32 GMT
It reminds me of the Yang in Taoism, but I think this idea only applies so far as our perception extends. There certainly can be just one of something. I think I understand what you are saying though. I think this is more so a case of our mechanics of numbering, not necessarily numbers themselves. Kind of like the tree falling in the woods.
The names we use, and even the root concepts themselves, though we do distinguish them based off of a kind of comparison, the idea of "one" in quantity does stand alone as its own idea, same as I would posit, any other number.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Aug 28, 2020 8:00:26 GMT
Technically wouldn't all numbers but 1 be empty since they are pieces of one? I guess 0 can count too. But we still need something because something will always be observed. timefuljoe you mentioned ideas applying as far as our perception goes which I agree too. I was wondering if you think our perceptions can decline in ability over time or increase over time? As in is it like set from birth to is limitations or if is formed and is flexible. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 30, 2020 3:39:24 GMT
Technically wouldn't all numbers but 1 be empty since they are pieces of one? I guess 0 can count too. But we still need something because something will always be observed. timefuljoe you mentioned ideas applying as far as our perception goes which I agree too. I was wondering if you think our perceptions can decline in ability over time or increase over time? As in is it like set from birth to is limitations or if is formed and is flexible. One as intrinsically empty in itself can be observed under the line fundamentally as a sideways loop, given its beginning and end points are the same 0d point as 0=0, thus necessitating 1 contains zero much in the same manner a loop contains emptiness. This empty nature of 1=1 occurs through its equivalence to the variable of x=x which further equivocates 1 to 0 given both 0 and 1, through the number line, are equivalent to x=x.
In simpler terms the number 1 as an empty loop contains 0=0; thus 1 is a mode of change to further numbers given it cannot exist on its own terms due to its premise being grounded in the emptiness of zero. Zero cannot be observed on it's own terms given it is nothing, and with the number 1 being grounded in this same nature it follows 0 as a mode of change given 1 must change into another 1 if it is to exist.
1 as empty is 1 as a mode of change to further 1. Form contains formlessness, as evidenced through the loop, and this formlessness is the means of change into another form.
1 is an empty loop evidenced by the line containing 0d points because it contains other lines and the fact the line contains both the same beginning and end points as the 0d point. 1 as an empty loop is 1 equating to 0 given all numbers change to further numbers, all ones change into further ones, due to their empty nature |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Aug 30, 2020 20:43:31 GMT
Technically wouldn't all numbers but 1 be empty since they are pieces of one? I guess 0 can count too. But we still need something because something will always be observed. timefuljoe you mentioned ideas applying as far as our perception goes which I agree too. I was wondering if you think our perceptions can decline in ability over time or increase over time? As in is it like set from birth to is limitations or if is formed and is flexible. One as intrinsically empty in itself can be observed under the line fundamentally as a sideways loop, given its beginning and end points are the same 0d point as 0=0, thus necessitating 1 contains zero much in the same manner a loop contains emptiness. This empty nature of 1=1 occurs through its equivalence to the variable of x=x which further equivocates 1 to 0 given both 0 and 1, through the number line, are equivalent to x=x.
In simpler terms the number 1 as an empty loop contains 0=0; thus 1 is a mode of change to further numbers given it cannot exist on its own terms due to its premise being grounded in the emptiness of zero. Zero cannot be observed on it's own terms given it is nothing, and with the number 1 being grounded in this same nature it follows 0 as a mode of change given 1 must change into another 1 if it is to exist.
1 as empty is 1 as a mode of change to further 1. Form contains formlessness, as evidenced through the loop, and this formlessness is the means of change into another form.
1 is an empty loop evidenced by the line containing 0d points because it contains other lines and the fact the line contains both the same beginning and end points as the 0d point. 1 as an empty loop is 1 equating to 0 given all numbers change to further numbers, all ones change into further ones, due to their empty nature, A Mass Of .999 Is Computed As "1", Meaning That "1" And "0" Are Merely A Unit Of Measure After The Universe Has Reached Its Maximum Output, That Being 9, 99, 999, 9999, So On. We Know That The 1 Represents Male Genitalia, And 0 Represents Female Genitalia, As The Digital Program Of Binary IS The Duality Between Male And Female, Which Is Why In The Cosmos, The Stars Explode As A Male Provides Its Seed To The Female, Which Is The Black Hole In This Case, Then The Worm Hole (Womb) Produces A Child (Galaxy). There Is An " Infinite" Bond Between The Two Forces Of The Cosmos, As Well As The Offspring Of Those Two Forces. Infinity Is Represented By The Number " 8". If You Take All The Numbers, Like So, 98765432 x 9, You Get 888888888, Which Reveals The " Infinite" System Of The Cosmos Via Duality. If You Noticed, The " 1", The "Whole" Unit Of Measure After .999 Is Missing From The Equation, Which Is Why Everything Is "One" In The "Infinite". |
|
|
|
Post by timefuljoe on Sept 2, 2020 17:20:39 GMT
Yeah, for sure. If our perception is linked to our body then as our body changes so does our capacity for perception. Something I think is interesting because the idea can be applied elsewhere is that we need to have both the means to detect AND process stimuli. If an organism has eyes but not the brain to process it, then they cannot see (in that sense at least, since echolocation and heat-sensing can be considered a form of seeing.) The other way around too. Now, if we are talking about predeterminism I'm not sure what to say  If you do accept that then I guess our ability to perceive IS set from birth, though it may fluctuate with time. That fluctuation is something that holds with predeterminism or not though, to loop back around. Maybe someday humans either can get body modifications or will have naturally evolved to be able to consciously follow chem trails, something other organisms do to find food and get around. So flexible is how I would say that. Your thoughts? What do you think about predeterminism? |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 2, 2020 18:42:42 GMT
Now, if we are talking about predeterminism I'm not sure what to say If you do accept that then I guess our ability to perceive IS set from birth, though it may fluctuate with time. I Am Living Proof That "Perception" Is A Quantifiable Deterministic Ability That Is Provided By Your Mathematical Concordance (I.E How Many Days You Have Been Here, And How It Aligns With Galactic Esoteric Geometry Beyond The 3-D Plane). My "Perception" Increased By The 9's, Like On 3 / 21 / 2020, I Was 9999 Days Old, This Same Day, My Work Went To A Whole New Level. Specific Intervals Of Numerical Apparatuses Are Involved With The Physical Condition. There Is An Overlapping Spiritual Evolution Within Us All, Which Varies, Some Of Us Are Not Even From This Planet, Our Souls Are Ancient And Our Perception Naturally Makes "Normal" Beings Look Boring And Stupid, Which Is Not Our Intention, Since We Are Here To Teach Even Those That Have Never Seen The "Other Side". Your "Awareness" Is Based On Your Soul's Determined Capacity, Your "Perception" In The End Is The Fated Power You Were Bestowed Since Birth. There Is A Galactic Spiritual Retribution Taking Place In 2020, So In Year 2020, The People's "Perception" Has Been Heightened Globally, But Those With Ancient Souls And Modern Souls Will Remain To Have Lights Years Apart In Spiritual Cognition And Existential Application. |
|
|
|
Post by timefuljoe on Sept 2, 2020 19:02:35 GMT
Now, if we are talking about predeterminism I'm not sure what to say If you do accept that then I guess our ability to perceive IS set from birth, though it may fluctuate with time. I Am Living Proof That "Perception" Is A Quantifiable Deterministic Ability That Is Provided By Your Mathematical Concordance (I.E How Many Days You Have Been Here, And How It Aligns With Galactic Esoteric Geometry Beyond The 3-D Plane). My "Perception" Increased By The 9's, Like On 3 / 21 / 2020, I Was 9999 Days Old, This Same Day, My Work Went To A Whole New Level. Specific Intervals Of Numerical Apparatuses Are Involved With The Physical Condition. There Is An Overlapping Spiritual Evolution Within Us All, Which Varies, Some Of Us Are Not Even From This Planet, Our Souls Are Ancient And Our Perception Naturally Makes "Normal" Beings Look Boring And Stupid, Which Is Not Our Intention, Since We Are Here To Teach Even Those That Have Never Seen The "Other Side". Your "Awareness" Is Based On Your Soul's Determined Capacity, Your "Perception" In The End Is The Fated Power You Were Bestowed Since Birth. There Is A Galactic Spiritual Retribution Taking Place In 2020, So In Year 2020, The People's "Perception" Has Been Heightened Globally, But Those With Ancient Souls And Modern Souls Will Remain To Have Lights Years Apart In Spiritual Cognition And Existential Application. I do not accept your premises, that is Galactic Esoteric Geometry. I do not accept the idea of souls, either, or the spiritual in any capacity. Before I'll be convinced that your system can prove it, I would need to be confident in your system. It would be like if someone wanted to prove something using math, but one of their premises was that a negative times a negative equals a negative: (-)*(-)=(-). That would not be sound math, so anything they tried to tell me by using that would also not be sound. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I hope you get my point. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 2, 2020 19:11:33 GMT
I Am Living Proof That "Perception" Is A Quantifiable Deterministic Ability That Is Provided By Your Mathematical Concordance (I.E How Many Days You Have Been Here, And How It Aligns With Galactic Esoteric Geometry Beyond The 3-D Plane). My "Perception" Increased By The 9's, Like On 3 / 21 / 2020, I Was 9999 Days Old, This Same Day, My Work Went To A Whole New Level. Specific Intervals Of Numerical Apparatuses Are Involved With The Physical Condition. There Is An Overlapping Spiritual Evolution Within Us All, Which Varies, Some Of Us Are Not Even From This Planet, Our Souls Are Ancient And Our Perception Naturally Makes "Normal" Beings Look Boring And Stupid, Which Is Not Our Intention, Since We Are Here To Teach Even Those That Have Never Seen The "Other Side". Your "Awareness" Is Based On Your Soul's Determined Capacity, Your "Perception" In The End Is The Fated Power You Were Bestowed Since Birth. There Is A Galactic Spiritual Retribution Taking Place In 2020, So In Year 2020, The People's "Perception" Has Been Heightened Globally, But Those With Ancient Souls And Modern Souls Will Remain To Have Lights Years Apart In Spiritual Cognition And Existential Application. I do not accept your premises, that is Galactic Esoteric Geometry. I do not accept the idea of souls, either, or the spiritual in any capacity. Before I'll be convinced that your system can prove it, I would need to be confident in your system. It would be like if someone wanted to prove something using math, but one of their premises was that a negative times a negative equals a negative: (-)*(-)=(-). That would not be sound math, so anything they tried to tell me by using that would also not be sound. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I hope you get my point. What I Do Is Objective, I Use Malleable Systems That Are In Accordance With Natural Design, And In No Way Can It Be Tampered Or Twisted. It Is Not Out Of The Question To Suspect That The Universe Is Mathematical In Nature, And Thus It Designed Everything "Mathematically", Including Our Growth In "Perception", Which Is More Evident In An Ancient Soul That Can Easily Demonstrate An Unusual Level Of "Perception", At Specific Intervals Of Their Lifetime, And How It "Mathematically" Aligns With Esoteric Geometry, Global Events, And So On. Everything Is "Mathematical" In Nature, It Is The Only Universal Language We Have, And 95% Of This Planet Fails At Math-Related Subjects. I Have Become A Grand Master At This Subject, To The Point I Have Elevated It To A Level That Has Not Been Seen Since The Days Of Nikola Tesla. There Is A "Soul", Even Nikola Tesla Knew That Our "Intuition" And "Inspiration" Did Not Come From Ourselves, It Came From A Higher Source. |
|
|
|
Post by timefuljoe on Sept 2, 2020 19:59:08 GMT
I do not accept your premises, that is Galactic Esoteric Geometry. I do not accept the idea of souls, either, or the spiritual in any capacity. Before I'll be convinced that your system can prove it, I would need to be confident in your system. It would be like if someone wanted to prove something using math, but one of their premises was that a negative times a negative equals a negative: (-)*(-)=(-). That would not be sound math, so anything they tried to tell me by using that would also not be sound. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I hope you get my point. What I Do Is Objective, I Use Malleable Systems That Are In Accordance With Natural Design, And In No Way Can It Be Tampered Or Twisted. It Is Not Out Of The Question To Suspect That The Universe Is Mathematical In Nature, And Thus It Designed Everything "Mathematically", Including Our Growth In "Perception", Which Is More Evident In An Ancient Soul That Can Easily Demonstrate An Unusual Level Of "Perception", At Specific Intervals Of Their Lifetime, And How It "Mathematically" Aligns With Esoteric Geometry, Global Events, And So On. Everything Is "Mathematical" In Nature, It Is The Only Universal Language We Have, And 95% Of This Planet Fails At Math-Related Subjects. I Have Become A Grand Master At This Subject, To The Point I Have Elevated It To A Level That Has Not Been Seen Since The Days Of Nikola Tesla. There Is A "Soul", Even Nikola Tesla Knew That Our "Intuition" And "Inspiration" Did Not Come From Ourselves, It Came From A Higher Source. I agree math can be used to describe the universe, but it is a language we sort of created to understand the universe so there is no surprise that it does that job well. It almost sounds like you're saying that people with greater perception are evidence of older souls, but their better performance at perception can be attributed to their brain structure being good at perceiving. No shoehorning in of a soul is required. Nikola Tesla, smart as he seems to have been, was not necessarily correct on everything. He could not prove a soul any more than someone today can. I won't belabor this, but feeling is not proof. Some of our ancestors thought that lightning came from a man in the sky throwing them down. They felt very strongly about it, and given what they knew it is hard to blame them for thinking that way. The same with a soul. Before we knew about how the brain works emotions were a mystery. They were then attributed to some unknown "soul." Does that mean we SHOULD accept unsubstantiated ideas in lieu of verifiable information? No, of course not. But that is what happened. Beating my head against a wall is not appealing, so I am not going to continue on this unless you can substantiate your claims. Can you show a soul exists through math? Can you show that the spiritual exists in any capacity? On the side, do you ascribe to Time Cube theory? Have you been recognized for the expertise you claim? Is it possible that you are wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 2, 2020 20:09:44 GMT
What I Do Is Objective, I Use Malleable Systems That Are In Accordance With Natural Design, And In No Way Can It Be Tampered Or Twisted. It Is Not Out Of The Question To Suspect That The Universe Is Mathematical In Nature, And Thus It Designed Everything "Mathematically", Including Our Growth In "Perception", Which Is More Evident In An Ancient Soul That Can Easily Demonstrate An Unusual Level Of "Perception", At Specific Intervals Of Their Lifetime, And How It "Mathematically" Aligns With Esoteric Geometry, Global Events, And So On. Everything Is "Mathematical" In Nature, It Is The Only Universal Language We Have, And 95% Of This Planet Fails At Math-Related Subjects. I Have Become A Grand Master At This Subject, To The Point I Have Elevated It To A Level That Has Not Been Seen Since The Days Of Nikola Tesla. There Is A "Soul", Even Nikola Tesla Knew That Our "Intuition" And "Inspiration" Did Not Come From Ourselves, It Came From A Higher Source. I agree math can be used to describe the universe, but it is a language we sort of created to understand the universe so there is no surprise that it does that job well. It almost sounds like you're saying that people with greater perception are evidence of older souls, but their better performance at perception can be attributed to their brain structure being good at perceiving. No shoehorning in of a soul is required. Nikola Tesla, smart as he seems to have been, was not necessarily correct on everything. He could not prove a soul any more than someone today can. I won't belabor this, but feeling is not proof. Some of our ancestors thought that lightning came from a man in the sky throwing them down. They felt very strongly about it, and given what they knew it is hard to blame them for thinking that way. The same with a soul. Before we knew about how the brain works emotions were a mystery. They were then attributed to some unknown "soul." Does that mean we SHOULD accept unsubstantiated ideas in lieu of verifiable information? No, of course not. But that is what happened. Beating my head against a wall is not appealing, so I am not going to continue on this unless you can substantiate your claims. Can you show a soul exists through math? Can you show that the spiritual exists in any capacity? On the side, do you ascribe to Time Cube theory? Have you been recognized for the expertise you claim? Is it possible that you are wrong? " Seems To Have Been", And " Not Necessarily Correct On Everything", If You Come To The Philosophy Forums To Sound Like That, You Won't Learn Anything. If You Want To Learn, Remove Your Ego, And Learn What You Do Not Know, Before You Challenge Subjects You Clearly Know Nothing About. The Inventions Of Nikola Tesla Were Tangible And Malleable Constructs, Unlike Your Arm-Chair Philosopher Rhetoric. You're Not Smart, You Think Being Intelligent Is About Seeing The World Through A Straw And Throwing Spaghetti Ideas At A Wall, Then Making Baseless Assertions About The Most Intelligent Minds On This Prison Planet. Until You Learn Humility, You Will Never Learn Ingenuity. |
|
|
|
Post by timefuljoe on Sept 2, 2020 21:08:40 GMT
I agree math can be used to describe the universe, but it is a language we sort of created to understand the universe so there is no surprise that it does that job well. It almost sounds like you're saying that people with greater perception are evidence of older souls, but their better performance at perception can be attributed to their brain structure being good at perceiving. No shoehorning in of a soul is required. Nikola Tesla, smart as he seems to have been, was not necessarily correct on everything. He could not prove a soul any more than someone today can. I won't belabor this, but feeling is not proof. Some of our ancestors thought that lightning came from a man in the sky throwing them down. They felt very strongly about it, and given what they knew it is hard to blame them for thinking that way. The same with a soul. Before we knew about how the brain works emotions were a mystery. They were then attributed to some unknown "soul." Does that mean we SHOULD accept unsubstantiated ideas in lieu of verifiable information? No, of course not. But that is what happened. Beating my head against a wall is not appealing, so I am not going to continue on this unless you can substantiate your claims. Can you show a soul exists through math? Can you show that the spiritual exists in any capacity? On the side, do you ascribe to Time Cube theory? Have you been recognized for the expertise you claim? Is it possible that you are wrong? " Seems To Have Been", And " Not Necessarily Correct On Everything", If You Come To The Philosophy Forums To Sound Like That, You Won't Learn Anything. If You Want To Learn, Remove Your Ego, And Learn What You Do Not Know, Before You Challenge Subjects You Clearly Know Nothing About. The Inventions Of Nikola Tesla Were Tangible And Malleable Constructs, Unlike Your Arm-Chair Philosopher Rhetoric. You're Not Smart, You Think Being Intelligent Is About Seeing The World Through A Straw And Throwing Spaghetti Ideas At A Wall, Then Making Baseless Assertions About The Most Intelligent Minds On This Prison Planet. Until You Learn Humility, You Will Never Learn Ingenuity. I've been inviting you to explain, but instead you keep avoiding my questions. I will not mindlessly accept things, so I challenge them. I will accept something if it shows to be acceptable, not before then. We agree math can be used to demonstrate how the universe works. You say your views are mathematical? You say a soul exists? Show me through math that a soul exists. Tesla's inventions were indeed tangible and malleable, but the soul is not. Let's put off childishness, now, please. You're on a high horse, floating over an abyss. If you want others to step out with you, show us there is ground to walk on. |
|
|
|
Post by timefuljoe on Sept 2, 2020 21:14:32 GMT
IM LITERALLY NEO Even easier, just show that the spiritual exists at all, in any capacity. You speak pretty adamantly of it, so you must be assured it exists and have a good reason to, right? Reasons that can stand up to criticism? If they cannot stand up to criticism, then why do you accept them at all?
|
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 2, 2020 21:16:49 GMT
" Seems To Have Been", And " Not Necessarily Correct On Everything", If You Come To The Philosophy Forums To Sound Like That, You Won't Learn Anything. If You Want To Learn, Remove Your Ego, And Learn What You Do Not Know, Before You Challenge Subjects You Clearly Know Nothing About. The Inventions Of Nikola Tesla Were Tangible And Malleable Constructs, Unlike Your Arm-Chair Philosopher Rhetoric. You're Not Smart, You Think Being Intelligent Is About Seeing The World Through A Straw And Throwing Spaghetti Ideas At A Wall, Then Making Baseless Assertions About The Most Intelligent Minds On This Prison Planet. Until You Learn Humility, You Will Never Learn Ingenuity. I've been inviting you to explain, but instead you keep avoiding my questions. I will not mindlessly accept things, so I challenge them. I will accept something if it shows to be acceptable, not before then. We agree math can be used to demonstrate how the universe works. You say your views are mathematical? You say a soul exists? Show me through math that a soul exists. Tesla's inventions were indeed tangible and malleable, but the soul is not. Let's put off childishness, now, please. You're on a high horse, floating over an abyss. If you want others to step out with you, show us there is ground to walk on. No, If You Cannot Discern My Intentions, Then You Clearly Are Not As Intelligent As You Think. Your Inability To Understand Context Is Very Clear. AND, Your Audacity To Speak As Ignorantly As You Did About Nikola Tesla Tells Me More Than You Could In A Thousand Of Your Opaque Responses. In Other Words, I Already Know You're Here For Your Ego, Not Your Heart. Your Apathetic And Soulless Nihilistic Tone Tells Me All I Need To Know About Your Future, And The Credibility Of Your Asinine Rhetoric That Is Only There To Shield You From Your Own Existential Limitations. It's Not My Fault That You Cannot See The "Matrix", That The Twin Towers Fell In Year 2001 ( 667+667+667), Exactly 6+6+7 Years Before 2020, And T-win T-owers Is The 20th-20th Letter, For Year 2020, That " Ground Zero" Is The " Zero Point" Of The "Matrix", While Gravity = 6.67 G, Therefore Understanding These Intricacies Is Something You'll Never Have The Privilege To Know, As Long As You Continue To Be A Void, Instead Of A Voice.
The World Is Not What You Think It Is, Or Were Taught Since Birth: |
|
|
|
Post by timefuljoe on Sept 2, 2020 21:23:57 GMT
I've been inviting you to explain, but instead you keep avoiding my questions. I will not mindlessly accept things, so I challenge them. I will accept something if it shows to be acceptable, not before then. We agree math can be used to demonstrate how the universe works. You say your views are mathematical? You say a soul exists? Show me through math that a soul exists. Tesla's inventions were indeed tangible and malleable, but the soul is not. Let's put off childishness, now, please. You're on a high horse, floating over an abyss. If you want others to step out with you, show us there is ground to walk on. No, If You Cannot Discern My Intentions, Then You Clearly Are Not As Intelligent As You Think. Your Inability To Understand Context Is Very Clear. AND, Your Audacity To Speak As Ignorantly As You Did About Nikola Tesla Tells Me More Than You Could In A Thousand Of Your Opaque Responses. In Other Words, I Already Know You're Here For Your Ego, Not Your Heart. Your Apathetic And Soulless Nihilistic Tone Tells Me All I Need To Know About Your Future, And The Credibility Of Your Asinine Rhetoric That Is Only There To Shield You From Your Own Existential Limitations. It's Not My Fault That You Cannot See The "Matrix", That The Twin Towers Fell In Year 2001 ( 667+667+667), Exactly 6+6+7 Years Before 2020, And T-win T-owers Is The 20th-20th Letter, For Year 2020, That " Ground Zero" Is The " Zero Point" Of The "Matrix", While Gravity = 6.67 G, Therefore Understanding These Intricacies Is Something You'll Never Have The Privilege To Know, As Long As You Continue To Be A Void, Instead Of A Voice.
The World Is Not What You Think It Is, Or Were Taught Since Birth: Well, if you're decided on that then I'll not burden this thread any longer with this conversation. |
|
If you do accept that then I guess our ability to perceive IS set from birth, though it may fluctuate with time.