Immovable Force

Some context where they’re asking if God can make a rock so big he can’t lift it, which turns into a question of if God can make an immovable object (Archimedian point) AND irresistible force in the same universe. God says something like hold my wine. Then the big bang happens and it’s all fractals and bounded (whole) infinite (multiplied), and when you scroll in (or out, doesn’t matter) they’re pounding nails into Jesus, FF to “It is finished,” & it timelapses to the stone rolling away from the tomb. This song starts blasting at the 4 minute mark:

Then it’s curtains.

How very 80s.

Your mom.

I want to see a movie where they discover multi-verses via black holes by simulating the information, and when they scroll in in the simulation, it always scrolls in to some moment of the scene described in the original post after the big bang theory, as if every universe in the multiverse (p.s. that’s a bit backwards, innit? heh! … can we call it a Maniverse? wait, no…we’re good) is zeroed on that time period, as if it is the respawn point… kinda like our B.C./A.D. timeline.

ohhhh yeahhh

I’ve been messing around with this since early April.

Divine impassibility is not a lack of passion, but an eternally unshakeable, rational passion.

The impassibly passionate creator reimagines mutual recognition in all its permutations.

The immovably moving force descends into mutual recognition of all, gathering all up into self-mastery.

The unshakably grounding anchor boils down and adds up to mutual consent recognition. The Isness is the Usness.

Course near impassable for most anyone not versed in the elementary Watson between the One and the Many

Should that makes those others’ verses an impossible ambition?

Hell (n) o

What do you mean by that?

Other than the primary one, ONE those who assume or deny Him, IT, the verse in the Bible, in the verse relating to that primacy,

OR the inverse of that (apparent)

of focus on that and neglect the other/OTHERS

The Verse and it’s inverse should and do prefigure and do correlate, and the do not necessarily contraindicate each other.

Forgive for assuming clarity here

Plot a course to the kingdom… safe bet right therr.

I probably would/could had it not necessarily been prefigured.

That’s the thing, about Meno blowing up a bunch of ballooned turtles, and why it’s questions confirm stuff only after the fact, when it’s about ready to blow, (except big bro knows to retract just before that happens, or should,

At any rate, depending on the size of the baloon, the trick back may be more slippery then almost a vertical slope of reference, and anyone attempting it may need a reverse icarus brake to virtually rappel back, for not all climbers have possess nerves of steal.’, for virtually doing that.

I saw a license plate.


I’m like.

Too fat?

Too fit?

Two feet?

To fly?

Too fly?

Two fly?

I mean. If you have a two-feet running head start, I’m not sure there’s any such thing as too fit. And if you’re too fat (or perfectly fit), you’re gonna need more than two feet. A jet pack, at least.


Too fit, too fly…? Prolly false advertising, I’m thinking.

Ok, aiming for a fat reference from waaay back when scales did not fall to the ground as apples , as of yet, whoever would have thought that framing Meno. as a skinny would ‘ev been could’ve blown such a wishful sized balloon,as not to have created a eyeful that was not possessed of every spirit which could ever partake in such provocative semblance, as to become only one(s)worthy to be placed in a displayed frame?

Any rate, fat athletic women ,except maybe sophists, did not need to jump through hoops of fire

The above is a badly sketched try , keep it just the same for what? Dunno Meno’s referential cover is a smoke filled automata-reacting to some challenge he probably did not anticipate?

The bottom line is the smoke then fire thing, Meno literally begs the question, as a result, blowing bubbles comes with the package, a could have fit, that got way ahead of himself in spite, no not in spite, he was an ok guy and got it right his way.



Part Two: Is Some of Our Knowledge Innate?

Meno declares himself utterly confused:

O Socrates, I used to be told, before I knew you, that you were always doubting yourself and making others doubt; and now you are casting your spells over me, and I am simply getting bewitched and enchanted, and am at my wits’ end. And if I may venture to make a jest upon you, you seem to me both in your appearance and in your power over others to be very like the flat torpedo fish, who torpifies those who come near him and touch him, as you have now torpified me, I think. For my soul and my tongue are really torpid, and I do not know how to answer you.

Meno’s description of how he feels gives us some idea of the effect Socrates must have had on many people. The Greek term for the situation he finds himself in is aporia, which is often translated as “impasse” but also denotes perplexity. He then presents Socrates with a famous paradox.

Meno’s paradox: Either we know something or we don’t. If we know it, we don’t need to inquire any further. But if we don’t know it if we can’t inquire since we don’t know what we’re looking for and won’t recognize it if we found it.

Socrates dismisses Meno’s paradox as a “debater’s trick,” but he nevertheless responds to the challenge, and his response is both surprising and sophisticated. He appeals to the testimony of priests and priestesses who say that the soul is immortal, entering and leaving one body after another, that in the process it acquires a comprehensive knowledge of all there is to know, and that what we call “learning” is actually just a process of recollecting what we already know. This is a doctrine that Plato may have learned from the Pythagoreans.

West Elm

West Elm x Billy Cotton

Introducing our collection of essentials by interior designer Billy Cotton.

By West Elm


The enslaved boy demonstration: Meno asks Socrates if he can prove that “all learning is recollection.” Socrates responds by calling over an enslaved boy, who he establishes has had no mathematical training, and setting him a geometry problem. Drawing a square in the dirt, Socrates asks the boy how to double the area of the square. The boy’s first guess is that one should double the length of the square’s sides. Socrates shows that this is incorrect. The boy tries again, this time suggesting that one increase the length of the sides by 50%. He is shown that this is also wrong. The boy then declares himself to be at a loss. Socrates points out that the boy’s situation now is similar to that of Meno. They both believed they knew something; they now realize their belief was mistaken; but this new awareness of their own ignorance, this feeling of perplexity, is, in fact, an improvement.

Socrates then proceeds to guide the boy to the right answer: you double the area of a square by using its diagonal as the basis for the larger square. He claims at the end to have demonstrated that the boy in some sense already had this knowledge within himself: all that was needed was someone to stir it up and make recollection easier.

Many readers will be skeptical of this claim. Socrates certainly seems to ask the boy leading questions. But many philosophers have found something impressive about the passage. Most don’t consider it a proof of the theory of reincarnation, and even Socrates concedes that this theory is highly speculative. But many have seen it as a convincing proof that human beings have some a priori knowledge (information that is self-evident). The boy may not be able to reach the correct conclusion unaided, but he is able to recognize the truth of the conclusion and the validity of the steps that lead him to it. He isn’t simply repeating something he has been taught.

Socrates doesn’t insist that his claims about reincarnation are certain. But he does argue that the demonstration supports his fervent belief that we will live better lives if we believe that knowledge is worth pursuing as opposed to lazily assuming that there is no point in trying…

From history of philosophy , uncertain publisher


To wit, how are such situations that arose in Plato’s mind foreshadow future paradoxical agreements/disagreements within a pier group of philosophers transcending their own existential condition?

These categorical conditions between Being, Essence and Existence were reformed in the Middle Ages, and formed the scholastics’ methods thereupon; Namely, Averie’s, Avecinna, through the further divisions of Augustine and Acquines.

What Power underlying the will to sustains such a train of thought that lastly can chanelled the same dynamic energy to will a final syncretic? Union, as can the early atomist’s through Leibnitz and others hold to but merely convention?

At this juncture, in states/situations, where the familiar and the familiar biunderies are re-compressed into Meno’s World, recollecting candy from a candy store selling all possible candies, and choices of all probable outcomes,
Not be Witness a reoccurance in the same vein, that method, that has even to this day at least an even possibility?

That Oppenheimer, Einstein and others sustained this game of marbles which God does not play, proffered by some dream of slavery being a precondition, does not miss it’s mark, even if, that one litmus test is the only one to go by.

Are such coincidental flows of sustenance mere re presentations of oddbal gestures of examples of over-valuation, by engorged philosophers with nothing else to do in their ivory towers?

Cynicism has not been a hard won struggle to attain more certainty, in fact the transvaluation has become a testament to apology , regret and quick needed weight loss.

baked in (incarnate) because structure of being/thought is same structure

go forth & fractalize/reason together

True and that is the mean difficulty between being thought (being thought of) and:or manifesting that being thought and/or/through existence.

The reduction of which can not shift back to digital interpretation, hence consistent with an auditory dream -suppression -which excludes a retro synthetic-transcendence(to pictures -(beyond imainatiom$

That said , Freud is inadequate to interpret dreams other then visually, or dream representations as if they were structurally reductive as well.

It is beyond imagination, IT becomes, IT is.
“How IT IS’
It is the present, tensely looking back, into one and All, all in one, as one.
It is the sublimest and least significant at the same time.

it never ceases singularly, but disperses unfiloloarly, as the center ceases to
If it doesen’t, (reflect) then it is absorbed in absorption-
Meaning sorted below an awarded position
Long ago , a drain, pulling down waste

Wasted time, money, opportunity for what?

For it to be lifted out the waste heap of memory, it singularly disillusioned pulled back again Sisyphus dropped it again for the sake of posterity , Kasem Rufu , into the mire where from the Lotus drew it’s vitality.



As in, “I ~do seent it.”

Follow me for more grammar advice.

Is this a dream or reality that is, consist’s of the preparation for what’s going on, miraculously, a signal of IT is imperative whatness- as most everybody watching intently,

The night of the living robotic death(s)

But seriously on a different note.