Movie time

Creative Forums Creative Writing
1

Guess will continue here, for the proposal I have to summarize and turn in , may not be totally a back dropped philosophical statement, only one which gives steam to the idea which can be supported by a reverse de objectivisation of ‘objective phenomen, to a level where it’s quite understandable that such bracketing of a probable idea could have taken place, within familial/familiar fractional possibility, where a critical point that reached a level, where meta relational probabilities touched off an extra sensory event.

It could have not been unreasonable to suppose, that such families of resembling meaning structures could have linked a general uncertainty to effect grave misgivings as to the consequences such uncertainty may have touched off, and a conscious effort was released to transcend beyond the ordinary means of communication.

As such, this counter argument sees a transcendentally reduced phenomenally revision of the structural basis behind the meaning structure seeking a parallel method to contrive means of communication that could overcome decades of uncertain patterns of correlational physical- metaphysicall trans formal messages, which could have caused series of math based diagrams to link to the transcendentally constructed ideograms, which may have set a boomerang effect of getting in touch with the most probable objective that may have been predicted.

Oppenheimer’s early guilt in relation to the far flung effects that fission and implosion devices could have manifested in the long term prospects behind moralistically loaded questions relating to Murphy’s Law, that whatever can happen will, a sad refrain on man’s indelible decision making which Hobbs against Rousseau have not been able to postscript, leaves the doubt that still echoes in the halls of moral and ethical discussion, namely, the question being that view of man that has no certainty wether he is more a noble savage then a vengeful unabated creature, pretty set on his ways.

Polanyi has presented a view, that a Great Transformation more or less assures the deification of ideal biblical models of man, based on Abrahanism-Christian values that did successfully mesh with ancient Greco -Roman and possibly even with Hindu-Vedic influences.

2

There is possibility, necessity, and actuality. Something being possible, while it implies the necessity of a possibility, does not imply the necessity of its actuality. So why do you think Murphy’s Law is actual-true, and why do you think “whatever can happen will happen” (containing Murphy’s Law) is actual-true?

Related. The fundamental laws of logic/thought describe the realm of possibility/contingency and necessity. They are actual-true to or descriptive of necessary being, and if they are violated they exit the realm of possibility/contingency (subsumed in necessary being).

The actual-true (reality) contains both necessary being and the contingent possibilities subsumed in it.

Being a contingent possibility does not guarantee actual-true subsumption in necessary being. The laws of logic and thought are guaranteed actual-true correspondence/reference/description of necessary being, but not every contingent possibility in line with the laws are guaranteed subsumption as actual-true in necessary being.

Just like you don’t act on every idea that pops into your head, necessary being does not subsume (as ACTual) every contingent possibility in line with the laws of logic and thought.

3

No I get that just as the possibility of any creature-being, does not guaranty iit’s actuality.

That any thought is an abstraction, not in its conception , and inception, may not be proof of an abstracted concept becoming actually actual.

The fact is , though, on a more progressive level, that conception is in it’s self in the process or inception, relates to an act, and as such, moves away from a pure abstracted construction- or an idea that has not yet acted upon that idea, so that movement can best be described as a conscious effort, to actualize that concept to form abstracted conscious impressions of ‘whatness’, or an actualization of a thought’ toward forming an image of that thought.

So I see a two pronged movement here through a single process, one that forms a singular form of a possible digging, as at we’re for a form of whatever there may appear to consist some apprehendable form of whatever can be found to resonate with some other form with which it could link up, without that enriched form, can be linked by some generic likeness of an intrinsic possibility for that linkage.

The unicorn example has been used as a possibly linked being, for there are existing beings that have single horns not linked with horses.

So could not a creature that firms ti that kind of image in the almost infinite grab bag of possibilities?

Could not in an alternate world such a being exist, by having evolved in that particularly imagined way in another universe?

My contention is yes, it is possible in an infinite multiverse, to develop in such a way, and the very act of forming an image, like that, proves that such an existent is more likely been abstracted from such an image than not.

The parallelism, of the analogy becomes evident to the question : is man the only conscious being in this universe, if this universe is the only universe there is, or dies the possibility increase with the idea that this universe is one out of many, perhaps an infinite number of universes.

As the number of universes increase, so dies the possibility that we as a species of beings are not singularly beings, but that beings closely resembling humaness’ness, abound in many perhaps even in infinite planets.

The question begs itself of the idea of a bounded, spherical universe, whose boundedmess is caused by a split between matter and energy. as through the nominal abstraction of space and time.

But, here is the clincher: if, and only if, such presumption must comply within the linear description , than singularity , or the singular representation has a probability ratio assignable as the condition of it’s actualization through the movement in space-/-generating the senseenility of the sense of time.

Imagination again contrived it’s all being, for in an inexhaustible set of any abstraction, a reductive, kind of focusing in a certain formal arrangement of patterns, may develop internet a kind of thing.

So as relates to Murphy’s Law, any thing that can form into an image, consisting of two or more modalities, must meet the condition of possibilities of realization, and as such, there must be at least two copies of any imaginable being.

Saint James came to conclude this early on with our thin correspondence, albeit, not deriving but presenting a relative question as to how many identical but necessary beings must there actually exist in this universe Alone?

If space-time is premordial Lu a unitary non differentiator abstract from a point of non inception, then the number of copies can not be bounded , by space and time, therefore there can not be assigned any number of copies, in fact there must be countless copies, but in a sense that numbers, or cohesive cuts to plenums of description would be a more credible description to individuatibe abstraction.

Gotta sleep, for I gotta not let deadlines concerning an iffy ‘moving’ picture keep me awake.

The way to deal with it, it belongs to the consciously manifested space that such be the case, regardless of success or failure, for it signals only an actualization , that needs some expression of and from movement.

4

The deobjective, narrowing the juncture between the objective and the subjective acknowledged increasing particular frames,refer to a maximal utilization of an idea’s interpretation at the cost of its phenomenal representation. Its expressed image displays impressionable movement that signals the impression of increasing signs of discontinuance between frames.( of reference)

The level of the depth of abstraction become evident by the severity, or fracture of the object’s parts as they become more subjective.

Or their subjectivism results from the absstucted depth. The need to express such deepening abstractions becomes an incontrovertible process, and if not , it becomes internally and chaotically representible of the absurd of the referential point of a non transcendent lack .

The mystique of participating in the rites of springing the individual will to act is erased as a reason to entertain that need.

5

The substance to power the will to act, reified the mistique of belonging, by a compulsive need to participate in an eternal rite of passage.’

This is how the magic of participation is born, requiring the miracle of an individuated Absolute Authority, to reveal the course of freeing the ground of an a priority singularity to reveal the fire underneath the magic of redemption.

6

youtu.be/5Vw-fy-Gfl8?si=ofmxYKROwRTeBj89

7

The flow of film reaches a diambiguative identifier to dis appear, causing the rite to break up into black and white segments, at first gradually as it slows oscillatingly into the matemagical furnace of chaotic interactive faith through the mystically absolutely binding resource of reinventing an assumptive-artificial magical mystery tour, re Turning to the prior post scooted number.

8

The seventh veil.

9

To Lou Andreas-Salome by Rainer Maria Rilke

I held myself too open, I forgot
that outside not just things exist and animals
fully at ease in themselves, whose eyes
reach from their lives’ roundedness no differently
than portraits do from frames; forgot that I
with all I did incessantly crammed
looks into myself; looks, opinion, curiosity.
Who knows: perhaps eyes form in space
and look on everywhere. Ah, only plunged toward you
does my face cease being on display, grows
into you and twines on darkly, endlessly,
into your sheltered heart.

As one puts a handkerchief before pent-in-breath-
no: as one presses it against a wound
out of which the whole of life, in a single gush,
wants to stream, I held you to me: I saw you
turn red from me. How could anyone express
what took place between us? We made up for everything
there was never time for. I matured strangely
in every impulse of unperformed youth,
and you, love, had wildest childhood over my heart.

Memory won’t suffice here: from those moments
there must be layers of pure existence
on my being’s floor, a precipitate
from that immensely overfilled solution.

For I don’t think back; all that I am
stirs me because of you. I don’t invent you
at sadly cooled-off places from which
you’ve gone away; even your not being there
is warm with you and more real and more
than a privation. Longing leads out too often
into vagueness. Why should I cast myself, when,
for all I know, your influence falls on me,
gently, like moonlight on a window seat.

10

Why entropic reductive transcendence form?

In a film gcforming a melange of objecyivity, identification with the audience as projected visually to include anyone, as Everymandid for a Catholic( universally participating faithful) during the Middle Ages; the interim kind of blanked out, while Protestant revisions nihilized the underpinning biblical references as a slow fade-out, reaching climactic effects to occur, apoligotically, by the impositive and debatable change by the 2nd Vatican Council.

11

So the consequential mysidentification Is occasioned by the same unceartanty that befelll a loss of significance, that an apparent contentious contengic overflow creates, a fading of significance on review, occurring with increasing frequency, making people feel redundant and ridiculous to absurd.

12

¿mere? in C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity just means the essentials upon which we all agree… It doesn’t mean it is a mere abstraction.

If we (Catholics, Protestants) don’t in fact all agree on the essentials in question in Lewis’ work, punt back to:

“In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity.”

He was constantly saying throughout his work that if it doesn’t resonate with you, work it out in a way that does. He did not ever say he was the final word on it. He was just sparking a dialogue. That does not say there are no essentials, and it doesn’t say that there is no such thing as departing too far from the essentials. It’s important for there to be a dialogue where everyone is actually prioritizing the truth.

Last night I was looking at guidelines for judging debates, and one of them puts emphasis on whether or not someone is intellectually brave enough to stand by their position despite the opposition tearing it down. That is not intellectual bravery. Intellectual bravery is following the inquiry wherever it leads. Socrates was brave in that respect. Those who took him out of the dialogue were the cowards.

13

Yes and /but? The parallel point of regarding a movie, stop made to move people through the flow of images which have not been of late particularly well received by ‘nature’ audiences, is that insignificance is emphasized by the constant faux near eternal dependence on reviewers and film critics alike , who naustalgic ally look back to the more still frames of reference that was meant to stabilize the entrance from radio as closer to a script, calling on the imagination, not drastically populate the scream with more and more surreal , anxciousmoments that pack more and more uncertain energy to an already questionable and iffy resolution.

The Protagonist, then is held accountable, and dismissed alternatively as heroic and anti heroic within drastically suggested frames of reference, adding, not subtracting to an equation meant to appease rather then calm the ‘kids’

Over 16+ designation 20-49 years ago was called ‘for adults only’

14

rumors of the radio star’s death have been greatly exaggerated

15

Can’t relate Valentino as a radio super man, or maybe that venue was building to pictures moving in eventual piggyback course unparalleled and with unexpectedly duration