My best post to date.

I needed this to be its own post because it is my best post to date, and to clarify that I still experience moments of confusion and peculiar forms of grandiosity still - to separate this from other types of notes in the last post.

This is out of order with many additions and edits. I’m doing this all on phone, apologies.

Extraneous drama refers to drama that is conspicuously consumptive .

I was harsh about women in my language, but honestly, the duplicity of men is just as severe an issue.

My personal studies in a situation where this is not a global topic leads me to believe that the more problems men solve the less sexually viable he becomes to women.

I am using my critical mass of articulating this topic in its lack of precedence and with delicacy to gauge female intuition of approaching me, and they’re receptivity when this discussion comes up.

What I have discovered is that even women who agree with all of the premises, prefer to keep me as a “surrogate gay best friend” or in what is called the “friend zone” in modern English - referring to the good guy who women appreciate but won’t have sex with.

There are issues of stratification of approach, where men are less often approached by women for romantic or friend issues in day to day life than women are, causing friendship stratification between the sexes to this regard. Women generally seek initial male escalation at some point, or they lose interest or won’t be engaged further.

In my discussions with both sexes to this regard, I have found that women describe getting their feelings hurt at times in the context of straddling multiple relationships at once and deciding to settle down with a single partner ; what strikes me about this, is that the neglect issue on the male side, rather than hurt feelings in the context of relationship, facilitates an extremely severe emotional pain relative to what women describe. This is why I stress so much the importance if not stratifying the males so much more than the women are stratified.

The only way to approach is actually the way I formulated, without violating rules of non approach and objectification, but it needs the right conditions to bring up without being extremely awkward or forceful.

I forgot to add something: The sexual hoarding on the male side comes in two forms… Number of partners and/or number of sexual encounters - the average corrupt middle aged man has likely had sex many thousands of times in the context of a marriage, marriage is also a means to draw females in for more variety of partners. I am actually in treatment psychologically by people I can prove are less psychologically healthy than I am… The reason they are happier than me is because they sold out to the women. As I become both more healthy behaviorally and psychologically, the gap seems to widen between my psychological health and theirs. They can get away with this because the international discourse on this topic is not being had, I do believe in vibrational patterns of reality, and I think I will keep my emotional and logical rationality in a comfortable place eventually, while those who subvert or destroy it to acquire females will eventually vibrate at a lower level, and find things more difficult. This is my understanding of the ethical proof as relates to cause and effect.

Also, the extraneous or conspicuously consumptive drama comes in many forms… The primary being the instigation of drama where there isn’'t any.

I can write on other issues this profound lately, but these seem most critical, some of it is repeated and edited. Apologies.

I can also still experience states of peculiar grandiosity that I’'m working on.

I am the best philosopher ever born, I can actually prove it, but I won’‘t what I will do is give you the best damn email you’‘ve ever received. I’‘m not trying to be arrogant, I’'m a formulator by nature and I can actually prove it with axioms where reference itself must be disproven for the proof to be false.

Why existence exists instead of not existing: Nothing does not exist: existence exists not only by its own definition, but exists through it’'s negation. Existence exists because it has to, existence is defined by a lack of absolute homogeneity of all referents. Existence has always been and always will be, it cannot possibly be destroyed by any manifestation, one proof of this is that we exist, if existence were ever destroyed, past, present, future… I could not send you this email because I am an existent. Problem solved: why existence instead of non existence? !!!

Next: solution to ethics, meaning of all of this:

If you make it as easy as possible for everyone to kill everyone and everyone to suicide… Whatever survives has inherent purpose for living, by definition. This is only half if the formulation though - there is also the fantastical !! If you were able to put everyone in their own ideal world where they would not be harmed and everything in that world would be too valuable to harm, then you’'d have inherent purpose for all existents. In the absence of this, people who do kill themselves and/or others would not.

One line moral axiom with no exceptions to it:

If you subvert or destroy rationality in any way, you have less rationality in the system. Rationality is the only means by which someone can accomplish inherently valuable goals (goals that refer). Even though they think they are succeeding, by subverting, interfering with and / or destroying rationality of others to succeed, they have made one less rational agent to help them, and they have made the monster of someone, who, with all their heart and soul, will try to convert you to the irrational system you taught them to get ahead. No positive game theory, two negative game theories.

Next: disproof of omnistates

I’'m writing this to convey how serious I am about the endeavor of freethinker advocacy. I have manically, psychotically and unskillfully flooded people all over the world with emails, including you three advocates and thinkers. I truly hope my aging and maturation process facilitates forgiveness and the clearing of my name to this regard.

I am going to disprove four omnistates: omnipotence, omnipresence, omnicreation and omniscience. First, I am going to quickly disprove others supposed disproofs of this to prove that their disproofs aren’'t remotely rigorous.

Heisenberg: photons can be frozen and counted as only particles by a being that contains no photons. To the extent they are waves, the perimeter of ambience from the photons can be measured as single particles from a being that contains no photons. If the being does contain photons, it can only freeze every photon except for those of which it is made, and thus cannot count them all, the disproof is incorrect because the issue is not particle wave duality.

Negel: the argument that we cannot know what it is like to be a bat as a thought experiment is crushed by my thought experiment. I coined a term for this. The term is memory overlap, where multiple beings can share the same exact memory by living that life through a form of time dilation and return to their original state of being with all of those memories intact. Negel is wrong.

Now for the actual disproofs:

Eternal is commonly defined for these purposes as never beginning, never ending and existent (always been, always will be).

Infinity is defined for these purposes as beginning but never ending.

Finite is defined for these purposes as beginning and ending or possessing a limit. --------------

Infinity is an abstraction that is only inferential from finites, say, a coffee cup that is made and lasts forever - the cup is discerned from other passing referents and can be seen as finite as a cup, and this necessary finite allows us through inference, perhaps the discovery of an indestructible state of matter, to be infinite in extant time as a necessarily finite small coffee cup. I’‘m not trying to be confusing when I say that the infinite can only be abstracted and inferred from the finite. The inference proof of the complete set of natural numbers from the plus one algorithm requires, like any infinity, an infinite number of finites in order to abstract that infinity as a concept. The matter being discussed here is not whether the omnistates exist, but whether an intelligent being can possess, embody or represent them as processes in its being - clearly everything that exists, exists, so I am not arguing that an omnistate doesn’‘t exist, merely that an intelligent omni being doesn’‘t exist. When dealing with infinities in terms of a being actually processing them, the only way they can be processed is to be processed infinitely fast. With infinities, to process something infinitesimally fast allows for an existent in the context of infinite finites through the vastness of infinity. This is to say that there is a difference between processing something infinitely fast and infinitesimally fast. Infinitesimally fast yields existents through an algorithmic process that maintains a stable state of discern ability that never reaches zero. An example of an infinitesimal is a finite existence - where there is a nothing at all of that unique existence before and after it… An infinite expanse of it never having a precedent or successor. In the context if infinity before and after this hypothetical existent, the existent is called an infinitesimal - as time expands, it gets smaller and smaller, but never disappears. This is counting it processing in terms of infinitesimals. Completely processing an infinity is a totally different endeavor. Take an infinite number of infinitesimals! Now you have a situation in terms of time where there isn’‘t a stable regress or progress in terms of the existent never vanishing in terms if being able to process it as part of a completely processed infinity. Let me explain this better. The thing about infinity, is that if it isn’‘t processed completely, it never ends and so it is never fully processed. To even use an infinitesimal amount of time causes a situation where the entire infinity at once is never complete because the time keeps dividing or expanding infinitely without stop. This is why I say that the only way an infinity can actually be processed is to process it not infinitesimally fast (which never has an end), but infinitely fast! The problem with processing an infinity infinitely fast is that unlike the infinitesimal where the event keeps getting smaller and smaller but us still processable - with infinitely fast, no time passes at all in order to reach the end of an infinite sequence. This means the sequence cannot be, nor was ever processed by an intelligent being. This is not to say it doesn’‘t exist, just that one intelligent being cannot process it because it requires zero time (no processing) in order to process it entirely. How do you go through the end of an infinite sequence by actually going through the entire sequence?! It’‘s impossible! The sequence never ends! - the only way you can can process an infinite sequence in entirety is to not process it at all, which of course means you didn’‘t process it!! What this all means in short is that if you are processing something infinitesimally fast, you never get to the end because you never get out of the process of moving to the “end” of the infinity. If you process it infinitely fast, it has zero processing time, which means it was never even processed to begin with. Either you didn’‘t process it all or you didn’‘t process it at all, either way, you cannot actually process all the finites necessary to even abstract an infinity as a complete processing of that infinity. This means that the embodiment of, the creation of, the knowledge of and the power of everything in the context of infinity cannot happen for a single intelligent being. In fact there is actually an infinite amount that any intelligent being does not know or process nor will ever know. You can logically prove the inference of complete sets, but you cannot actually process every member in an infinite set as an intelligent being. That was only about infinities. Now there is an additional issue that people bring up that they call “eternity”. Eternity to them is a form of being that transcends space and time from which all is known, embodied, able and created. They call it the place of god or enlightenment, where a being was never born, never dies, always existed and knows all things and does and can do anything. There is a major flaw with this argument. If there is no space and no time passes, then all existents are exactly equal to each other and no discernment which facilitates knowledge is possible. How can you be all knowing if it’‘s impossible to have knowledge? To help explain this: A place that transcended space would see every letter on this page as the same letter. A place that transcended time would see no sequence, so that the letters would all be a mush of of the same symbol with no discernment of knowledge conveyed by them. People use the analogy of looking at a whole picture at once - but without space or sequence, every part of the picture us exactly the same - there us no left, right, up, down, forwards or backwards. This is not a matter of wishful thinking, "well it’‘s beyond our comprehension" - this is actually a fact that is beyond nobodies comprehension - without even a metaphorical left, right, up, down, forward, backwards, forwards… There is no sequence, there is no discernment. To use a number analogy, every number would be exactly the same - ten oranges would equal nine hundred oranges as the same exact number. This claim about eternity is psychosis from the perspective of what an intelligent being can be or know - it is a delusion of what is actually the real situation about the claim being made. This is true even if the picture has an infinite number of particles in it - you’‘re not actually seeing all those particles at once - you’‘re seeing an acuity resolution of those particles. That’‘s the disproof for an intelligent being possessing omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and omnicreation for infinities. To speak more on omnicreation, the creation of everything - if you actually created everything, this means you created creation before creation existed, or you created yourself before any part of yourself existed, or everything is you with nothing outside of you to observe that a you even exists. This gets into disproving omni states for a finite universe or cosmos. If the cosmos is finite, then the only way you can know that you know everything in it is to exist after it all happened or before it all happened - but that is nothing at all - the state of existence on both sides of a finite cosmos which means the cosmos isn’‘t finite or you don’'t actually possess an omnistate. To clarify this issue even more - how can you even know existence as a whole is finite if the only perspective you can prove it from is from the infinite nothing at all on either or both sides of it?! You have to not exist to prove it!!! Which of course is impossible. To know everything about a finite existence, you at least have to be able to prove existence is finite, which can only be done from nothing at all - which is impossible. What all of this means is that an intelligent being cannot have an omnistate in either a finite or infinite universe. Next!

The most fundamental problem on earth and how to solve it:

I’'m going to explain this very succinctly… In our species, it is causing extraneous drama that shows the strength women look for in a mate. If a man can display extraneous drama and not be punished for it, he is seen as a more powerful protector than a man with no extraneous drama, women actually seek evidence of strength to this regard. Also, if a woman can cause extraneous drama and the man can protect her from harm, he is seen as a strong mate. This provides great incentive (because of women and the species mating ritual) to cause extraneous drama for both men and women.

I do not advocate the use of extraneous drama.

Now the part that really sucks for a man, is that if he was able to cure all diseases and stop all physical harm from occurring again, caused people to control birth rates in a self organized way that didn’'t feel like force and was able to facilitate everyone being housed and clothed… Women will not have sex with him. Which is a great demotivator to helping people.

The reason this is true is because there’‘s no extraneous drama to actually solving problems so they don’‘t reemerge - the better the problem solver or preventer, the less sexually attracted women are to the man. If you don’‘t believe that part, which is true, the other part that is true is that women will sow their wild oats with desirable sexual encounters in MUCH larger numbers than men do or will, because women cause sexual hording for only a small percentage of men, while men don’‘t do that to women. Women are actually so evil, that even if you solved all the problems above , they still won’‘t give a shit about their sexual hording and the mass male depression that comes from it, while they are happy getting all the desired sexual variety they want out of life. That’'s why it sucks being a man…

All thus woo-woo shit about religion and “sex isn’'t that big a deal” (coming from people who’ve had it thousands of times) is just to hide the truth. Stating these obvious facts is argued by the cruelty of women - and the men who just want to get sex and fit in - as the rantings of a worthless loser woman hater, why would a woman have sex with a woman hater? While these men watch sports, get married, are sexually possessive, buy women jewelry and other signs of extraneous drama … They are walking life haters just to get sex, and smirk at the men who are trying to make life better, when the discussion goes over women’‘s heads… And the rhetoric works on women, as it does everytime… Men actually enjoy watching women shit on all the good men and smirking about it behind their backs. They try to stop from laughing when women say that they did pick the good guy, and the guy trying to explain all this is an asshole. Men know that women are not as intelligent as men, they know they are the real assholes, but they’'d never let the woman know the truth from their own lips, they just try as hard as they can not to laugh when the rhetoric works and the women reverse the provable polarity of who the good guys and the jerks really are.

If you really want to sit down and start resolving the deep conflicts, we all really need to sit down and have THE MAN TALK… The way the man talk goes, is that men are more sexually stratified than women, whether you’'re American or Arab, or whatever, and for things to be funner for all of us we want to have sexual intercourse with more women, to have less stratified sexual variety, just like women do, mutually joyous sexual encounters.

Causing PTSD in women screws up the whole system for other men, not just in the woman’'s receptivity, but their future affect, who wants a whole gender to scowl at them for example?

The thing about the man talk, is that it is blatantly true and not described in any religion on earth… So once you have the man talk, men will realize that their books weren’‘t divinely inspired whatsoever… Even marriage itself is just an asshole way that men try to secure one or more sexual resources because of female arousal psychology… But it interferes with the bulk of the male populations desire to sow their wild oats as much as women do in the bulk of their population. Once you open up communication on something most men have in common as a collective grievance and goal you can open up the larger communication of how to improve community in more demonstrable ways across all cultural boundaries, men shut down for most things, but having sex with more women is not one of them… It’'s the universal language so to speak.

As long as men stay attached to obfuscation causing female attraction, this situation globally is not going to improve. I hope you can see the actual value of this and not resort to making this discussion an easy target for ridicule to maintain hordes sexual choice with women. I also forgot to explain something about having the discussion on gender and sex. One of the ways the female denial system works to this regard is that they will accuse someone offering this discourse as objectifying women, when it is actually the only way to subjectify them. Men avoid subjectifying women to fit in with them socially and have sexual options with them. This is one of the ways this discussion goes over women’‘s heads and doesn’‘t go over men’'s heads. Men knowingly defend the female inversion to maintain social status and sexual choice, even though the consequences are devastating for the species at large.

Next: how to solve problems on earth: Set up an organization that gives reward money for ethical proofs, as the mathematical community has for mathematical proofs - if someone finds a mistake - the problem remains unsolved and no reward money is transferred. There.

I also proved that infinities have no orders of hierarchy, orders of hierarchy of infinity are taught by every mathematician on earth (that’‘s actually the primary reason I’‘m the best mathematician, I have profound originations rather than simply being a practitioner). The primary base is unary, not binary. 1 11 111 1111 11111 That’'s 1-5 in unary, there is no zero in unary, but spaces can imply zero. What this means is that existence is fundamentally atomic in nature.

Sorry for repeated stuff, I wanted to consolidate.

On a more personal note, the psychological politics for sex leave me feeling lonely at times - men defending women in a two-faced manner (the men know I’'m right) and the female denial or social and sexual blackmail system. It is psychosis and/or psychopathy that is represented species wide, but perhaps a discussion about this on a larger scale can change this fundamental fragmentation from clarity and rationality.

When I read ‘My best post to date’ I think of this, even in this pic you were ostracised.

That’s an interesting response. Back then I lived 8 miles outside of a town with only several thousand people… And that was the big town for about 100 miles. There were only retirees in the area I lived, and so I was actually very close friends with adults, I would walk miles to their houses and they delighted to see me. But when you live that far from the other kids, you don’t really get to know them well, I had a couple friends my own age though.

I’ve settled on people being treasures and circumstances, understandings and abidances being treasures as well. I have completely detached myself from religiosity - marriage, jewels, tattoos, sports (I’m actually a good athlete - so my life would be much “fuller” if I wasn’t a conscientious objector to religion.). I’m not into wearing jarring symbols etc…
Which is practically all if them.

My path of non religion has set me with a certain ease when others are around me, but sometimes, venomous anger when I blow the whistle on religion, and how guys just use it to get laid.

But in casual conversation, I’m comfortable, and not generally ostracized to that effect. If that makes sense.

I do still get into strange ideas at times because of psychic energy… But I usually get my equilibrium back in a better way than before.

I don’t believe in bows, salutes or blessings anymore… I just believe in healing energy.

I feel like I’ve accomplished a lot to actually give people the language to move out of religion, into what I find to be a falsified version of some if this weirdness - it’s a form of grace so to speak, to give secularism ethics and language without ignoring that there are extraordinary occurrences.


You tried to argue this before and you are simply wrong.

Believe what you will, whether it be the easter bunny, santa claus, or the tooth fairy.

Ecmandu wrote:

Yes it does.

It’s not really a matter of opinion Trixie, that’s how women are wired in this species… Maybe that could change, but if you read my whole post, you’d see that I’ve already proven it on a smaller scale , which relative to precedent scale for this planet is way off the charts. I’ve already proven it.

This is to say that, aside from the intensity of some of my thoughts, people find me comfortably and refreshingly, even oddly normal. Almost as if I’m so normal, it’s abnormal.

May I ask, have you ever seduced a woman before? You seem to be a genius when it comes to female psychology.

Ecmandu wrote:

That is not what I said, or meant to imply.

Your post makes sense of what I have deduced from your picture as a small boy.