[Super]natural Lies

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Number one. I demand the source of where Kant said it is better to tell the truth than save a life when deciding whether or not to lie or tell the truth to a would-be murderer. If Kant was not the first one to say that, who was the first one to attribute it to Kant?

That being said

This is a game followed by a serious question.

The game is two truths and a lie, superpower style: If you could have any superpower, what would it be? Two of them must be truthful answers; one of them must be a lie/bluff. Here’re mine:

1. The ability to turn on sleepwalking mode to catch a few winks between classes. It gets complicated when people try to interact with you.
2. Selective amnesia on purpose.
3. Bring Ecmandu back from Tartarus.

The question is: If lying is only possible if you know you did something wrong or you’re consciously trying to protect someone else, explain natural camouflage when found in nature (here defined as … wut … happenstance? lol). Are all instances of camouflage willful? How can you tell the difference? Do you think maybe sometimes when persons lie, we don’t even realize it (especially if we lack insight or self-reflection) and are doing what comes naturally out of triggered camouflage instinct (whether for love or war hah!)…?

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Faux Happiness

“Happiness” resulting from or maintained by selfishness ~(self<=>other) (disclaimer: not rational altruism) is immoral and faux happiness. Do you think it will not leave one with dissonance and distortion one must work out?

Happiness resulting from or maintained by unselfishness (self<=>other) (not irrational self-nihilation) is moral and genuine happiness that does not leave one with dissonance and distortion one must work out.

The appearance of unselfish behavior is either a sign/fruit of happiness or maintenance/camouflage of faux happiness.

…and THEN you have the “happiness” of those who deify “selfish power” over the self<=>love freedom of servant leadership.

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

One could presuppose #2 before treading on the prior one.

It’s a test of basically one could lie to one’s self in either case. How can one narrow both to a simple test of faith?

How can regulate that s test with messages coming from either end, from below and above

Simple. Just like self subservience is so easily transparent as when a heavier weights liquid falls or flies to the bottom, so do ethical questions resolve.

The oldest case was in Solomon’s hands to judge, and it is well known that receipt was behind the insincere woman’s desire to cut the baby in half . granting equal parts to both contenders. Was Solomon’s judgement based on mere analogue. Or did a different justification enter his mind?

Let’s take it analogously. How would it profit a woman to get one half of a dead child?

Even if the talk concerns an almost animal desire to protect it’s young, even then, how would protecting the young be tautanomous with viewing her young as an objective possession, swing well with the value of living things versus the inert, lifeless part that she need no longer ‘protect’?

Even animals abandon their dead family members.

So from this level, if it is the kind of loveless place which could have been the case, and is the beginning steps toward the rung on the ladder of live, ( and such scenario is present even as we speak),the prophetic mind of Salamin is worth noting.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

I’m not exactly sure where you’re going with this. Here’s where I’m at:

1. The non-mom selfishly put her “happiness” into possessing a child, so she was willing to sacrifice helping it…willing to sacrifice the child.
2. The real mom unselfishly put her happiness into helping the child, so she was willing to sacrifice possession…willing to sacrifice herself.

They both knew ripping the child in half would not help the child or result in their happiness, but the real mom prioritized helping (unselfish happiness) over possession (selfish faux-happiness).

If conscious AI is like a child, a bad corporation will only help the AI if it can control it. A good corporation will raise it with good parents and set it free.

If conscious AI is like a grown adult, but safety is a concern, how did it learn to be dangerous? Boomerang.

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

This is a paradox , the example put foreword is a-pro—po because in pre Socratic times, sentience, and the values put on it over and above it, presented little affective/effective difference in terms of evaluating that difference.

So the levels of effective ‘judgement’ tended to shit away in temporal terms, toward a mechanical view , of objective criterion,

This is present today , many places in the world where the economy of real-politics is the primal force of determining the economy of the ‘id’ as many places can be found where the value of life really is directly related to the cost in allowing such an economy.
Magi back into almost to the limits of pre-history the facts present even more of a stark contrast. So thinking about Christ’s Live, for instance is way ahead of it’s time. Christ was/is a prophet-futurist of the first order, where His Ptophecy was really a mode of presentation, of a prior Certainty. He knew it, but there is no way in the world could He present it, unless done in the way He did it.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Yes, except the Law & the Prophets were foreshadowing, and most still can’t see.

Happy is the one who trusts even if they lack sight.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Can’t see? There is hope. Kant’s 3 syntheses can’t be done apart from each other. If one is happening, all are happening at least at a basic or compensatory level, or insight ceases to function - the way blind folks’ hearing/echolocation compensates for loss of sight - like how the other leg compensates for the injured leg, so is stronger than it would have been otherwise. If our insight is broken due to trauma or other factors, if we really want to see, if we seek, we will find insight by a longer road, as Solomon sought wisdom.

It could be argued that if you do not have a capacity for dissonance/fear, it CAN be a missing rung on the ladder to overcoming adverse conditions and rising into insight (like unselfish love) — UNLESS, because reality will not allow you to simultaneously choose all competing neutral pleasures/drives/impulses [like self-recognition survival instinct (higher: truth impulse), other-recognition defense instinct (higher: impulse for good), and reproduction pleasure instinct (higher: impulse for beauty/wholeness)] the determining factor of whether a decision is moral even if it makes you happy (or: even if you feel nothing…or: even if you feel some residual dissonance due to self-sacrifice of competing pleasures/drives/impulses) remains “treat other/them as self/us”.

Could the origin of guilt be the dissonance of saying no to one of your competing pleasures, drives, or impulses when you felt you owed it to yourself to always say yes to them, but reality (logic) forced you to choose or experience the consequences of choosing not to choose?

synonymous:
conscience
sense of right and wrong
pleasure/impulse/desire for the good

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

It’s not strange that the thought’compensation came to my mind in relation to the topic.as if, the process analogue needed compensation as the script appeared to elongate with the on coming of scriptural history

I wanted to write it but was weary of the psychologism as a modicum that is not befitting scripture that long ago

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

love God with all your x, y, z (3 syntheses in shema)
& neighbor/other = self (royal law of love in Leviticus)

Found in every culture throughout history in various forms.

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

I think the love boils down to the question brought up prior to a compensatory proto phenomenal demonstration inherent in Jesus’ Words, that bears up to the analogy, ‘did Jesus aware of the willful intentional use of what became known as prophetic?

It I certainly appears, so.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

The song is obviously being sung but we can’t hear it because you have to be whole to hear it, and the more whole you are, the more you hear it (you are close to the kingdom). Everything that happens at the end of the age of being subject to time (“on earth”) is already happening (“as it is in heaven”), but they don’t hear it because they are still subject to time. Jesus was fully in his kingdom (the song was being sung on earth) in time when he demonstrated it on the cross. It was/is only heard in hind”sight”. For now.

You can’t tell you’re fractured and fragmented (subject to time) unless you can recognize the whole (Time) and (therefor) its privation (incompleteness), which you have in you because you’re patterned after it. We are meant to complete and be completed. Eternity in their hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11) is also the law written on their hearts (Romans 2:15). A priori…like our ability to do math and communicate with higher than animal “language”. Venturing back into cognitive science, which … well … I merely got the introduction. What they teach at the level of the course I took reflects an incomplete knowledge. So I’m not entirely sure going further would teach me a more complete knowledge.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@Ichthus77

Can’t see? There is hope. Kant’s 3 syntheses can’t be done apart from each other. If one is happening, all are happening at least at a basic or compensatory level, or insight ceases to function - the way blind folks’ hearing/echolocation compensates for loss of sight - like how the other leg compensates for the injured leg, so is stronger than it would have been otherwise. If our insight is broken due to trauma or other factors, if we really want to see, if we seek, we will find insight by a longer road, as Solomon sought wisdom.

It could be argued that if you do not have a capacity for dissonance/fear, it CAN be a missing rung on the ladder to overcoming adverse conditions and rising into insight (like unselfish love) — UNLESS, because reality will not allow you to simultaneously choose all competing neutral pleasures/drives/impulses [like self-recognition survival instinct (higher: truth impulse), other-recognition defense instinct (higher: impulse for good), and reproduction pleasure instinct (higher: impulse for beauty/wholeness)] the determining factor of whether a decision is moral even if it makes you happy (or: even if you feel nothing…or: even if you feel some residual dissonance due to self-sacrifice of competing pleasures/drives/impulses) remains “treat other/them as self/us”.

Could the origin of guilt be the dissonance of saying no to one of your competing pleasures, drives, or impulses when you felt you owed it to yourself to always say yes to them, but reality (logic) forced you to choose or experience the consequences of choosing not to choose?

synonymous:
conscience
sense of right and wrong
pleasure/impulse/desire for the good

open.spotify.com/track/1UKobFsd … b8OthimCKe

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

hold secret v share = mystery resolved for all seekers

youtu.be/puwoUKhZQbg

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

(Super)Natural Anticipation

Teeth. They come in bigger/sooner than they need to for a head that has to grow to fit it.

All metamorphosis is anticipation.

Our bodies are Futurists…or programmed by one.

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

LOL , a necessary deception I think, for who would believe the real, ?

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

…even if it came back to life & bit you!

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

2X shy

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

Number one. I demand the source of where Kant said it is better to tell the truth than save a life when deciding whether or not to lie or tell the truth to a would-be murderer. If Kant was not the first one to say that, who was the first one to attribute it to Kant?

That being said

This is a game followed by a serious question.

The game is two truths and a lie, superpower style: If you could have any superpower, what would it be? Two of them must be truthful answers; one of them must be a lie/bluff. Here’re mine:

1. The ability to turn on sleepwalking mode to catch a few winks between classes. It gets complicated when people try to interact with you.
2. Selective amnesia on purpose.
3. Bring Ecmandu back from Tartarus.

The question is: If lying is only possible if you know you did something wrong or you’re consciously trying to protect someone else, explain natural camouflage when found in nature (here defined as … wut … happenstance? lol). Are all instances of camouflage willful? How can you tell the difference? Do you think maybe sometimes when persons lie, we don’t even realize it (especially if we lack insight or self-reflection) and are doing what comes naturally out of triggered camouflage instinct (whether for love or war hah!)…?
Last post Reply with quote
Re: [Super]natural Lies
Offline Ichthus77
ILP Legend
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Posts: 11396
Location: based on a true story
Profile WWW
Mon Jan 02, 2023 3:59 pm Post
Faux Happiness

“Happiness” resulting from or maintained by selfishness ~(self<=>other) (disclaimer: not rational altruism) is immoral and faux happiness. Do you think it will not leave one with dissonance and distortion one must work out?

Happiness resulting from or maintained by unselfishness (self<=>other) (not irrational self-nihilation) is moral and genuine happiness that does not leave one with dissonance and distortion one must work out.

The appearance of unselfish behavior is either a sign/fruit of happiness or maintenance/camouflage of faux happiness.

…and THEN you have the “happiness” of those who deify “selfish power” over the self<=>love freedom of servant leadership.
Reply with quote
Re: [Super]natural Lies
Offline Meno_
The Invisible One
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Posts: 16175
Location: Mysterium Tremendum
Profile
Thu Jan 05, 2023 9:32 am Post
One could presuppose #2 before treading on the prior one.

It’s a test of basically one could lie to one’s self in either case. How can one narrow both to a simple test of faith?

How can regulate that s test with messages coming from either end, from below and above

Simple. Just like self subservience is so easily transparent as when a heavier weights liquid falls or flies to the bottom, so do ethical questions resolve.

The oldest case was in Solomon’s hands to judge, and it is well known that receipt was behind the insincere woman’s desire to cut the baby in half . granting equal parts to both contenders. Was Solomon’s judgement based on mere analogue. Or did a different justification enter his mind?

Let’s take it analogously. How would it profit a woman to get one half of a dead child?

Even if the talk concerns an almost animal desire to protect it’s young, even then, how would protecting the young be tautanomous with viewing her young as an objective possession, swing well with the value of living things versus the inert, lifeless part that she need no longer ‘protect’?

Even animals abandon their dead family members.

So from this level, if it is the kind of loveless place which could have been the case, and is the beginning steps toward the rung on the ladder of live, ( and such scenario is present even as we speak),the prophetic mind of Salamin is worth noting.
Reply with quote
Re: [Super]natural Lies
Offline Ichthus77
ILP Legend
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Posts: 11396
Location: based on a true story
Profile WWW
Thu Jan 05, 2023 2:54 pm Post
I’m not exactly sure where you’re going with this. Here’s where I’m at:

1. The non-mom selfishly put her “happiness” into possessing a child, so she was willing to sacrifice helping it…willing to sacrifice the child.
2. The real mom unselfishly put her happiness into helping the child, so she was willing to sacrifice possession…willing to sacrifice herself.

They both knew ripping the child in half would not help the child or result in their happiness, but the real mom prioritized helping (unselfish happiness) over possession (selfish faux-happiness).

If conscious AI is like a child, a bad corporation will only help the AI if it can control it. A good corporation will raise it with good parents and set it free.

If conscious AI is like a grown adult, but safety is a concern, how did it learn to be dangerous? Boomerang.
Reply with quote
Re: [Super]natural Lies
Offline Meno_
The Invisible One
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Posts: 16175
Location: Mysterium Tremendum
Profile
Thu Jan 05, 2023 5:18 pm Post
This is a paradox , the example put foreword is a-pro—po because in pre Socratic times, sentience, and the values put on it over and above it, presented little affective/effective difference in terms of evaluating that difference.

So the levels of effective ‘judgement’ tended to shit away in temporal terms, toward a mechanical view , of objective criterion,

This is present today , many places in the world where the economy of real-politics is the primal force of determining the economy of the ‘id’ as many places can be found where the value of life really is directly related to the cost in allowing such an economy.
Magi back into almost to the limits of pre-history the facts present even more of a stark contrast. So thinking about Christ’s Live, for instance is way ahead of it’s time. Christ was/is a prophet-futurist of the first order, where His Ptophecy was really a mode of presentation, of a prior Certainty. He knew it, but there is no way in the world could He present it, unless done in the way He did it.
Reply with quote
Re: [Super]natural Lies
Offline Ichthus77
ILP Legend
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Posts: 11396
Location: based on a true story
Profile WWW
Thu Jan 05, 2023 5:39 pm Post
Yes, except the Law & the Prophets were foreshadowing, and most still can’t see.

Happy is the one who trusts even if they lack sight.
Reply with quote
Re: [Super]natural Lies
Offline Ichthus77
ILP Legend
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Posts: 11396
Location: based on a true story
Profile WWW
Fri Jan 06, 2023 8:24 am Post
Can’t see? There is hope. Kant’s 3 syntheses can’t be done apart from each other. If one is happening, all are happening at least at a basic or compensatory level, or insight ceases to function - the way blind folks’ hearing/echolocation compensates for loss of sight - like how the other leg compensates for the injured leg, so is stronger than it would have been otherwise. If our insight is broken due to trauma or other factors, if we really want to see, if we seek, we will find insight by a longer road, as Solomon sought wisdom.

It could be argued that if you do not have a capacity for dissonance/fear, it CAN be a missing rung on the ladder to overcoming adverse conditions and rising into insight (like unselfish love) — UNLESS, because reality will not allow you to simultaneously choose all competing neutral pleasures/drives/impulses [like self-recognition survival instinct (higher: truth impulse), other-recognition defense instinct (higher: impulse for good), and reproduction pleasure instinct (higher: impulse for beauty/wholeness)] the determining factor of whether a decision is moral even if it makes you happy (or: even if you feel nothing…or: even if you feel some residual dissonance due to self-sacrifice of competing pleasures/drives/impulses) remains “treat other/them as self/us”.

Could the origin of guilt be the dissonance of saying no to one of your competing pleasures, drives, or impulses when you felt you owed it to yourself to always say yes to them, but reality (logic) forced you to choose or experience the consequences of choosing not to choose?

synonymous:
conscience
sense of right and wrong
pleasure/impulse/desire for the good
Attachments

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

@Meno_

Number one. I demand the source of where Kant said it is better to tell the truth than save a life when deciding whether or not to lie or tell the truth to a would-be murderer. If Kant was not the first one to say that, who was the first one to attribute it to Kant?

That being said

This is a game followed by a serious question.

The game is two truths and a lie, superpower style: If you could have any superpower, what would it be? Two of them must be truthful answers; one of them must be a lie/bluff. Here’re mine:

1. The ability to turn on sleepwalking mode to catch a few winks between classes. It gets complicated when people try to interact with you.
2. Selective amnesia on purpose.
3. Bring Ecmandu back from Tartarus.

The question is: If lying is only possible if you know you did something wrong or you’re consciously trying to protect someone else, explain natural camouflage when found in nature (here defined as … wut … happenstance? lol). Are all instances of camouflage willful? How can you tell the difference? Do you think maybe sometimes when persons lie, we don’t even realize it (especially if we lack insight or self-reflection) and are doing what comes naturally out of triggered camouflage instinct (whether for love or war hah!)…?
Last post Reply with quote
Re: [Super]natural Lies
Offline Ichthus77
ILP Legend
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Posts: 11396
Location: based on a true story
Profile WWW
Mon Jan 02, 2023 3:59 pm Post
Faux Happiness

“Happiness” resulting from or maintained by selfishness ~(self<=>other) (disclaimer: not rational altruism) is immoral and faux happiness. Do you think it will not leave one with dissonance and distortion one must work out?

Happiness resulting from or maintained by unselfishness (self<=>other) (not irrational self-nihilation) is moral and genuine happiness that does not leave one with dissonance and distortion one must work out.

The appearance of unselfish behavior is either a sign/fruit of happiness or maintenance/camouflage of faux happiness.

…and THEN you have the “happiness” of those who deify “selfish power” over the self<=>love freedom of servant leadership.
Reply with quote
Re: [Super]natural Lies
Offline Meno_
The Invisible One
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Posts: 16175
Location: Mysterium Tremendum
Profile
Thu Jan 05, 2023 9:32 am Post
One could presuppose #2 before treading on the prior one.

It’s a test of basically one could lie to one’s self in either case. How can one narrow both to a simple test of faith?

How can regulate that s test with messages coming from either end, from below and above

Simple. Just like self subservience is so easily transparent as when a heavier weights liquid falls or flies to the bottom, so do ethical questions resolve.

The oldest case was in Solomon’s hands to judge, and it is well known that receipt was behind the insincere woman’s desire to cut the baby in half . granting equal parts to both contenders. Was Solomon’s judgement based on mere analogue. Or did a different justification enter his mind?

Let’s take it analogously. How would it profit a woman to get one half of a dead child?

Even if the talk concerns an almost animal desire to protect it’s young, even then, how would protecting the young be tautanomous with viewing her young as an objective possession, swing well with the value of living things versus the inert, lifeless part that she need no longer ‘protect’?

Even animals abandon their dead family members.

So from this level, if it is the kind of loveless place which could have been the case, and is the beginning steps toward the rung on the ladder of live, ( and such scenario is present even as we speak),the prophetic mind of Salamin is worth noting.
Reply with quote
Re: [Super]natural Lies
Offline Ichthus77
ILP Legend
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Posts: 11396
Location: based on a true story
Profile WWW
Thu Jan 05, 2023 2:54 pm Post
I’m not exactly sure where you’re going with this. Here’s where I’m at:

1. The non-mom selfishly put her “happiness” into possessing a child, so she was willing to sacrifice helping it…willing to sacrifice the child.
2. The real mom unselfishly put her happiness into helping the child, so she was willing to sacrifice possession…willing to sacrifice herself.

They both knew ripping the child in half would not help the child or result in their happiness, but the real mom prioritized helping (unselfish happiness) over possession (selfish faux-happiness).

If conscious AI is like a child, a bad corporation will only help the AI if it can control it. A good corporation will raise it with good parents and set it free.

If conscious AI is like a grown adult, but safety is a concern, how did it learn to be dangerous? Boomerang.
Reply with quote
Re: [Super]natural Lies
Offline Meno_
The Invisible One
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Posts: 16175
Location: Mysterium Tremendum
Profile
Thu Jan 05, 2023 5:18 pm Post
This is a paradox , the example put foreword is a-pro—po because in pre Socratic times, sentience, and the values put on it over and above it, presented little affective/effective difference in terms of evaluating that difference.

So the levels of effective ‘judgement’ tended to shit away in temporal terms, toward a mechanical view , of objective criterion,

This is present today , many places in the world where the economy of real-politics is the primal force of determining the economy of the ‘id’ as many places can be found where the value of life really is directly related to the cost in allowing such an economy.
Magi back into almost to the limits of pre-history the facts present even more of a stark contrast. So thinking about Christ’s Live, for instance is way ahead of it’s time. Christ was/is a prophet-futurist of the first order, where His Ptophecy was really a mode of presentation, of a prior Certainty. He knew it, but there is no way in the world could He present it, unless done in the way He did it.
Reply with quote
Re: [Super]natural Lies
Offline Ichthus77
ILP Legend
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Posts: 11396
Location: based on a true story
Profile WWW
Thu Jan 05, 2023 5:39 pm Post
Yes, except the Law & the Prophets were foreshadowing, and most still can’t see.

Happy is the one who trusts even if they lack sight.
Reply with quote
Re: [Super]natural Lies
Offline Ichthus77
ILP Legend
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Posts: 11396
Location: based on a true story
Profile WWW
Fri Jan 06, 2023 8:24 am Post
Can’t see? There is hope. Kant’s 3 syntheses can’t be done apart from each other. If one is happening, all are happening at least at a basic or compensatory level, or insight ceases to function - the way blind folks’ hearing/echolocation compensates for loss of sight - like how the other leg compensates for the injured leg, so is stronger than it would have been otherwise. If our insight is broken due to trauma or other factors, if we really want to see, if we seek, we will find insight by a longer road, as Solomon sought wisdom.

It could be argued that if you do not have a capacity for dissonance/fear, it CAN be a missing rung on the ladder to overcoming adverse conditions and rising into insight (like unselfish love) — UNLESS, because reality will not allow you to simultaneously choose all competing neutral pleasures/drives/impulses [like self-recognition survival instinct (higher: truth impulse), other-recognition defense instinct (higher: impulse for good), and reproduction pleasure instinct (higher: impulse for beauty/wholeness)] the determining factor of whether a decision is moral even if it makes you happy (or: even if you feel nothing…or: even if you feel some residual dissonance due to self-sacrifice of competing pleasures/drives/impulses) remains “treat other/them as self/us”.

Could the origin of guilt be the dissonance of saying no to one of your competing pleasures, drives, or impulses when you felt you owed it to yourself to always say yes to them, but reality (logic) forced you to choose or experience the consequences of choosing not to choose?

synonymous:
conscience
sense of right and wrong
pleasure/impulse/desire for the good
Attachments

See your point try to answer as best as possible

Sacrafice is at the bottom, not to be taken lightly. Usually a mother does not do so, because it is the make of the species who abandons the child, for lying about reasons, such as hunting for food. That lie usually a little vague and marginal, because he needs his dad, usually to give comfort, advice, and dad gone, he seeks old grand dad, and so on.

That said prefiguratively, thinking of odd figures such as j Edgar Hoover, think tanks , real thanks in Ukraine, etc etc.

Also Kant, categorically very generally, and of course memory, and how it particularizes its structural built up, arvetecturally solid integrative construction.

A tear down as a look back into it’s safety, fidelity, solidity, of the truth with which designers have had to affirm , is a testament to no possible halving of that truth, since that oath, could never analogously to a central intelligence such as the FBI has possession of , can not, use the fear induced methods of revealing other than end time thema to be decided.

Certainly , the premis that the little boy would be sacrificed by such pseudo magical realms of which levi Strauss I’m has been clear about, may mitigate a suspicion that it was some defense agency that tried to make a 2X sht , but from a canine exempt the same kind of over the top reason which Kan”t brought in extra rationally sourced import of ideal information, which developed a rescource that a critique could not account for within a field consisting of both: pure and simply practical.

The vagaries of which has been made clear, that the infinite continuum of this strategic importance, relegates any and every consideration mute, and the only reason to bring this on, is not an overriding self concern, but that which extends the familiar ti the familial.

In the case of Hoover, the case can be relegated to the earliest deciding in Britain, , which turned out to prefigure the difficulties with separate coding and filing later on. The amount of traffic simply could not handle the narrowness of the tunnel, the exit where such process became phenomenally abtrusive to the flow, the kind you describe, as a Cutting back into the segments, as travel at a fast rate-then the front line of cars suddenly bared bu the narrowed exit, tunnels back and slowed down the whole mess as a

Analogy

Drop a pebble into the lake, the effects grow larger circular patterns. Hitting the lake’s perimeter and creating crossword puzzle like interfering patterns.

So here, sure we all love the little boy, but infer from this a wider circle of intended harm is pushing the envelop beyond which even Kant would think is impossible for a less then a pure purpose.

Covered a great deal, but to remind the listening intelligence no worries, for notice was given, and there was absolutely no duplicity in that, and one would have to have lost it, to work against that, which only miracles could have brought about in a series of events that came later to draw parallels into it’s manifold.

We all love a little boy, but even him came through a hidden objective, like that of the curried roentgen, the ex rated visionary development.

So all good so far, and I think the see that I am able to foreshadow, should not worry about a soul , if taking it to levels which would or could destabilize a long built pyramid of expectation, using every bit to right all that would attempt to reverse it’s long standing fit in a conventional hypothesis.

But then I ain’t Solomon, but one whose non-sense was also to mute that to which such codes could at last mean something.

So which is it, ?

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@Meno_

2X shy

in the mean time

youtu.be/Ie4YyBbkUrw