Why are you so freaking weird?
Gosh, you’re the first person to tell me, one more rejection…but then this time I must say, it’s just got to be.
Long time ago,
A fortune teller , now deceased told me, ….
And everything has turned out a forgone conclusion.
1 Like
Rude. 15 characters
Integrating recent thoughts after processing them with Copilot (follow up disco linked in a reply to that statistics and 4 causes thread linked in the reply I’m replying to).
I often see catchy graphics from psychology trying to graph or plot temperaments or ideals. there are ones purporting to show the relations of political beliefs on axes.
I always have to wonder if the graphs match with reality or are purely the fictitious constructions of human beings. Does the human brain and the physical world we live in really possess any kind of neurological organization or structure matching these things? For example, do these three qualities represent a comprehensive set of characteristics or are there more? Do they interact or interrelate with each other in the human mind to produce the overlaps presented or are they individually distinct concepts? Does self = other possess all three components of “beautiful, good and true” combined in some way or is self = other a 4th ideal separately?
How well does human language describe reality?
1 Like
I need heyyyylp!
Conversely, yes, conversasionlly, , not necessarily, might as well resign to a neuroplastic doubt, or chuck out the power of positive thinking,
Just in and out of the garbage can actions speak louder?
Hope against hope it does.
Split decision! …better ones come out of a mind trained in the gymnasium that has higher standards for mental practices.
Think fast!
Made you blink.
Just for a split second, at the point when the body and mind have to sync, at least the blink becomes a photo finish,
To further the act of function of discerning
Well, the search for the God Particle, failed because of the nil of invisibility is not an absence.
But if IT can not be seen, is it worth a small fortune to spend on? Especially what has come down as the challenge to faith? , and the condition for belief…
You seem to be saying that what I’m trying to articulate is the God particle? Why does that sound so singular if, in fact, it is triune? What is the dimension between singular and three persons who share whatever it is that unites them (…is that a plurality or a unity or does one imply the other?). Why SHOULDN’T I want to talk about this on into eternity and enjoy it forever? Why shouldn’t I give up all of my possible fortunes to enjoy it forever? What else IS there besides stuff that just passes away?
That last one I need to check against this:
I try to keep this updated, too, but I still haven’t incorporated all the triads:
Wow. Thanks. You would make a really great tutor. I might hire this other guy for $60 an hour (which seems absurd when priceless flashes of insight can happen in an instant). Here’s a problem. I really have to reach to understand you sometimes.
Forgot to tell you that, wasn’t wheeler at U of M, at some time ago?
But then, everything said, about charms, and particularly about the trickster by young Werther?
No but then what all coincidental?
If I were to allege all the forgoing a coincidence would it be a surprise? And who could carry the weight or would? Without a recognition? And would it not be a total scam to progress to that limit?
There is no shadow , off doubt as to the splint second of illumination, the magnifying glass can burn a hole into the fabric of time if converging the sun.
If the time it takes to get to that limit be thought of as a universal cosmic principle, relatively speaking, we’d be dead in a microsecond after birth.
What need to re-create the simulation question periodically with the most subtle technique , less we forget the cyclically of occurrence , with the trickster as a necessary reminder to ensure it’s self survival! Proof in pudding: seeming dead pools of different identically functional characteristics, allow levels of differentiation inter-Alia, so that truly, every and each hair of any and all can identify, and can , account for literally any one and all, ..
Correction. Sorry Ischthus. ‘Wheeler is not the same man. Wrong on that count. The only other thing I know of, is that
1 Wheeler helped with the H bomb
2 the man I am referring to was friend frequently visited by (annotate later) who helped design the a bomb.
Other then these unforgettable errors , everything verifies the paradox meno was /is in re: the afore mentioned.
Finally the Orwellian effort by Jung’s trickster is very considerable, and can shade the positive effort to rationalize the dream , that shadow those intermittent effects which actually happen on waking.
So.
As far as the danger of over evaluative literal usage here, the necessity of such commingling into the shadowy world of confusion is a necessary un(sub) conscious motive for the movement , maybe the charm that effects the functional derivative.
This diagram is not about beliefs, values, or moral posturing.
It describes how thinking actually functions.
DO is obedience and behavioral control: law compensates for insufficient cognitive capacity.
THINK is internalized truth: reflection with no obligation to withstand contact with reality.
END is the point where truth stops being rhetoric and is judged by a single criterion — does it work without collapsing.
Reality is indifferent to your truth.
The center (self = other) is not a virtue, but a state in which cognition stops fighting itself.
Most arguments exist because people confuse reflection with action and mistake intentions for results.
