I mean. Just.
Jerk off on your own time clown.
1 Like
There is something about 11 that is more interesting than 10. Three doesn’t go through 10 because it is lower than 5, and 5 doesn’t go through 11 because it is a divisor of 10. Going through 10 starts at odd numbers higher than 5. 7 and 9 have the same sequence starting at the 7, 22, 11, whereas 11 lacks the 7, 22 preceding 11. It’s almost like there’s this underlying sequence they’re all dancing around. For example… 7, 9 & 11 include the sequence for 13, but 13 lacks everything before itself from their sequences.
And that’s all I have to say about that. Except that a double of an odd number will include that number’s sequence.
How is that a problem? Any number repeating after the 0. decimal is one. So what? What does that have to do with this?
Why are you being a big meanie?
Because 10 was in the 9th spot for 11.
It’s little details like this when you examine bases. plus one, minus one.
Ichthus. I’m going to explain this as simple as I can.
I’m going to correct you. You stated that every infinitesimal equals 1.
zero or one means existence couldn’t exist, because in both cases everything is exactly the same. 2 is not exactly the same. I’m not talking about dichotomies here, simply… otherness in order to be or perceive.
When numbers are finite, all permutations run their course and existence can’t exist. We know existence is infinite in expanse. I always try to explain this by saying infinity = motion. By infinity trying to be itself, it can’t count itself, so that’s why motion occurs in existence.
When you simply use any operator on infinity, it closes the infinity and becomes the finite, that’s how we perceive. That doesn’t mean infinity is bound. We use the eternal form realm to have/abstract category in order to perceive.
You’re acting like one is necessarily undifferentiated, when in actuality, it is a whole, which may be (and is, because existence exists) differentiated.
I realize there are two different ways of being two, which is fitting. One way of being two is to be opposite. Another way of being two is to be complementary. If antitheses didn’t cancel each other out, they’re complementaries instead of opposites/dichotomies, although they may contain dichotomous material that has to be discarded before synthesis can happen.
If the synthesis breaks down, it is probably because the dichotomous material was not actually discarded.
And I’ll add to last. You can’t arrive at true, lasting synthesis without being connected to the original synthesis that never had any dichotomous material that needed discarding, but which subsumes all transformation.
It is a mystery to me why anyone embarks on a synthesis that will end in death, and which is not the original true, lasting synthesis.
Maybe it is because the closest we are ever going to be (like) the maximally greatest synthesis is to accept each other’s imperfections, just as ours are accepted by the true, lasting original synthesis. Not that it doesn’t prune away all dichotomous material the closer we draw near to it… and likewise each other.
Maybe. But usually when I see two people trying to be complementary, it rarely looks like that’s why they’re trying.
Why didn’t you answer me here?
Yeah. I seem to remember that from this world.
Thesis, antithesis and synthesis.
You like triplets of course.
The 1,4 loop (excluding negative numbers) means that 4 is more important than 3.
you can live your whole life in tripartism. That’s your right. BUT!!! Life is vaster than your ideology!!!
to add to the last post Ichthus.
I’m going to reach into your own mind for a bit
You believe in threes because the Bible told you so.
You can make three circles without them overlapping at all.
But when you create a venn diagram, the truth is always in the middle.
4 is greater than three.
Life is not about the trinity.
Somebody added plus one or four wouldn’t even matter in that sequence. What are you even talking about?
Some people actually argue the Trinity is not in the Bible, so I’m curious what part of the Bible do you think “told me so”?
I don’t think I always (if ever) use the Venn diagram the way it was initially intended. I’m not saying I couldn’t, but I don’t see why I should if I’m not. What I am using it for is working for me.
Sometimes less is more, Ec, but see my last reply.
You can make venn diagrams with thousands of circles.
The people who argue against the trinity believe there is only one.
I want you to understand me as a person.
I never wanted to exist. I never wanted the universe to exist.
I used to be the most suicidal person you could ever meet.
Then I discovered we never die, so then I realized all of us should just tough it out.
My patch is to make life worth living, even though eternal rest is the better option.
I know that you can make 500 katrillian Venn diagrams …but it would be super redundant.
If you wanna teach me, I invite that, but time is of the essence. I don’t have time to guess what you are insinuating or implying or encoding 100% of the time.
I’m also not interested in your obsession (pretty sure). You have to be interested in my obsession. And that isn’t the Venn diagram… It’s just a useful mnemonic.
For example. I need help getting this done. I am so losing patience with myself. But this is what wants to happen inside of me, but outside of me. It won’t leave me alone. It scares the crap out of me and I try and forget it, but it always comes back. I would be willing to do some nefarious things for anyone that helped me complete this… as long as it obeyed the golden rule.
Outline/Rough — embarrassing situation
I. The Harmonic Triads as a Recognition & Resolution to the Is-Ought Fallacy & Fact-Value Distinction Impacting Various Fields
A. Logic: The Deontic (Existence), Ontic (Being), and Thetic (Essence) Imports, and Their Existential and Related Fallacies
B. The “Do, Be, End” of Ethics & Political Economics: Developmental Stages of Justified Behavior, Authentic Cognition, and Essential Values of Individuals and Groups
D. “Justified True Belief” Consciousness: Practical Perception, Conceptual Understanding, and Aesthetic Judgment
E. Time & Creation: Efficient Action (Spatiality), Substantial Position (Temporality), and Formal/Final Force (Qualiality)
Go through all notes, flip book, Google sheet, consolidate, include as needed
Consider a chapter that does short summaries for areas of further study, including language/commo, DNA, etc
— Then an appendix with all (known, corrected) triads, listing page numbers where they are discussed.
Mostly none of this is original to me and is like a quilt, collage, mosaic, polka… thing. So the references are going to be tedious. And I’m sure to do the job right there are references I haven’t even read yet.
But you’re not gonna help me. You’re just gonna fuck with me, aren’t ya, Ec.
Good night.
I already know everyone before I meet them. It’s a curse. Because people want to know me. That will take longer than my life on earth So I don’t look at people as minds with feelings.
Because I already have felt all these things and understood them.
When it comes to what people consider the complications of sex… being chosen. Women are always saying, “women are not objects” Women objectify way more than men do. I see women as objects. The only mystery for me is what it is to see them naked live without using prostitution.
Earth is stupid. Women won’t change here. When I actually observed the women in action, never picking the good men. I tried to destroy existence. That’s unfortunately impossible. So I made a new plan for all beings in existence to circumvent this problem.
And now I’m just waiting. Women are way more shallow than men are at the peaks in the human species.
False. That one chick that approach escalated on you. You already forgot her again. So this leads me to believe that if it happened to you again, you would forget that, too. It’s probably happened to you 500,000 times and you just forgot every single one.
Still this. Plus.
You’re talking about Mel. I didn’t forget. But this problem is so ubiquitous that I include everyone to make a point. Mel was a clean sexual selection.