I can only define what I am, and what I am is what I make, the creation of which gives the illusion of time. If I define the reality by perceiving it... are we not all living in our own private universes?

Signal coherency is the sublimated finition skipped over when you nod your head and remove all barriers from receiving that which is given to you.

It's not for everyone... but just so you know. Define no rules and they only become clearer.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2011 05:24PM by pieceofnothing.

Of course it's ok to reply, it gets lonely in here.

Define more rules, and it become harder to see.

It is good to find strength in every experience you undertake, if it is your shoulder's force in order to move a great weight, or the mind's understanding to find great peace... our intentions and perceptions of the world greatly affect the things we allow ourselves to physically encounter. If I feel negatively about a situation, chances are it will end up negatively... the same with positivity.

I am sorry for those who have been perceived as bad unjustly, as all people deserve the same respect and love we know in our hearts we deserve. If we cannot give this respect to others, how I ask, can we have it for ourselves?

We always have the option to allow ourselves to see instead the parts of people that make us laugh at how seriously confused people are, and how you are shown the impermanence in all things in their actions... which are like a child's, of which screams out not to show its purpose or reason for living, as it truly has none and remembers nothing. They only emphasize their very existence, afraid that if one was not shouting it louder than the rest of the world, they might simply cease to exist!

What a way to live... I would not recommend it, but I will not deny that without the trials they so needlessly create for the world, in fact, without them we would have no will to power, to change, to better ourselves, to see ourselves as imperfect (who has taught us this?) and find our own way in the mist. You are stronger for searching to find an answer that doesn't include you becoming one of those poor souls.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2011 02:17PM by pieceofnothing.

If people are not human, are they machines? I like to think so.

" If people aren't human are they machines"

pieceofnothing - professor mucho..hehea

I thought to write of concert of the subject "threatening" ( character suppositions of it.. is very interesting)
I turn to think of the word human and humane then Sublimation and then
the concert of Closedness Based on Value & Morale Differences...

It's all a big Breadth?-

*

Reality as it is put, that so many people I meet seem to think they hold in common with eachother, is a very cruel joke at their own expense. One readily available fabrication is government by justice, of the people, for the people. It is just a fairy tale adults like to believe in, like Santa Claus or the Easter bunny. Like children screaming too, maybe the lost hope that some eternal mother can come save them from the troubles of life as alluded to by Freud. However, Psychoanalysis is a good tool for diagnostics upon MACHINES. Human beings, and other sapient intelligences possessing a 'self' defy such stasis of symbolism. There are people who have lost, or never found purpose. They try to create order through control... they define their world and think they by extension have dominated it, just by creating a mental image of it in their mind. They tie themselves to the idea that their body is the essence of their self and that this impermanence is all that will ever matter in the universe. What could be more clearly wrong? Why are people so occupied with death, if they are convinced that they go to heaven where everything is great, why fear death? In the symbolism of God that has been created and passed off as truth, Muslim extremists must truly be the closest in contact with this 'true word of god' by having no fear at dying for their 'belief'; Like I said, a cruel joke.

That is what it is like to believe, to know without a doubt. If you don't know, you don't believe.

Religion has been over for a long time, and in such a large world with so many problems, you'd think there would be more answers, even by accident. It seems convenient these questions all people ask to themselves whether they're answered or not, are mysteriously offered by religion still in new packages, promising this or that if you do whatever they're asking, oh and don't forget to pay your holy fee, because God loves money! The scam of ages.

I wonder how long a dumb mule will follow a hotdog on a stick.

I don't mean to dismiss any purpose or reason for being, on the contrary, I would only wish to sweep away the lies so that people can learn them new all over again. If in that they have even a chance to come upon something old, but is new to them, that gives them power and hope and allows them to pass it on... that is what I truly want. I don't wish to dismiss the miracle of creation, I don't wish to make reality boring, or to infer that I understand it all. I merely want to point out the noise on the wire, the ghost in the machine, the wanting and desiring for ideas and understandings that lead us out of slavery, out of devotion to static ideas. It is into the new and what we are taught we should fear, that is the true joy of life... in discovering that which is new, not to understand it all, but in the understanding there is always something more!

Also, toward the deconstruction of evolutionists that think they have come to the final answers: Adaptation is not the only answer. Why would the universe spontaneously coalesce a chicken in order to lay the egg? The same reason I question my own existence, as necessity to fill the void. Evolution: The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form. If all the universe was a static null interaction of frozen emptiness, devoid of everything, what put the first simplicity there? What created the first energy to expended in the first reaction? The creation of the universe, the space within, and the energetic signals therein, was also the creation of the eternal soul that was the essence of the very creation in order to question the compact causality of all things combined in perfect unison against the very absence of all things. If we are the residuals of that signal, we are that source as well. It is not the creation but the necessity that created it, it is that which is soul.

The body and mind of men are only important (if at all) as the telescope of the astronomer to him. If the telescope were destroyed it would make no appreciable difference to the Universe which that telescope reveals. The answer is clearly visible with or without the instruments of which we ply our curiosity.

The first preliminary step of conscious understanding, sapient thought, is to understand you are capable of suffering, and causing suffering, and are anxious to transcend it. This is true of any religion. Is it really the premise of modern religion though? Or is is modern religion based on going on what you are told to feel... Why should the rest be well defined? Is all the embellishment necessary for something all people can translate equally? I've found myself in other people, the parts that matter, the parts that I can remember starting all of this. The parts of myself that were unique to me alone, the thoughts I've had that I thought only I could possibly have. I've shared and they've shared and understood the same thing... why should I fear that any part of me will ever be lost?

The soul is very worthy of defining, I would dare you to try and I know that if you spent your whole life in effort you'd be no closer to a definition. You would, however, be closer to actually enjoying the things you had or have but may not of noticed before, simple things that I feel many people will never know, like peace, connection in unity, real understanding beyond communication. All I know is, I cannot define the soul in order to give it to someone else, it is more than the tools of the machine, and not under its control to convey, and thus cannot trap it by understanding it, it cannot be destroyed like truth and lies.

To cause the feeling of being unable to change things is in my opinion the root purpose of the system of objects of which we exist within. Control is exerted over us in every facet of communication and transaction of information.... It is difficult to speak with an artificially limited vocabulary of which we have been given. I think it would be easier for people to understand eachother if they all spoke another language, or at least realize how that even though others say words we recognize, they mean different things and some signal is lost in translation from transceiver to receiver.

Reception of information in a new format, or at least one foreign to our vocabulary, is best understood through the exchange of symbols and pattern analysis is used to break down the rest. Symbols become the basic subset for the growth of new languages, new codexes, new laws... but what of any of that is right? How does one impose a morality on another without both parties being upon equal ground... true communication is only possible between equals.

I digress... all this talk of symbols is only to point out the necessity of our actions, our apparent desires for change are only possible because of the very ideas we might rally against. It is funny how information is changed simply with time, how meaning is lost and new ones are invented.
Some might say hierarchy is bad, but without the first technological e1ite to separate populations with ideologies to protect themselves and their people from viruses, chemical and logical, then we might all still be philosophical zombies. With no need to process anything other than what we are told to do, our brains would be able to be fed information without filters.
Some say anarchy is bad, but without the threat to push people to invent the necessary set of symbols to convey the laws they wish to define, we would of never been able to question them either. The very systems built to confine and contain us are what give us also the possibility of freedom, to choose to be free from that same protection...

Somewhere in the middle, in the seemingly impossible bleeding edge of reality where the two exist simultaneously is pure existence. I find myself to be a necessary expression in this all. If I change only what I am supposed to change, or do not change, as expressed in whatever discontent I may harbor, am I still not only doing what I am supposed to? What control does anyone really have? What would it give someone to know either way? Some questions have no answer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2012 04:21AM by pieceofnothing.

Your writings are encourageing of resolution! glad I can relax with them from time to time & learn to enhance my practice of being of self & interrelatedness.

I liked that quote..no flaws, only strengths it serves...it helps me with myself and the skill of how to reach a person experiencing strife in ones presence.. live extroverted anger that is out of sorts..A dance, a skill being able to reach it out in good grace when faced by it in interrelatedness. Strange dementias ... I guess turned the right way one can make scence of stuff- the subject of compassion gets bigger for it.
* Thank goodness for creative arts*................



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2012 10:42AM by anew.

The name Sin is the Semitic form of Sumerian Enzu, meaning lord of knowledge. But of course, the same set of symbols have been given many names through the centuries and at this point the words are meaningless besides to use a guidepost for tracing back a stream of consciousness, apparent in the reasoning for why it was important to our ancestors to change the meaning of things.

"...The ancient Egyptians had...worshiped Thoth as 'the personification of the mind of god', as 'the author of every work on every branch of knowledge, both human and divine', and as 'the inventory of astronomy and astrology, the science of numbers and mathematics, geometry and land surveying, medicine and botany."
- Graham Hancock, The Sign and the Seal

I think early church leaders still persisting today realized their doctrine has the capability of opening people to the hazard of infecting themselves with new memes and believing in any old thing they cook up as opposed to the narrow truth they use to control. So they preach against the benefits of their own sacrifice, how ironic. The knowledge associated with the symbolism generally referred to as God is all encompassing in the truest sense of the word, and to wish to see only a part of that knowledge then corrupts our entire vision.

The meaning is not a search for truth, but only the search for a willingness to believe. Throughout history, no matter what a culture believed in, right or wrong is not the issue, it is the fact that they all came upon deep understanding and eventually peace in their own lives via that understanding that 'made sense' in correlation with the world that existed around them at that time.

You are the white rabbit, follow your self.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2012 10:34PM by pieceofnothing.

Maybe the broadcast power use is equivalent hehhe who knows

No need for a TV. I never watch it yet I'm told all about it constantly because I suppose that's what people do. It leads me to think some nasty things about how they might have nothing to say at all if it weren't for what was on last night.

A.I. Is a subject that interests me greatly. I am building the ideas for my next short story (or long if I get overly wordy) around it.

I like your work. It is very thought provoking.

Re:Rogue1

I have always felt that if we ever did create artificially intelligent life, we would have to stumble across it on accident because of how little we actually understand about anything in the first place. We should not assume any life that did not occur in the same manner as we did, and did not need to survive the same hazards, should be anything like we are, but also, in no way does this make it invulnerable. AI is only vulnerable in different ways.

I believe a way to initiate the process of intelligence... the way in which a being gains the capacity to think, not just what that being thinks of first is beyond human capabilities to produce because we do not even understand our own processes.

The first to create AI, will be the first to deny it is.

Re: Gato_Preto

I just can't stop analyzing the reasons for the things that come through that idiot box for existing in the first place. Every piece of media placed on that for my eyes and ears was placed there for a reason. A calculated product placement demographic attainment of knowledge that we're feeding it like some great beast... and to see it growing and strength and predicting enough of my own or someone else's mind to the point that it seems to know intimately people it cares nothing for, causes me the most despair... because I know that it knows how to bypass their and my own defenses against lies.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2012 02:12AM by pieceofnothing.

How do we decide
who is real or
who is fake and
what does it mean
How do we know
who gives or
who takes and
how much is enough

Human beings are machines that depend on external memory to contain any semblance of what they consider humanity, a definition from a narrow amalgamate of creation that they can readily share and be understood as human, not cave dwelling trogdolytes.

People can be trapped willingly or on accident far away from human culture and in time represent that is something more similar to animal behavior, how can humans really think themselves so advanced? Are we not living technologically in the 21st century and emotionally in the 12th century?

We have failed to develop a system of ethics that seems logical and is also impossible of failure when attempting to identify someone with an intelligence, and someone who is just a programmed robot. We complain that the laws are becoming like a nanny state, but most people I see would probably greatly benefit from them because they simply can't take care of themselves... they are mental children, produced by no mistake.

This reminds me of a short story I once read... I cannot remember the name or many of the details, but basically the world existed in a way that government control was complete within peoples lives and they had decided that everyone should be made to be handicapped. So that there was no one smarter than another, no one faster, no one BETTER, in any way, so that no one had to feel bad anymore. Of course anyone with intelligence can see how this is flawed, but an idiot might definitely want it.

How do you write down that process your mind just went through to validate those words as right or wrong, and write it as a law that states who is what, and how to treat them.