Wednesday, 19 July 2017

The Genders and Exploration of Evils

In order to understand what one might be up against, it can be important to explore different kinds of dangers. One such danger is evil that might lurk in the nature of things and or in other living creatures. It is however not quite likely that men and women do that exploration in very much the same way. Neither perspective is perfect, but each is more or less crucial for an actual understanding of it, I think.

Much as I don't feel very much like telling whoever looks at this, I also sense an inconvenience linked to not being open about it. So, i you're really interested in what I mean you might read the italic text below, and if you don't understand it you might firstly look around in this blog for clues about what it means. Secondly, you could perhaps send me to one of the authorities about spreading information, and then I would probably be serious about explaining things.
When impurity of  reciprocity ingratiates simple-minded evil, it can make it develop:  Reciprocity can be defined as three, and simple evil as two. Impurity of reciprocity can therefore be defined as two times three, equals six. Six is also relates back to two, being the starting point of the second ingratiation series. This series thereby tends to potentiate the effects of two, i.e. of the simple evil of simple discrimination. One ingratiation step ingratiates one, which is care for all. One ingratiation step thereby leads care for all to become inclined for evil. Two ingratiation steps from six makes twenty-nine, which thereby can define endeavor for purifying evil for evil purposes.

As far as I can tell, it is a feminine tendency to explore evil as something that can hardly make use of hope for resurrection as a tool for its potentials. This can be seen when a female person tries to show off her capacity not to resent evils as much as one might think. Likewise, when a male person does so, it usually shows that he tends to view it differently, because it is a masculine tendency to explore evil more as something that depends on hope for resurrection as a tool for its potentials.

Tuesday, 9 May 2017

In Order for Normality to Be Adequate for Consistency

Consistency is what we have to rely upon for very much of our experiences. That is we have not, without consistency, the consequentiality we need for trusting our senses, or anything else that provides us with notions of what there is, to the environment or so. For this reason, I have formulated some rules for how we can interpret our environments. These rules are consistent with how we experience reality and how we learn to enhance those experiences!

I thereby have interpretations of reality that are about how one categorizes, for within the categorizations, there can be found whole numbers, and through those can be found some absolute notions of consequentiality, which provides us with infinity of reason to care for infinity of realness of experience, I think! But even so, there is to experience, at times, uncertainties that deprive us of our absolute notions of fact or experience.Thereby, I care to experience through logic alone, what one may care to fit into some other systems of interpretation!

To start with, thereby, I emphasize rules that apply to all and everything, through our notions of infinity!

Sunday, 12 February 2017

Soul or not in Math and Numbers

It is not at all in all math, nor in all numbers, a soul! It is not I who try to pretend there's in mathematics, in general, usually anything but trying to explain the world in terms of absolute measurements. It is not, however, necessary to trick oneself or someone else into seeing in whole numbers so little of attitudes that one doesn't learn how they are notions of how arrogance or care can be into every approach to one's environments.

It is in the number of interests that I can find one's attitude about care for what there is, or seems to be, for one to be caring about. It is so in the sense that an interest to an attitude is sufficient for supporting a being, if and only if it is either delimited from or supportive of other individual beings. I find in two interests, that there is one such delimitation, which is very simple and can be utterly arrogant.

By use of only one interest, which is not delimited, one cannot but support all and everything; else one doesn't support oneself! By use of two or more, there are many possibilities of being arrogant and/or prejudice, or so. It is sometimes with any number of attitudes so smart, at least seemingly, to arrogantly have it that only oneself and/or one's own people, one's ingroup persons, so to speak, are the ones to care for. The outgroup people seem (at least to the extent one is soulless about it) unimportant, since they are not part of what one finds to be worthwhile or so.

I feel quite certain that there is no notion of numbers, at least not of counting numbers, which can tell about a number of interests, that is not potentially part of the potential order that I have found there seems to be to the number of interests that one can have. It is not true that one cannot expect everything to fall, more or less, into structures that are can be applied to structure, which in turn is eternal structure to the extent it is (at least for example) mathematically sound. Such eternal structures tend to be found in all sorts of places in the environments we have. An example of this is how the Fibonacci numbers are often found in nature.

Due to this, I have studied our notions of how to interpret reality. somehow I have found that (soulfully speaking) there is a system about how we divide our interests. This is important because it is through categories of interest that we expect to manage our own wills and wishes for the sake of our own well-being. Thereby, I have found that there is to three interests categories that one can either more or less soulless about it, or one can manage to simply find that a notion of care for one interest comes to be. This springs from that any one of the three categories can delimit itself from the more dangerous achiever delimitation among the other two, and that in turn results in wise delimitation, which pays of.

The problem otherwise with only two categories is that the delimitation between need not at all be limited, which makes prejudice and so pay off. That this is so can be cured, however by use of a third category. there we have the first notion of soul (in the sense of the soul being our best anti-evil) in the systematics I have found about the variation in number of interest categories one can use.

This works to the extent that delimitation into two parts is simply is not complicated by another such simple (and evil-inlined) delimitation. It works also to the extent those two are to be viewed as one. Because one can always judge a soul (an undivided interest, which is thus into care about everything) as smarter to care about than something that is as bad as that. ...

If the delimitation are incompatible as the same, however, this is less obvious than that a simple three is quite enough in itself. In numbers, the two twos then simply create a four. A higher number of interests is to much extent too complex for a lower number to handle; i.e. four is to much extent too complex for three to handle.

However, this can be solved in the way I have described here. That is, it can be soulful to the extent the four that springs the two twos can relate back to the three (and thus one) as part of the next number in the series created by the rules described on the page that the here-link above leads to. The same goes for any other bigger number of interests than three.

It is not, however, guaranteed that there is soulfulness as soon as that criterion is met. It is also not absolute that for example a four couldn't be into one, and thereby soulfulness, in some other way. Rather, there's a good start in that there can be a soul at least to the extent that there is a notion of that justice is worth-while. ...

Thursday, 12 January 2017

Step by Step: Categorisation Structures Based on Number of Categories

This is a bit about what I mean this type of a categorization is, not only about how it is structured. 

With no (zero) categories of the type that I mean, there is not any structure to what one deems as how much of worth it. Using no such category/-ies is thereby not reliable; it almost must mean chaos and

With one such category, there is exactly one form of regulation about what is worth it to which extent. Using at least one category for such judgement is a basis for life, which does not exist without it. As such it cannot be destructive; it must work independently for life. The first category is naturally the most necessary one.

With two such categories, there are two such forms of regulation. Using a second such category is a necessity for deeming against anything. Because it can keep itself separate from the category that supports life itself  -  and thereby couldn't do it!

With three such categories there are three separate forms of judgement.Usage of a third structure for judgement is necessary for judging judgements from the outside. It seems that it thereby provides possibility for cunning about being real about whom to treat nicely and badly. 

With four such categories.there is an added judgement to that. Usage of a forth category provides the possibility of a second opinion about the cunning about whom to treat how that the third category provided. It also provides a realm of two potential divisions into good and bad  -  providing one cannot fix too definitely the order between the categories. That one can because of the possibility of multiplication of two and two into four.

With five categories, it seems that this happens: The above type of second opinion does not provide a basis for a point of view that is clear about why an opinion is what it is. Such basis can be there, it seems though, with a fifth such category. Using that fifth category thereby  - at least so it seems to me  -  adds the dimension of personal judgement to it all. This means that the double standards of the two twos can be overcome, doesn't it?!

With six categories there's a multiplication that seems to result in a realm of combining wanton and unscrupulous division into constructive and destructive judgements with regardful considerate division into that. This means that the third category of the three factor isn't always present. In other words it results, it seems, in a system of double moral.

With seven categories there is again not any more than one factor. A single factor seems to mean at least something of a guarantee against the double standards and thereby confusion, which more than one of them can seemingly mean. Using a seventh category seems to me to involve emphasizing five categories without such double standards.

With eight categories.there are three competing simpler categorizations (of divisions into two categories). With nine categories there are two competing simpler categorizations (of divisions into three categories). The number of competing categorizations involves a none-categorical relationship between the simple categorization structures. Thereby eight, with its three factors relates those factors to one another in a way that spites categorization into three parts  -  while nine with its two factors relates those to each other in a way that spites categorization into two parts. Both the twos that spite three and threes induces consistency of twos and of threes, respectively.

Such consistency is about that the twos and the trees stay separate. But for consistency with outside stuff, with generalization,something else is needed. A logical possibility for such consistency seems to be there in numbering the structures of multiple competing categorizations, by order of simplicity. Then the structure of two twos constitutes the simplest, which should thus be related, I think, to the number one, and what it stands for (according to my rules, as described above). I.e four relates to one. According to the same rules six relates to two, eight to three and nine to four.

Thereby eight and nine both anchor, as I see it, for their consistency onto three and four respectively, which means each of them is for "anchorage" dependent upon something that is is spited by the internal procedures of them, respectively. Because the three that eight anchors to is exactly what it is of direct spite against in the structure of an eight. Similarly, the four that nine anchors to is made up two sets of exactly what is of direct spite against in the structure of a nine!

I believe that using the eight and nine factors mean something like how the structures of our brains' thoughts are organized. Only those thoughts can involve lots of other forms of categorization. But I believe most of those other forms of it are there subordinated the two structures of eight and nine  -  at least to the extent those are into meaning steps and anchorage. I have earlier tried to describe how our brain structures might be built upon those two basic structures.

With ten categories, there is a set of five competing with a set of two categories, i.e. simple minded discrimination competes with personal judgement. The way two factors compete, however, doesn't at all necessarily mean fair play. Instead they complete by destabilizing each another. Using a tenth factor means uniting the trails of two competitive twos in an eight, which leads to, I think, imagination about one's possibilities. ...

With eleven factors there's the destructive capacity of six one-factor-built categorization. This means further uniting the three and the two of the uninclined-for-justice compromise to competition of a six. ...

Monday, 26 December 2016


Every new idea about how things work can be viewed as too speculative to be taken seriously. Do I have to say that so can my ideas? My guess is that: No, I don't!

But I use logic for my reasoning, both to begin with and also later on. Even so, kinda nobody believes I have a real good point to make! The reason for that is very certainly that I am not very thorough about presenting my ideas. ... And why is that, someone might ask.

One reason is that I simply have a lousy memory for that. Another is that there seems to be no one responding to what I say, and that I thereby ain't getting any feedback! the two together very easily produce a situation where I don't know what to tell people about them, my ideas.

I have, at points, tried to concentrate at making presentable points only. Somehow, though, doing so makes me less inclined to actually think for myself, enough to actually produce those points that I want to make. And, weirdly enough, nobody ever asks the right questions  -  or that's slightly exaggerated, but the truth is that it is (to say the least) quite rare for me that any one really quite does that at all.

Saturday, 19 November 2016

Worst-Case-Scenario Thinking

I have been supposing that consciousness springs from worst-case-scenario thinking. This is mostly because t seems likely that a worst-case scenario emphasizes a necessity of keeping track of one's thoughts. This being so, the worst-case thoughts need not themselves be conscious, though.

For thoughts or notions that provide a worst case to be more useful than destructive, one need to control them somehow and/or have them really reliant upon something they would otherwise destroy. To the extent that something is also a thought, one might suppose that it is clearer than most thoughts. It might thereby dominate thoughts of that type, the type that can be destroyed by the same type of tendencies. This seems similar to conscious thought.

If one presumes that thoughts rely upon balanced notions of what is what, that is in my number theory basically the same as that they rely upon five-based (or perhaps even four-based) notions. The five based notions (which are all four based, according to my system) include for example seven-based and ten-based ones´. The latter is simply because five is a factor of ten, and the former is because seven pertains to doing a meaning step from five.

Those meaning steps, which can also be called ingratiation steps, can also be used for enhancing whatever that is a meaning step from. That is a five enhances a four and a seven a five (and thereby indirectly also four). Likewise either a twenty-three or a but also a fourteen or forty-one can enhance ten. Within those meaning steps can be found different values, which can pertain to other qualities than those that the meaning steps enhance. Thereby one can in those meaning steps perhaps find those enhancements of potential destruction that seems to enhance its own destruction, and thereby perhaps, in the above-described sense, create dominant thoughts. ...

A seven and an eighty-three can together stand for the ingratiation step from 128 to 709, which is a resolute kind of consciousness, a type which relies on the issue of the harshness of what can be called "plain evil" when it is not set to be a clarifier of the necessity of disillusionment. The discipline of this  -  I think one might say consciousness of disillusionment  -  can be used both for authority and competing. It can also be used simply for getting enough exercise and so, with hardly any competitive spirit to it. At best, it also promotes fair play and so. ...

In a similar way, there is in the spiritual type (127 type) of discipline, there is an aspiration for utilitarianism or so. Thereby it is the reason for spiritual discipline of moral and so.That is, in the step from 32 to 127, there is a five factor, linked to a nineteen, the latter of which is utilitarianism, and the former of which is spirit. Terrifically enough it is a four and/or a five that can anchor that first meaning step for utilitarianism, from nine to nineteen. It is five that anchors it when a corresponding meaning step in the anchor itself is required for anchoring a meaning steps in its meaning series.

Sunday, 6 November 2016


Seduction is not all always done with good, but not always with bad, intentions. Rather it can also be an important part of our everyday lives. It is often quite difficult for some good points to be made without any seduction at all. But still it is sometimes vital to also look at seduction's potential bad sides.

I believe further that there are two basic types of seduction. Either one of them can be hypnotic in its nature, and I believe both of them are built upon something of an hypnosis. Here are the two basic types, plus sort of a third, in what can become of combining the two, in their contexts of their hypnotic basis, respectively.
  • Hypnotism by complete repression. In other words, it's about totally pretending as if nothing about one thing or another. It is thereby mostly about hiding one's wrong-doings than about making use of them. Indeed it even very often rules out many  -  though far from necessarily all  -  possibilities of making use of them. This holds true about evil uses as well as good uses of evils already done.
    • At least in humans (I think):
      • Feminine persons are usually more inclined to use this kind of trickery than masculine persons. They are generally also much more capable of being fatal in seeming to be totally innocent  -  and not wake any suspicion at all.
      • There are fairly many  sub-types of repression-based hypnosis. Some of these are to be viewed as special cases. A very important special case is one that tends to disillusion by interacting as if what is hidden by the illusion know  -  even though it isn't. 
    • Hypnotism by repression can be done in various ways:
      • Repression of this kind can, to at least some extent be simple enough to be without any vanity to it, but just blatantly into pretension that nothings going on. It is then just aspiration for moral to seem to be there weather or not it is.
        • Individual representation in contexts of such aspiration can improve the seduction's predicament of hypnosis against one's hopes for justice for all. This can be done in two ways that, either of which can fairly easily become dangerous:
          • arrogantly, so that there seems to be no clue to what justice actually is, and one thus has to accept care for injustice as being just.
          • or causally, so that it is less threatening, but thereby less noticeable, usually.
        • Repression hypnotism, especially the most basic version of it, tend to be counteracted by the emphasis type (described below). In that the most basic version is threatened by emphasis-base for hypnosis, other types are too.
      • Alternatively, there can be a repression as soon as things seem good enough for a seductress (because a male can hardly do it  -  at least not without regards for common norms of moral and/or norms of obvious power) to pretend all is well, then she represses totally whatever she would otherwise feel she seems immature for that type of circumstances, or so.
        •  This too can be into individual representation, which can be:
          • blatantly (but not now arrogantly) vain, and thus obscuring what justice is.
          • extremely casual ...
        • The most basic of these types of repression-when-things-seem-good hypnosis is usually more or less effective about turning emphasis hypnosis (see below) to its advantage.
      • It can be that the repression is complete when things get bad, when things get bad  -  which is almost as easy for a male as for a female to do. 
        • There are sort of no sub-types of this kind of hypnosis.
        • This type of hypnosis can usually influence emphasis-type hypnosis (Described below). It is hardly ever as effective as the most basic when-things-seem-good hypnosis, though. 
      • It is (at least for females) quite possible to combine various sub-types of repression hypnosis. Those who do this tend usually to gain advantages of both or all combined sub-types. To much extent this can moreover be done without them tending to contradict each other.
        • For example when-things-are-good hypnosis and when-things-are-bad hypnosis can be combined and thereby have the user of it seem innocent in either case.
          • For males the when-things-are-bad version can to much extent be used as a basis for finding a way to use also the when-things-are-good.
          • For females the priority can more easily be the when-things-are-good version. They can thus totally ignore  -  male, usually  -  claims that virtue should always be claimed if to be taken seriously, or so.
    • These types of hypnotism tend sometimes to be counteracted by the emphasis type (described below) and also to some extent to counteract it.
  • hypnotism by virtuous evil, or as one might say, by (over-)emphasized virtue (or just by over-emphasis), makes whatever one does seem right. The illusions that spring from this can be used to emphasize worth of disillusionment. I.e., one might use them to break illusions and end hypnotic spells. But then the illusion used for this can very often be emphasized even mote as useful.
    • This type of hypnotism tends to counteract the above-described (complete-repression) type, usually more effectively than vice versa.At least, it is usually really quite effective against the most simple  -  and thus most basic  -  type. Such simple and basic repression-based seduction can then really easily become a tool for emphasis seduction.
    • It is commonplace to hide the virtue/-s that this type of hypnosis are about. ...
      • Sometimes the hypnotist lets only his (or perhaps her) victims know, but virtually nobody else, which can result in difficult stubbornness among the victims, even when the hypnotism is somewhat broken. It is thereby very similar to loyalty, and can be seen among for example criminal organisations, I think.
    • About emphasis seduction in humans (and perhaps other animals and beings), I believe that this holds true:
      • Masculine persons are usually more inclined to use this kind of trickery than feminine persons.
      • Female users of this type of hypnotism usually achieve its benefits by use of sexual libido, which  -  believe it or not  -  is unneeded (though quite possible to use) for males. I have tried to write a short story about two girls who fairly successfully do it anyway.
        • Insinuations of this type can be over-interpreted, at least by males. And it very often is. 
          • In that it is misinterpreted by anyway, some subterfuge beliefs of that rape is to be seen as a normal male behavior. This can result both in the rapes themselves, and in that women blame men who are innocent of rapists' attitudes!
      • It is more male than female to use emphasis-based hypnosis for disillusionment purposes  -  which is actually the way to do it asexually. 
      • There is an ability in human beings and other high life forms (probably including all vertebrates and more) to obstruct and even hinder this type of hypnotism, by obstructing or hindering the notion of sympathy in the (over-)emphasis on virtues that is necessary for it.
        • Users of this ability can sharpen it somewhat by use of emphasis hypnosis itself. Upon doing this, emphasis hypnosis can render the criticism be inaccurate and thereby to some extent ridicule the notion of using it.
        • But the ability can be sharpened very much by use of repression-based hypnotism (to the extent one can use that type of hypnotism), which can very often make any criticism seem accurate enough, whether or not it is it.
        • The scapegoating type of hypnosis (see below; the next list item) can also be used to sharpen this effect. But it can not very often beat the emphasis hypnosis sharpening of it against itself. 
    • This type of hypnotism, by emphasis on one's own virtues can very effectively be used for blackmail, which can basically seems like mature, constructive and accurate criticism.
  • plain-evil hypnosis, or hypnosis by none-virtuous evil
    • In its most simple and basis form, this type of hypnotism is almost always both easy to beat and even without opponents unreliable for its user, because it is unsystematic.
    • Hypnotism by virtue, described above, could be labeled a sub-type of this. 
      • But there's one huge difference in that plain-evil hypnotism never has it other hypnotism should be counteracted. 
      • There's another one in that fake is the real winning strategy of plain-evil hypnotism. 
      • There follows a third one in that plain-evil hypnotism is never smart for finding what
    • An important sub-type of this is pretension that the (real or imagined) pretension of other/s justifies one's wrongdoings
      • It can be established by having it's worthwhile to pretend one is evil in other senses than one is, in order to make accusations seem, and/or even be, untrustworthy.
      • Another method for doing it is by letting wrongdoings be exposed when in circumstances when mistakes can be made about them.
      • In either case, enthusiasms might, sometimes surprisingly easily, spring from being (or at least seeming) on top about truth and about unmasking lies.
    • Another sub-type to it is by fake virtue. It destroys clarity of mind very effectively. ... I'll try to get back to it later.
    • There is also hypnotism by social construct and so. These I intend to also get back to.
  • Combining the two first-mentioned types of hypnotism is possible:
    • Sometimes repression-type hypnotism can counteract being counteracted by emphasis-type hypnotism so that a power-balance is reached. It is thus risky not to be into disillusionment if one wants not avoid the dangers of these hypnosis combinations.
    • A potentially hideous result of combining the two is by trivializing the results of the emphasis type  by use of the ignorance type. Aiming at this result is one way of achieving a combination of the two.
    • At least in humans (I think):
      • Females (mostly) who combine the two usually tend to hypnotize their targets into being excuses and/or subterfuges for their sex appeal. This is because they can provide their version of the emphasis type of hypnotism as the seemingly only potential cure for the first type. 
        • Pretension that it's not real that some person does too much harm to believe very often spring from this type of hypnosis. This person doesn't have to be the seductress herself. It is very often (indeed by no means always) a male person whom she wants to rely upon for seeming realistic about her opinions; because for that male-based seduction by over-emphasized virtue is almost always smarter than any female equivalent.
        • Sometimes a seductress of this kind can (more or less) lure her target/-s into enthusiasm, so that s-/he or they can easily be used as scapegoats. This can often happen at the same time as she relies upon someone (who might  -  but really doesn't have to  -  be among her targets for seduction) for being able to seduce by over-emphasized virtue, as described above.
      • Males (mostly) who combine the two can manipulate by both disillusionment and by hidden wrongdoings. This can result in manipulation that is kind of even more dangerous than most female combinations of them, but here it is the accusations rather than the denial in itself that seduce.
  • The second and third type can be combined if and only if there is a belief in spells of seduction or so to be of worthiness for one's personal being. Because otherwise the virtue emphasis of emphasis-type hypnosis type don't fit well with the blame-hypnosis aspiration to expose others as more fake than oneself.
    • In a sense, though, they can be also combined as alternatives of each other, where very often the pretension of either type can be substituted by pretension by the other type.
  • The first and third type can be combined and even potentiate the effects of each other. Those who combine the two can thereby trivialize their own fatality of blackmailing among other things, both by hiding, and if it's exposed having it seem small by comparison. ....
  • There are probably  -  at least sort of  -  quite a lot of other types of seductiveness. One of them might be to try to manipulate someone/s into pretending they are not hurt by one's arrogance (as I have tried to describe a conversation about here). But this I believe could most likely be some kind of combination of all three  -  and these are fairly many instead! Another such combination, which you probably agree is  -  or at least very much can be  -  worse (potentially that'd be even worse that one would want to  -  or even have to  -  say about it), might be to have them not realize that they could be dangerously seen as lowly beneath a superb surface. 
  • As the combinations even of the same two or three types of seductiveness (or shall we say hypnotism?) vary, these combinations can sometimes also be combined, to form even more smarter spells, or perhaps to be used for something else, something like creating new opportunities for there to be moral capacity to have it one is immature if one isn't inclined to understand when one is threatened and when one is not. ...
Importantly, it is quite possible for either genders representative of some organization or even spontaneously agreeing person, to use someone else's seduction for his or her purposes. It is thereby very possible for liars to use either  -  and even both  -  genders specialty when for example blackmailing. Cooperation between liars is thereby very dangerous, and more so to the extent they involve different types of dangerous lying. Heterogeneity between different types of liars or so is in those circumstances used for corrupting heterogeneity that can be used to uncover lies and so.

Thus a female seducer may need to seduce some male person/-s in order to complete certain tricks, and vice versa. A usual male way to do this can be to seem to solve problems for her, in a way that makes him seem trustworthy. This is confusing, of course, since a male certainly can be of genuine good for her purposes. The female equivalent way of doing it seems to be to identify herself with male individual/-s. Very often it is enough to seduce the opposite-gender person/-s enough to be able to freely associate with their (or his or her) tolerance for it

It is not at all always corruptive of heterogeneity in general to  -  by seduction or otherwise  -  have someone of the opposite gender agree, or at least tolerate, what one wants. On the contrary it can be very good for it. Heterogeneity about genders is indeed a two-egged sword, and it can indeed be used for both good and bad purposes. ...
Seductiveness in general is into having trinity (which in my number system stands for reciprocity, correctness and destiny)be uninclined to limit itself, and thereby too powerful. This involves rendering imagination more or less useless for actually showing alternatives.With imagination corrupted by either type of hypnosis, freedom of choice, too, is very much ruined  -  but it might seem to be there, because what hypnosis takes away is very much the realization of need for it.