Translate

Thursday, 10 December 2015

Oneness Can - When It's Good - Induce Reciprocity

It is difficult, however, often, to define what good actually is. Therefore, for defining it, I need to use the Christian notion of God (which can, if one wants to, be called for example Vishnu or Allah) for clearer understanding.

What I believe is that at least God (or Allah or Vishnu, or so) can care in ways that induces reciprocity. This can be viewed as that when someone tries to harm God, then this person usually harms him- or herself. That is the harm to oneself comes by that God's care is necessary for this person. At the same time, I feel one can suppose that God's care is care about people (and other persons) in general, which gives us protection in that those who harm such Godly care tend  -  fairly much, at least  -  to also harm themselves.

It is when care is without boundaries that it is (at least sort of) good for another person, whomever this other person might be. Such cares I call Oneness, and is what god is entirely capable of, I feel. Oneness also stands for that one regards every possibility as real. Oneness can also provide care for what can oppose it:

In some sense Oneness can be broken. ... Such breach is symbolized, as I see it by the number two. But there can be a breach against such a breach, which yields trinity, one might say. Trinity then stands for karma, destiny and reciprocity in general, I feel, and is  -  like Oneness  -  one of the very essentials of natural justice.

Saturday, 20 June 2015

Well, Mightn't One Ask What It's All about?

It is not completely easy, is it, to say that there isn't any rule to everything!

But it is rather simple to say that there's a possibility for absolute clarity on what there is to absolute knowledge based on both intuition and logic. Because although logic can (as stated in the song of the video below) be inflexible per se, it is also what adds stability to things. That is my opinion, but there are not many who could believe, probably, that there's not truth in that logic as inflexible to be but stability-inclined. But there is to be found on the other side of things, though, (isn't there?!) the alternative view on it that says that logic is too fragile to be stable. So if you really believe that, do stop reading, because I'm not giving up on that point.


But can we find the coveted "synchronicity" to join all?

I say unbroken synchronicity can exist, and that unbroken synchronicity is what there is and can be in there being no total guile against the rules that guide, nor in the rules that say one shall try one's best to establish relations with all and everything. Thereby, I believe, one cannot fail in contacting entities that don't necessarily pertain to one's own heritage.

I feel that it is not true that math cannot join all there is to the extent that it needs to for there being an absolute rule to it all. It is true however that math, like other logical systems, tends to be totally inflexible if there's not anything else to it all. This I believe is solved in that logic tends to be anchored in belief and/or spirit. It is also true, however, that more is needed than just math, which mostly can be used to help describe reality  -  which hardly can be enough to actually adapt to it  -  I think.

As far as I can tell, there's nothing that says that mathematics cannot be adapted to suit rules that say flexibility is very important  -  so that one thus can pertain to more flexible definitions than that one has to stick to it only for using it! Indeed, I have found mathematical connections that say that there's flexibility of inertia in everything that involves rather sophisticated relations between the numbers. It is rather sophisticated, though, to add to oneself the tolerance of the devil. But it is still too arrogant for there to be an acquaintance to be had with everything else except for if one is tolerant also to the extent that there's no absolute need for that devil in what one is about. Thereby there is no rule to propose that the devil rules, or so, without the inertia that seems to fit into every context where God is not involved.

Thursday, 26 February 2015

Natural Numbers and What I Find Them to Mean

Conceiving everybody and everything (including oneself and so) as one and the same can be called a oneness attitude (don't you agree?). In such an attitude we have that all must be treated equally, else one wouldn't treat oneself well. To the extent one yields to a rule that sort of categorizes for example oneself differently than others, there is another categorization in that attitude, such as a categorization into for example two categories, which is very unlike oneness. Two units of dissociation basically simply yields discriminating dissociation. Three units of it implies dissociating from and discriminating against dissociation and discrimination from the perspective of none-dissociation, basically. This relation either of the three units can have towards the other two. To the reciprocity of it, there is in some senses also destiny, I think; see also here. In that it is also very steadfast, i.e still not at all into humility, I think.

With one more unit of dissociation there, the forth of them dissociates from (and/or discriminates against) the other three, and the discrimination that there is to it, yielding some basic humility to it, I think. This relation either of the four units can have towards the other three. At the same time it also means each or either pair of two units to be found in it to discriminate against and dissociate from the remaining couple of them. This too can, I feel, yield humility to it all. Se also here, anyway. ,,, In a sense, though, the four ism I think, still only its component twos, and a fifth unit of dissociation is needed for making it into an entity itself that is a whole. Se also here. It is not without a seven, though, that the five itself becomes totally whole an entity of being whole, and so. See also here.

Six is into incomplete reciprocity of three. It thereby also tends to give justice away. It is  -  like four  -  in a sense only its components; but they are a three and a two, in its case. An eleven is needed for making the six an full entity in itself. See also here. Eight and nine are notions of triviality and of the extremes of being into separation and uniformity and dissimilarity, respectively. This I believe we use in our brains for keeping things clear about such things. See also here.

Any number higher than three represents an entity of something that can be strengthened by being a what I call a prelude to what I call a meaning step from it to the next level in the same series (which I have defined where the meaning-step link leads). In the list below, the next meaning step of each is indicated by an arrow and then a parenthesis.indicates each prelude number's potential next meaning step.

What the first meaning series' four first meaning-step numbers (i.e. five, seven, thirteen and thirty-seven) stand for is there in any entity of life in our sense, which I feel is something higher than a virus or prion. Either of those two could (and does often, I think) exist without the thirty-seven  -  the prion even without a thirteen. The types of beings that exist without any ability to replicate, they do not even need to have a seven to them. It is not true, however, that these spirits are always bad, or so. Indeed some of those might actually have many more steps of that first series.

We do not, at least on earth, have any creatures that do need to have more than those four steps the basic series to its basic being, though there obviously needs to be more to us, human beings, for example, in order for us to function, socially and otherwise. It is not only the further steps of that series that is needed for that, a human person can very much exist without that to his or her essence   - although it is that fist list that anchors in God  -  or so to speak.


Now, below is 's the beginning of the list,  where arrows indicate what that number can prelude:

      0. Negligence and/or Indifference
  1. God, Oneness and Soul
  2. Simple-Minded Discrimination
  3. Certainty, Destiny and God
  4. Notion of Experience, Belief or so → 5
  5. Spirit, Freedom and so (and/or, at the very worst, sadism about eternal evil) → 7
  6. Negligence and/or Injustice → 11
  7. Freedom, Care and Soul (and sometimes, tendency to view evil as good) → 13
  8. Heterogeneity → 10 or 17
  9. Homogeneity → 19
  10. Heterogeneity of Spirit (and/or, at worst, very evil lust for blackmail) → 14 or 23
  11. Falsehood and usually Impudence or so → 29
  12. Delusion or so → 15, 22 or 31
  13. Personal Memory and Wisdom → 37
  14. Heterogeneous Mutual Understanding, Tranquility and/or Yearning for Spite or Evil → 26 or 41
  15. Sincerity (and/or, at the worst, lust for extreme prejudice) → 21 or 43
  16. Self-Righteousness → 20, 25, 34 or 47
  17. Creativity and so → 53
  18. Prejudice and Injustice about Justice → 33, 38 or 59
  19. Objectivity, Utilitarianism, Logic and so → 61
  20. Faith (and/or, at the worst, extreme sadism against being oneself, and so) → 25, 28 or 67
  21. Maximized Belief in Justice and/or Yearning for Pretension of Evil or so-to-Speak Justice → 39 or 71
  22. (Tendencies of) Jealousy and so → 58 or 73
  23. Playing with Deviance or Conspiracy → 79
  24. Tendencies of Bitterness → 30, 44, 51, 62 or 83
  25. Bliss or so (and/or Sadism about Corruption) → 35, 49 or 89
  26. Decisive Subjectivity (and Usually Care to Realize Worth of Mutual Understanding) → 74 or 97
  27. Knowing What not to Know → 57 or 101
  28. Honesty and/or to some Extent Yearning for Evil as a Conviction → 35, 52, 82 or 103
  29. Plain Evil → 107
  30. Cocky Pride or so (and/or, at the worst, sadism about irreversibility) → 42, 69, 82 or 109
  31. Superficiality → 113
  32. Spite, Disbelief or so → 40, 50, 68, 85, 94 or 127
  33. Superficiality-Inclined Ostentation → 87 or 131
  34. Geniality or so → 106 or 137
  35. Good and Spirited Humility [and/or Yearning for the Spirit (and/or, at worst, the soul) to Be Evil Just the Same] → 49, 65 or 139
  36. Tendencies of Pragmatism → 45, 66, 76, 93 or 149
  37. Care about Who Is Virtue and Who Isn't  → 151
  38. Blatant Cynicism → 122 or 157
  39. Belief in Justice → 111 or 163
  40. (Sometimes Wheedling) Overconfidence (and/or, at the very worst, a deplorable and sensualistic sadism that I cannot quite describe) → 50, 70, 85 or 167
  41. Flexible Subjectivity (Care to Realize Worth of Heterogeneous Mutual Understanding) → 173
  42. Frivolity and/or Yearning to Make Such Frivolity Sticks as Reason to Believe in Oneself → 77, 78, 123 or 179
  43. Association Memory and Circumstance-Based Wisdom → 181
  44. (Tendencies of) Vitriol and Fancy for Potential Immorality as a Virtue → 55, 116, 146 or 191
  45. Homogeneity of Spirit or so (and/or, at the very worst, a deplorable hypocrisy sadism that I doubt it I can actually manage to describe) → 63, 95, 129 or 193
  46. Exaggerated Pride as if Moral → 158 or 197
  47. Belief in Oneself as Godly → 199
  48. Destructiveness of Superficiality → 60, 88, 102, 124, 141, 166 or 211
  49. Beatitude and/or Yearning to Make Soul Evil → 91 or 223
  50. Self-Important Attitude and/or a (Usually More or Less Deplorable) Sadism about Personal Being and Existence → 70, 98, 115 or 227 ...
It could go on forever. But I settle with this for my presentation. 

The "and/or"-phrases are about anchorage for evil interpretation of reality. Such anchorage is very important in that it changes  -  for the worse and very much  -  the essence of what that type of categorization means. These changes can come to be in otherwise qualities of soulfulness r at least spirituality due to that the quality of being able to criticize prejudice can be used for the sake of strengthening prejudice rather than weakening it. In numbers, the very basic way to strengthen the prejudice is to render it smart at anchoring the combination of prejudice with reciprocity, which creates smart fakeness, and sometimes very (or even extremely) severe development of prejudice.

Thursday, 12 February 2015

Perfection of Contol over the Assumption that Something/-s Aught to Happen

Such perfection has something to do with uttermost cunning about relationships between source the flux. The source of a happening is competence to view it as the realism of a situation to handle it by that type of process. The flux of a happening is the competence to view that happening as superior to the absolute power over the essence of at least something that contributes to the stability of a situation.

These two can interact in more than one way. Primarily, they can cooperate for the purpose of procedure of the happening, by trying to function together without interrupting each other. Secondarily, they can cooperate by alternating with each other. Thirdly, the flux can be enforced by the source  -  or the force from it, that is.

The first and/or second type of interaction can be controlled by direct control of both the source and the mentioned essence of stability. A procedure itself can keep the flux going, i.e. keep itself going as to the flux. The third one can be controlled at all by clarity on the source alone, but this does not allow for adaption to the changes in structure the might source have from controlling that flux.

That is, I think, it can hardly always at all be controlled without measures taken into account that consider how the power of enforcement alters the situation of that source and flux, and that the flux, in this situation, is about the absence of some essential hinder. Thereby the flux is sort of a none-being, then, which can thus hardly be controlled at all. But in many  -  though far from all  -  processes the flux is virtually unchanged by eliminating lack of resistance for the process.

Those processes, where that is the case, these can be seen as having a source that is like a one. The enforcement can in that case be looked at as the source number to a power of the flux-hindrance number (which in the case of one might be anything, the result still being one). If both the source number and also the flux number are one, then there can be the same control for also one of the other two interaction types, I think. Because when the two cooperate without alternation, I believe this can be defined as the source number times the flux number. In that case, the result then still be one. But the case of alternation makes for that there's a two to control, but, actually, the control over the two ones in that two is still sort enough.

If the source is more complex than a one, let's say for example that it is a two, then it is partially too slow to beat a flux hindrance that is simpler (of a smaller number) than itself. That is it should be at least two, one can presume. But, I see reason to go even further in restraining what it could be about. Because a force of nature couldn't very easily (could it?) be controlled, unless there's a systematic enough check on it. I proclaim that if the source is a number, than that check should be done by specification of that number. That is with one the specification is by five, and with two by seven.

The specification rule makes it worth-while to define primary and secondary fluxes, and so on, because there is always a potential build-on specification to follow any specification for the sake of some specific source. This is described a little bit if you follow the links from the page where the above specification link leads to. Anyway, the first four fluxes of one is one itself, then two, then four and then ten. The first two for two are three and eight. The first for three are five and fourteen.

It is interesting that eight which can represent enforcement of two-based flux upon three, also stands for the prelude of specification that can help three as a source, which thus helps three with its fluxes. In a sense this can mean that a source that is three is into self destruction, which is true, but without complete effects. Because specifications and their preludes cannot ever completely counteract the sources, respectively, for the flows respectively, that those specifications are about. These sources for flows that help specifiers I also call anchors for these specifications and their preludes. There, one two, three and so on are anchors   -  or at least prelude anchors  -   for the series one to four, respectively, and so on.

One is indivisible, and that one can thus symbolize an indivisibility, which one can conclude is thereby into consistency, while two, three and also higher integers can symbolize at least something of divisibility  -  and thereby (at least potential) inconsistency. But instead, as it seems sources to be associated with two, three of higher integers are more interactive with the fluxes, in that they change in structure even if they enforce their fluxes. That is the enforced flux of a two source upon a three flux changes the two into an eight, and an enforced flux with a three as a source and a five as a flux changes the three into 243.

I think this means that the enforcement for the source's purpose of the happening should be viewed as a new, or at least more or less different, phenomena, which though based on the source, has to be controlled in its completeness. Thereby, there is a mechanism of control very often missing when one wants control over one procedure or another. For example, when one wants to control seeds to the growth of them, they can easily happen to grow out of hand when one does tend for them as to source (the seed itself) and flux (the weather and so), if the weather wipes out the stability of the soil, so that the soil is not capable of draining itself. That is the soil can no longer keep the seed to its limits; instead it grows out of hand to the extent the weather permits it to.

With a one-type source, the flux in cooperation with the source is, to the extent that cooperation is none-alternating, always the flux kept the same by that the one-type source is, in that case  -  I guess one could say  -   very gentle. Thereby one as a source can keep on influencing the same flux over and over again. Even to the extent the flux and source relate by alternation, or by the source dominating, enforcing the flow, the result of flux and flow can still be influenced over and over again, as long as the source also sees itself as a flux to be controlled.

That is needed for any other number's type of source, for the source to even when it cooperates in some (any) way with the flux, to keep on influencing the flux to keep going  -  and these sources cannot directly control themselves as fluxes. Doing that is even more necessary when the source pertains to dominating the flux instead of cooperating with it. Thereby such sources can presumably (at least if one judges by how that number works in math) only do their influence an at least more once-and-for-all kind of fashion, in that the result is the product of the source number and the flux number.

Interesting too is, however, that a two-type source the control over its enforcement over three, its first flux type builds up to an eight, which (by rules of specification and so) is the second type of flux for it. A two-based source can thus double its enforcement, creating a 256. And (by the same rules of those specifications and so), the 256 can be at least somewhat controlled by an entity of the essence of that the source and its secondary flux do work fluently. That is the source of a flux that is of 256-type is seven times twenty-nine, which together happen to very much enhance the second step of two-based control over a flux.

The flux of this, 256, (and to much extent also what can be derived thereof) is into evil of not confessing to problems that others have to be taken seriously. Twenty-nine is into seriously trying to worsen others problems   -  or you could say that with it the flux of repression, or so to speak, can be completed by a reversed procedure of consciousness. That is, two stands for arrogance against safety for all, and so, which's flux at level two renews that arrogance. Such flux is strengthened by a twenty-nine. Both of these work by corrupting and/or destroying heterogeneity. This is described more thoroughly here (and you may also look at the page about hypnosis about it).

The seven is not needed for there to be such a flux. But it is sort of needed for there to be likelihood for the source to be viewed as a real source, rather than just a decoy, or so, a something that does not complete itself into realism. This is true in that it, two, represents interrupted notions of caring for everything, including details that add to realistic impressions. It is three, two's first target for achieving a flux, that is the direct counteract against such interruption, meaning it also effectively counteracts two, usually.