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. ...