Friday, 8 September 2017

Somone Marks My Words, with Unnatural Emphasis - on the Wrong Things!

I don't know who that is,, but there is a look-alike of me who does that! It's not I who enjoy being misinterpreted!

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 more 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. 

What one might have in the Y-chromosome is a method for constantly threatening that purification evil in a way that uses that evil itself for counteracting it. In this, there is an emphasis on evil as a potential cure for itself, in a way that challenges some of its hideous capacity, mostly of seeming fair by scrutinizing against knowledge of what harm it can do. Such scrutiny can at worst be there anyway, in more or less deviant male attitudes  -  I don't mean deviant, generally, in the obvious sense, but in the sense of staying intact with pretending as if something about evils, as for the sake of evil itself. It is males that deviate from doing so that are evil deviants  -  they may or may not seem like deviants, those who are quite evil in that sense, which is to be into constant 'purification' of evil, even without making it seem ridiculous to see to it that it seems salutary or so.

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.

This can be because the Y-chromosomal establishment of self-challenging evil builds much upon such a capacity  -  which can be found in seven, the second ingratiation in the first series. ... A seven counteracts evil by showing that plain evil cannot be trustworthy enough to establish certainties about what is true or not. But its capacities can also enhance evil about the capacity to relate to good for the purpose of also benefiting from it. A seven's challenge against evil is very often good enough even to counteract evil that totally directed against seven itself, i.e. when plain evil is to a power of seven.

7*83 constitutes the ingratiation step from 128 to 709, which is, though, But 128 is plain-evil that spites (as 2^7) the clarity created by seven. This is a senseless evil, which can easily self-destruct. But both the seven and the eighty-three can be always more or less easily be rendered active in that ingratiation step. The seven can enhance 29 as described in earlier paragraphs, while the eighty-three can commit the iniquity of rendering the twenty-nine's evil be self-critical in a memory-like sense. The twenty-nine can thereby thrive and its enhancement of evil can thus stabilize the 709. But this in turn can destabilize seven, even the seven that takes part in the process itself. Due to this, there is an emphasis on what evil is, which also shows what evil is. 

Thanks to this, there is a disillusionment capacity against that one might believe evil is not evil. This is probably what the Y-chromosome is for. That is  -  I believe  -  what we have in the Y-chromosome, which exists in male mammals, and then something similar in for example female (but not male) birds. But in each species there are also other traits; in each and every chromosome that is so. In the gender chromosome some of these traits are about some starting point or another for exploration of systematic evil. One such system of evil is the authoritarian attitude that can be used in for example the military. Exploring the possibilities of that is in humans is, I believe, exclusive to the Y-chromosome. The exploration of such attitudes can go to far, which is what the world has seen in dictators such as Hirohito, etc. But without any such exploration one would probably more easily have tyrannies that could not be analyzed or even realized. ...

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. ...