מימדי החשיבה

כתבתי כבר, אבל בכ״ז, - חכם, - אם יראה תמונה, - הכוונה לא לתמונה על הקיר, - תמונתם של דברים - מצב קיים שלנגד עיניו, - יכול להבינו. לא מובטח שיבין. לא כל החכמים שווים. וספק אם ניתן להגדיר ”חוכמה“, - כבעניינן של תכונות אחרות קיימים שזכו לה יותר וקיימים שזכו לה פחות.

החשיבה מהי? - מהי החשיבה? - ידוע לנו x, וממנו מסיקים y. קיימת תמונה שלא את מלואה אנו רואים, ומסיקים באשר לנסתר מהגלוי. למה אני מציין? כי הממשות אין נסתר ממנה. אין דבר נסתר ממנה. לכן אינה נזקקת לחשיבה. לדעתי. החכמה מיותרת לדידה. - אבל אנחנו לא הממשות. אנחנו כן, אבל...

- בכ״א, - במצב האולטימטיבי לא יהיה צרך בחשיבה כלל. לא יהיה צרך בחכמה. אבל מתחת קיימים מצבים שונים. - ולעניין הזה התייחסתי בפסקה הראשונה.

- בכ״א שוב, - אדם חכם, בהביטו במציאות, - לעיתים לכל הפחות, ובתלוי במידת חכמתו כמובן ובמצב הדברים שלפניו גם הוא כמובן, - יוכל לבוא לידי מסקנות או הבנה מתוך עצם התבוננותו במצב או ראייתו אותו. לעניינו של פקח מצב הדברים שונה. - פקח לא כך. - לעניינו של פקח תוכל להציג בפניו דברים, מ-א' נובע ב'. זאת יוכל להבין. - לעניינה של תמונה כאמור, - יהיה מצב הדברים שונה, - אדם אינטליגנטי שאינו חכם, - תדרש (אם בכלל ניתן) להציג בפניו מסקנות הגיוניות בזו אחר לעניינו של הדבר: - מ-א' נובע ב', מ-ב' נובע ג', מ-ד' נובע ה', ו' גורר ז', ג', ה' ו-ז' גוררים את ח', - וכן הלאה. אז יוכל להשתכנע בשמשנהו יראה מיידית. לעיתים לא רחוקות כמובן גם לא ניתן יהיה לשכנעו בדברים כלל. גם לנוכח העובדה שבני אדם הגיוניים לעיתים הרבה פחות משמדמים בנפשם. לא מעט נספג מן הסביבה, - ולעניין זה נדרש עומק של האישיות ע״מ להבחין בכך ולא פקחות. (אינטליגנציה) - דווקא המגלים עניין רב בעניינים שכלתניים הנדרשים לפקחות ככלי מובהק לעניינם הם הרחוקים במקרים רבים מן העומק האמור והדבר אינו מתמיה. - אבל כעקר הדברים בפוסט הזה הנקודה היא בעניין ההבדל בין מי שיבין או יקלוט דברים אינטואיטיבית אולי בלא צרך בפירוק למבנה של מסקנות לוגיות כאמור לעיל ומתוך התמונה הכוללת לבין מי שיכולתו מצטמצמת לכדי היכולת לעקב אחרי פרטים בודדים שהבנתו של כל אחד מהם קלה לכשעצמה ולהרכבת השרשרת המתקבלת. (או גם לאיתור מבנה מסוג זה בעצמו)

לעניין הפוסט המקושר בתחילה ראו גם תגובה ראשונה שם.

יתכן ויש משמעות גם לזה.

Miserable world

There are verses 25-29 in chapter 32 in the book of Exodus. - (See as far as the end of the chapter) Most today would fail to understand. Most today would believe they know better. Most today would see the things as terrible, - as unacceptable, as wrong, as utterly wrong, - judging by their own measurement and their own materialistic corrupted thinking.

This is the world we live in. And the story in the verses mentioned is not widely known, - though it appears in the Bible open to all.

- Here is a test of spirituality, - here may be a test of faith or belief: - One who sees the described occurrence as most would, - as an expression of primitive minds and rough mentality and as an unacceptable expression of immorality at the verge of insanity, - does not know what spirituality is. Whatever bullshit one may still utter off one's own intellectual resources this person is ignorant of the devoidness of value of. - I could not see a way in which such a person could still be considered one of faith. Many would think otherwise, - this is our world. At this time, - that is.

- The intellectuality within which humanity and society find their way may be unthinkable. - This post will clearly be considered according to standards existing prior to reading it by the typical hard-headed intellectual contemporary people. It will change nothing in their views or their world, else than remembering that someone said such things, - perhaps. - For one who know something - not the ultimate, - just something real still, - the way in which the minds of so many idiots who may be as intelligent as they would, - work, - is unbelievable and amazing. - It is like dry dead plants in the desert, - it is like a piece of rope lying about there being pulled occasionally by the wind in comparison to a living snake. - These people are totally blind to the situation. And if one would attempt to reveal things them they would obviously think him a miserable person so far behind their idiotic advancement they imagine the society they live in have achieved. They are like empty cups who know nothing about drinks. And their surroundings are alike, - that is their neighbours would have similar views and live within similar mentality, - diminishing the hope for a change in a visible future to almost nothing. Fuck them all. Live happy. So far.

             (- Just to avoid a misunderstanding: - One who accepts what is said in the passage mentioned is not necessarily a true one of spirit or one of faith, - one may be just a fanatic, or an idiot as well.)

The wave of life through random chance

Suppose we accept the common idea of all life here on Earth having developed through natural selection, while as well prior to this the very mechanisms necessary for this have developed by random chance. - This would mean inevitably that this is all like a wave, rising spontaneously in a dynamic momentum, - while eventually it must perish, - and nothing is to be left of it, - as of waves in the ocean or in the sea. - Biologists might often claim their ideas do not mean random chance - they would say mutations occur by random chance, - but that the subsequent process according to which the better occurrences survive is not. I find this very expression somewhat surprising. - Obviously observing within a larger perspective it is all random chance. - Who could doubt it?

I don't know the practical calculations which which might exist in probability theory relating to this. But intuitively it seems most inevitable. - Observe all other processes around us. - All organisms die and dissolve. Disassemble. Decompose. All appearances of order in nature else than those imposed by physical laws (the roundness of the Earth, its route around the Sun, and similar phenomena) are impermanent. - Mountains will eventually flatten. - Fire consumes its substance it feeds on and die out. - Man made things will eventually come to nothing too, - nothing traceable will remain of them. - A tree comes to be and then comes to not be in a harmonious pace.

- I don't know how difficult it is or might be to define order in itself at first, - in order to investigate it mathematically. I am not sure it is possible. But even so I cannot see any way in which my idea here could be rejected. Following the common assumptions ruling today in the world of “science” the idea of a wave harmonious in its rising and descending will be the only possible alternative. - It may be that its duration could be calculated or estimated. Practically, - I believe, - we might come to note the whole process is not possible and the wave has no substantial foundation to produce it as a phenomenon, - but never mind this now. - If one would assume an appearance of life else than here on this planet this would apply too in the same way of course. It is a phenomenon unable to maintain itself limitlessly. According to the common assumptions - of course, - that is!

- If you believe the physical plain in its entirety appeared off higher ones it will be different of course, - but this is not what we are discussing here.

- As for our mind, - regardless of this too, - the common assumptions of mere physical or chemical processes or reactions provide no reasoning for its appearance or existence. - But now it would mean as well all mind or all minds are to be completely extinguished too. Dust and deserts will remain. All fruits of all achievements of humanity in any field will eventually bear no trace or outcome. - It seems all ideas of man conquering the universe - even if otherwise not anyway altogether unreasonable, - will have to be abandoned too. - But the main point is about the very idea of the appearance of life and humanity and all forms of mentality being similar to a wave rising as when you hit water with your hand or a unique form of a cloud in the sky spending its limited duration as a phenomenon in the phenomenal world.

So far.

Note:

As for defining order, - it seems to me the most reasonable way will be in accordance with the ability to express a system or a phenomenon in a smaller number of symbols. - For example the numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 can be expressed through three points alone without the need to particularly list all nine of them: - The first, (3) the distance between each one and the one next to it, - and the number of them all. In case of a random set normally such a method will of course not be possible and the less ordered the items are the more symbols will be necessary in order to describe or document them fully.

Don't think about it

sincere
harmonious
clear
real
sensitive

Sincere, - then harmonise, - avoid unclear view carefully, - realistically, - not mistakenly, - and then sensitivity too is important, - after the previous factors have prepared the ground for sensitivity not to be harmful.


- The five elements together complete each other. - Your mind can be in place finding its route or path in fine action. That is all.

Stupidity

Exodus 23:19 says “you shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk”. It ought to be clear that the word “kid” here is a translation of a Hebrew word meaning a baby goat or a child goat. There is no doubt about that. - Exodus 34:26 says exactly the same. - Deuteronomy 14:21 also says the same.

- It is quite clear that because a goat has milk at the time it has a baby a custom has developed where people would use this milk in cooking the kid they would eat. - Personally this is a bit strange to me because milk obviously normally boils over so I don't understand how can you cook anything in it, - but I will drop this. - However the idea is apparently clear. - The reason seems to be a moral one, - though perhaps it might have had to do with milk getting bad quicker than cooked meat where they had no refrigerators in the desert or of course that time at all. - This post is concerned with the stupidity of the Jewish rabbis following these instructions.

- First it has been extended to forbid eating of all meat with milk at all. Not only cooking but eating as well, - you can't have a glass of milk if you are eating meat. - Further it has been expanded as to refer to birds as well. In the same way. - Not only this but you may not drink milk (or eat dairy products) 6 hours after eating meat (other than poultry) and 4 hours after eating poultry. - Has this been all I wouldn't have been writing this, - but it extends further.

All this is supposed to be founded on the three verses referred to above. - Additionally to all already said the same tableware and utensils - plates, knives and forks, spoons, pots, or generally any dishes, - can't be used for both meat (including poultry) any dairy products, - you must have two separate sets of everything (excluding glassware as far as I know) in your kitchen. - This is where stupidity really hits hard. - You can't even eat in a place where they do not keep those separate sets as well, - unless they only have dairy products alone or meat stuff alone. (Or none of these of course) Could this be what has been intended in the text in the Bible referred to above? - God must be rubbing his eyes most intensely observing where things got. - And these miserable guys are referred to as sages in Judaism. Religious people follow this shit altogether unaware of the truly modest capabilities of those according to whom generation after generation is led ridiculously in a worthless path.

It was not for nothing Jesus used the expression of the blind leading the blind, - Matthew 15:14, Luke 6:39, - I guess now in Christianity you might be able to find the same phenomenon, - but here it doesn't even seem to take spiritual understanding to see, - just common sense, - but weird religious scholars are apparently able to discover unreasonable paths where the wide herds of men and women will follow them in owe wasting their time and effort and contributing to the general presentation of all that is spiritual as stupid and ridiculous in the eyes of secular materialistics.

So far. Miserable world.