‶They were just talking about the phrase: taking one's own council, so I told them all about that hex-gon concept. I mentioned it to you—kinda briefly—last time, right?″
‶YahBut...Remind me...Is that hex gone, like in: 'we payed Witch Hulda to make her hex gone potion' or hexagon, as in: 'Gamey Greta moved her trivial pursuit token into the middle hexagon'?″
‶Both. Neither. I must not've splaind it goodnuf. Six letters: H E X space G O N. Supposed to bring to mind both Witch Hulda's potion and Gamey Greta's final question.″
‶AaahOk...I remember there were six scales, but I don't remember the traits on em...Oh and...each of the six were scored from one to six...Umm, I'm wrong...They were scored A B C D E F and, depending on what letters you picked, you got a different result...reminded me of the Myers Briggs.″
‶The first trait is your benevolence - avarice scale. What would your letter be? You're making a face. Izit cauzeya need help with a few examples? Or—like Nancy Normal—you don't wanna gointa any details today?″
‶Passive aggressive much?″
‶I'm sorry I said like Nancy Normal. I shouldn't have been so pushy.″‶IzzFine...I don't mind...But, I guess I could use help defining avarice and benevolence...and, maybe, sketch it out so I can remember this time.″
‶LemmeGeddisStraight...if default mode is either: way too much, mostly attempted, or occurred slightly more than half of the time...you're saying it's possible for a person to be too benevolent?..And...are you saying this isn't for children?″
‶OhIsee...with too much candor, people's feelings can get hurt by your blunt words; and too much guile people might suspect they're being lied to or deceived...neither's a way to win friends and influence enemies!″
‶Right. Third trait: your amity - enmity scale. Amity is behaving peacefully and harmoniously; and enmity is hostile, antagonistic behavior.″
‶Wow...I sure can't imagine anyone labeling themselves hostile-to-a-fault...But I know a few who seem to always be sullen or angry or they're tryin to pick a fight...Seems this scale would be better if it were scored by someone who could be objective...I think people will just lie about themselves.″
‶Whaa...you just mumble?..somethin like they'd either learn to accept themself or they'd work on fixing their...cranky hair.″
‶Um...you think I'm judgemental and not very perceptive?″
‶The Myers-Briggs doesn't say that or work that way, but—now that I hear you say it out loud—I did sound that way. I apologize. My guess would be: you determined that you were either an ESFJ or an ENFJ. But that can change over time. Depends on how long ago you took it.″
‶Ohyup...ESFJ...the way I remembered it was entertainment-sports-foot-joy. What would be yours?..Not extravert...so your first letter is I for intravert. What's the S or N stand for?..I forget.″
‶Sensing or Intuition. When I first took it, I was an INTJ; the
way I recall that is: intelligent-jerk. But, most recently, I was
INTP, so—intelligent-prick?″
‶Haaa...So...this one's got six letters instead of four...you should name it...cuz...someone could be, like, an ABACAB...I'm pretty sure that there's a hole in there somewhere.″
‶Okthen...And the last on the Agenda Scale?″
‶Noprob...Thanks for this...the Agenda Scale...It's gonna give me shit to think about for days.″
related in some manner:
|
|
ambivalence |
Prehistory did not begin when our universe coalesced, when our galaxy began to rotate together, when gravity caused our star's fusion, or when oceans collected. It also didn't begin when our moon began to spin overhead, when single-cellular life started, or even when complex life evolved. Those events occurred billions of years ago.
We humans easily understand the word year because we have personal reference points, which we can empirically measure. (In the previous 365 days, the covid19 pandemic killed over 500,000 Americans and 2.5 million worldwide.) Some of us might be able to think in terms of a hundred years, because we understand it's possible to live that long. However, when we learn that over a century ago, the 1918 pandemic killed 50 million people, we begin to lose the related-to-me focus. And when we read that more than five centuries ago, the bubonic plague killed maybe 200 million people? We're mentally drifting without a point of personal reference.
And that's only half of a millennium in the past! The numbers: billion (a thousand million) and million (a thousand thousand) are completely non-relatable. Our minds struggle to grasp-comprehend (or even imagine) what it means when we hear:
Prehistory began when millions of years ago, some of our stone-age, bipedal, hominid ancestors crafted tools, buried their dead, worked collectively in order to survive, and decided it would be valuable to start communicating with their future selves.
Those someones thought it would help to augment their memories. And they started marking with chalk or soft stone or charcoal on flat surfaces; tieing knots in rope; cutting gouges in wood; making impressions in mud or clay; burning or dieing on hides; etcetera. This lasted for hundreds of millennia. Time ate all their chalkboards and etch-a-sketches; toys and utensils; caves and corpses, until a confluence of location, luck, and lack-of-liquid (ll&lol™) made it possible for their distant descendants (us) to unearth a few of their grocery lists, calendars, and guidebooks.
 |
| Rise & fall of the Roman Empire |
In my opinion, Socrates was not actually a man who lived in the -5 century. He was too perfect of a caricature and is credited with too many well-thought-out philosophies (as would any character be, who's an amalgam-pilation of several philosopher-authors imaginations).
I suspect—if Socrates was a real person—he was not at all the figurehead and intellectual powerhouse depicted in "his student's" books. But, since Plato's and Aristotle's (Et al.) words survived, they are considered to be the first to quote what they heard "prehistory say". I think they were creative nonfiction writers (like all successful theo-philosophical authors/editors must become, to reach and hold an audience).
... Socrates showed displeasure with those who thought him to be poor by stating: 'One can be rich, even with very little, on the condition that one has
limited his needs. Wealth is just the excess of what one has, over
what one requires.' ... — Xenophon’s Oeconomicus, circa 360 (700+ years after Socrates "died")
more like this:
When I receive an "I love you" I—almost never—respond with an "I love you too". Recap: "I Love You"—all three words—are reserved for when the emotion of love is actually being felt. I do not want my I love you to cause an immediate response of I love you too. I prefer either no reply or a response like: "those words make me feel good," or "Thank you," or "I like it when you tell me that," or "those words make me happy," or "when you say that, I get warm inside". It is better that the person you love smiles and says nothing, and some time in the future, if they tell me they are currently feeling the emotion they call love—for me—I know they're feeling love at that moment and I can decide to reply with my present feelings, or not to reply. I appreciate their statement of love when they are feeling it and then I consider what I did to make them feel that way. This is my normal.
Definitions and examples:The commonly understood definition for vaccine is: "...a drug which provides an active acquired immunity to a particular infectious disease..." The vaccine for the measles virus is normally administered to very young children with a second booster shot administered a few years later. These two immunizations provide a lifetime immunity to the measles virus (with rare exceptions).The commonly understood definition for inoculation is: "...the introduction of a pathogen or antigen into a living organism to stimulate the production of antibodies..." Because variants of the influenza virus constantly change, "seasonal flu shot inoculations" are required. To retain life-long, year-round, flu virus immunity, new inoculations are required every year. Pharmaceutical companies test/produce new flu shots every 6 months so as to combat the constant new variants of the flu virus.
I can find no reporting, discussion, or any research being conducted on a
vaccine which imparts lifelong immunity.
Are you—dear citizen of Earth—calmly satisfied with the facts (or even aware of them)? Do you understand everyone needs to wear masks, social distance, receive booster inoculations about every 6 months, and will STILL BECOME INFECTED, ASYMPTOMATICALLY CONTAGIOUS AND STILL COULD INFECT OTHERS ?? Do you realize that, until a lifelong-immunity vaccine is found, everyone will be gambling on not becoming part of the 5 to 40 percent? Can your brain understand this new paradigm? That you'll forever be contributing to the serious illness or death of those who either do not understand these facts or who foolishly choose to not be inoculated?
As pharmaceutical companies rake in tens
of trillions from the world's governments over the coming decade, and
WDT/USDT shrinks but never, ever, goes away, I will get inoculated (as soon as
it's my turn). And I recommend every-one-of-you do the same.
But. Covid is here to stay. The decade 2020 to 2030 is,
unfortunately, going to be the Death Decade.
The foremost reason I avoid talking about religion, as a topic of normal conversation, lies in the mandatory requirement to discuss and agree-upon the definitions of words and to, then, go-back-over common misunderstandings (for every 'new use' of previously defined words).
Example: When someone begins a conversation with "I believe god created the universe." I have to interrupt / hit the pause button and reply:
Wow! A six word sentence and four words require extensive definition. Since you didn't preface the most confusing term god with the word a, I must assume you think there's only one? So . . . first question: what's your opinion of the other religion's gods? And, please explain what you mean when you use the term belief. I also need to know if our understanding for the label the universe is comparable. Finally, are you able to explain your use of the term created with more than the simple context found in the bible or quran?
When someone begins a conversation with "I believe the massive storm was created by La Niรฑa." I do not have to interrupt. Instead, my internal dialogue goes something like:
I understand their use of the word belief was an alternative to think; the massive storm would be something empirically measurable (with human senses and machines) and I have a general understanding of the global, cyclic, climate pattern which has been labeled La Niรฑa.
The actual creator—which I refer to as 'god'—is the effect commonly referred to as: Gravity.
No scientist, no
astro-theoretical-quantum-physicist, not Steven Hawking, nor Albert Einstein has
yet identified the mechanics of gravity. Nobody knows how it does what
it does. There are theories (think: conjecture, not actual scientific theory) as to the hypothetical existence of a graviton particle (similar-in-size to
a quark, which makes up protons and neutrons). So far, every experiment
has failed to locate an element or particle, contained within objects with
mass, which warps spacetime around those objects. [This is Gravity's
carefully-worded definition; it's no longer simply called an 'attraction
force'.]
We all know Gravity exists because we can empirically measure it with our senses and machines. It's all powerful. It is everywhere in the visible universe. Thru telescopes, we can see Gravity at work 14 billion-light-years ago/40 billion-light-years away (which, because of space-expansion, is the same distance). Without Gravity: the star we call The Sun wouldn't exist, the ball of rock we call Earth would never have formed, and oxygen and nitrogen molecules would not have collected to form our atmosphere. All life exists because Gravity exists.
Gravity has no awareness, does not think, and can not communicate. It does not plan. It has no agenda. It does not listen to prayers. Anyone who prays to Gravity, does so because they don't want to become hypocrites in their own eyes.
Your god—on the other hand—was 100% fabricated by humans. How do those of you who label yourself, christian, or jewish, or muslim, or hindu, (etc, etc, three bags full) come to terms with the hypocritical elements in your religion's dogma? Do you cherry pick the parts that you like and disavow the evil portions? How do you come to terms with the inability of your religion's books to document any facts or knowledge about the world, beyond that known by those long-dead humans who claimed to merely be transcribing their god's words? Is it hubris on your part?
At an unknowable time in the unforeseeable future, someone will identify Gravity's origin-particle or, specifically, they'll locate the element which, when present, permits spacetime to warp in the nearby vicinity of mass (or energy). To prove their theory, they'll remove it from a small sample of matter. And that tiny chunk of gravitation-less matter will either:
⁕ Instantly disappear from existence.
- or -
⁕ Grow
exponentially. Infecting every particle/molecule/atom it comes into
contact with, until everything with matter is without Gravity. In a few
short minutes the Earth will dissolve and dissipate. In a few short
millennia, the entire universe will become a quiet, dark, cooling-soup of
protons, neutrons, quarks, and electrons. (Similar-but-different to what happens with ice-nine in
Cat's Cradle
by Vonnegut.)
- or -
⁕ Form a new type of gravitation-less
category of matter. Immediately making all transportation (especially
space travel) exponentially more efficient.
PS: It's OK to look for god, but please don't remove the glue that holds the universe together when you locate it.
PPS: For those rare few who both read-to-the-bottom and are "science-savvy" you'll probably recognize some additional facts (not beliefs) related to my claim that Gravity is the origin of life: Gravity is inexorably intertwined with time (there are current hypotheses that time wouldn't exist without Gravity and, obviously, vice-versa) also, time is inexorably intertwined with space (thus the term spacetime). Extrapolation—at the same instant, Gravity is making it possible for objects with mass to experience a progression of events in Gravity's vicinity and a three-dimensional location for those objects . . . Gravity creates time and space.
more god stuff:
I honestly despise every bit and byte of the most recent revelations from the sunset stained stucco-and-concrete hued neurons in y...
