N
_ OF S
S
n = S {1,2,3,4,5}
N
_ ∼ R^1
S
===================================
S → Structure
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Constant, Structural, Variable Set
Structures are Interesting Things. Especially when we analyze the mathematical quantities, and direct behaviors. We can learn much by visual experiences- to analyze diverse values.
Look at a structure -- a piece, and first we must measure the geometry of the type of structure, as well as its weight. Then let say it is attached to another structure with a ring, then the ring corresponds to a mathematical variable, this produces the sensitive dependent changes in the system between each contant structural value.
The ring has a momentum and a spin in a circle rotation.
The other structures and what it is attached to corresponds as its momentum ober all behavior.
The calculations that have to be asserted -- from the base, which is the force and dposition applied, this corresponds to the structure, ring, and entire set of values, that are associated with it, as it starts here, then ends, where all values are calculated, this detmerines the concluded behavior.
Let n^1 = p + v X spin
___
Then concluded with the position of where it ends; at ....
Determines behavior.
Not too complicated. Very basic. The idea is to illustrate the structure, and that which is in between the structures that are constant, which determines much of the behavior. This can be illustrated in many ways.
Main principle-- chaos or sensitive dependence. When you have a constant structure, and multiple elements such as a ring; this dictates the entire foundation of behavior, as they must be considered greatly. The more there are in the structure, more cjhanges can occur.
This determines the concluded behavior of the set or system.
The notation isn't standard, just to illustrate the concept. Ironically body philosophy has taught me much of this, in principle. The idea is this
========
For each element of a set there is a constant -- this is measured on its geometrical structure, as well as weight.
With each element there is "additional element"
=======
this is the variable, a dynamic variable that has a shift, which can go in multiple directions, that corresponds to an effect, this can dictate the entire system.
The main idea is- where you have elements that can rotate, where it can greately effect the entire systems that results in the behavior of the whole.
Look at a structure -- a piece, and first we must measure the geometry of the type of structure, as well as its weight. Then let say it is attached to another structure with a ring, then the ring corresponds to a mathematical variable, this produces the sensitive dependent changes in the system between each contant structural value.
The ring has a momentum and a spin in a circle rotation.
The other structures and what it is attached to corresponds as its momentum ober all behavior.
The calculations that have to be asserted -- from the base, which is the force and dposition applied, this corresponds to the structure, ring, and entire set of values, that are associated with it, as it starts here, then ends, where all values are calculated, this detmerines the concluded behavior.
Let n^1 = p + v X spin
___
Then concluded with the position of where it ends; at ....
Determines behavior.
Not too complicated. Very basic. The idea is to illustrate the structure, and that which is in between the structures that are constant, which determines much of the behavior. This can be illustrated in many ways.
Main principle-- chaos or sensitive dependence. When you have a constant structure, and multiple elements such as a ring; this dictates the entire foundation of behavior, as they must be considered greatly. The more there are in the structure, more cjhanges can occur.
This determines the concluded behavior of the set or system.
The notation isn't standard, just to illustrate the concept. Ironically body philosophy has taught me much of this, in principle. The idea is this
========
For each element of a set there is a constant -- this is measured on its geometrical structure, as well as weight.
With each element there is "additional element"
=======
this is the variable, a dynamic variable that has a shift, which can go in multiple directions, that corresponds to an effect, this can dictate the entire system.
The main idea is- where you have elements that can rotate, where it can greately effect the entire systems that results in the behavior of the whole.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Pandora Box
So apparently a friend is going to help me establish a lab here in
New Mexico. Hmm. I got to get real, and start implementing something
more practical. Rather than an idea.
If A ^ B = true the simple variables of one instant is true
→ store
If A ^ B = true the simple variables of one instant is true
→ store
_____________________________________________
This is simple. The trick is how long to store, and based on what circumstance? The idea is to generally detect a number of stimuli -- or information .... in a none uniform state. The data must be stored until a specific time.
_____________________________________________
Hmm I am still working on the correct way. It is very complicated.
It is very problematic. I mean to define the learning process on a huge scale isn't easy. But I can do it!
This is simple. The trick is how long to store, and based on what circumstance? The idea is to generally detect a number of stimuli -- or information .... in a none uniform state. The data must be stored until a specific time.
_____________________________________________
Hmm I am still working on the correct way. It is very complicated.
It is very problematic. I mean to define the learning process on a huge scale isn't easy. But I can do it!
Friday, February 20, 2015
Conceptual Mathematical board experiment.
This is a concept of just a everyday example that I wish to share.
Note: I am in no means going to point at the exact forulas, just a basic base, so it can be easy to understand.
Let us say we have a board, and we wish to drop it. Let us examine some equivalences and principles.
Let x start at t (time)
x is the variable (element) that is the variable at the operation, where t is the operation of time.
Let the angle from ∫b-a in regards to the on the external position.
The base determines its own value.
t starts after the drop from the domain (start - and connects the whole value to the variable domain, at ending points.
x => y
How do we determine such behavior, and result?
That is simple. We must analyze the base of operation. The geometrical structure of the base, that is outside of the board geometry. That is the key.
The base is the surface. So we must measure the surface, and its slope. We also must measure other properties such as its outer terrain, and how it effects the structure of the board. Such as, composition, like if it has a carpet, and how it effects the board in terms of "resistance."
These must be measured accordingly. And how the react, and interact with another
We also have to measure the geometry of the board, its structure/shape, weight etc...
The other key indicator is how we hold the board in place. The angle. This is based on the radius between A and B
∫ The path between the radius of A meets B | The angle that intersects.
These determines which direction the board will fall | between the base and the angle ∫ A/B
The time it hits the ground is based on the elements of observation. This is measured by the operation of t, where at the rate of every value and operation, has its result.
Do the Experiment yourself, and see what results you get. Do noty be fixed though. Use different terrains, and their compositions. Use different shapes, and even experiment in different environments to approximate the values of resistance, just as wind, or other external variables.
Oh,yes, and to conclude this. There is a very important operation I failed to mention. This is the operation of the values of the distance, between where you are holding the board, and the base. This is measured in the length of the board. Then you have to calculate where you are holding the board, as well as the base, and the space it is occupying.
Thank you. Let this video demonstrate such.
Note: I am in no means going to point at the exact forulas, just a basic base, so it can be easy to understand.
Let us say we have a board, and we wish to drop it. Let us examine some equivalences and principles.
Let x start at t (time)
x is the variable (element) that is the variable at the operation, where t is the operation of time.
Let the angle from ∫b-a in regards to the on the external position.
The base determines its own value.
t starts after the drop from the domain (start - and connects the whole value to the variable domain, at ending points.
x => y
How do we determine such behavior, and result?
That is simple. We must analyze the base of operation. The geometrical structure of the base, that is outside of the board geometry. That is the key.
The base is the surface. So we must measure the surface, and its slope. We also must measure other properties such as its outer terrain, and how it effects the structure of the board. Such as, composition, like if it has a carpet, and how it effects the board in terms of "resistance."
These must be measured accordingly. And how the react, and interact with another
We also have to measure the geometry of the board, its structure/shape, weight etc...
The other key indicator is how we hold the board in place. The angle. This is based on the radius between A and B
These determines which direction the board will fall | between the base and the angle ∫ A/B
The time it hits the ground is based on the elements of observation. This is measured by the operation of t, where at the rate of every value and operation, has its result.
Do the Experiment yourself, and see what results you get. Do noty be fixed though. Use different terrains, and their compositions. Use different shapes, and even experiment in different environments to approximate the values of resistance, just as wind, or other external variables.
Oh,yes, and to conclude this. There is a very important operation I failed to mention. This is the operation of the values of the distance, between where you are holding the board, and the base. This is measured in the length of the board. Then you have to calculate where you are holding the board, as well as the base, and the space it is occupying.
Thank you. Let this video demonstrate such.
The point of this paper was to demonstrate the principles, and we we have to measure, as the experiment results in its behavior.
Sincerely Dr Krysta Ryu Mukoto - Chris Latimer.
Saturday, February 14, 2015
Some words in regards to my latest Debate
Here I wrote my argument in my recent debate --- I hope everyone learns a very valuable point.
There is a big difference between words and definitions - definitions - definitio meaning [QUOTE]specification of the essential properties of something, or of the criteria which uniquely identify [/QUOTE]
Yes?? Simple. To specify the properties components that build a set. In other words, definitions are logical components that are used to specify an elemental set. They specify, individual elements, like stones, where they can structure a foundation. Yes? Yes, they are specifications of a component that identifies the elements. Together they build a set. So definition is the specification and identification of values that structure a given syntax within a specific structure.
Another example: let us look at syllogism in basic predicate.
The syntax is simple- "You are a participant"
Major premise: You [as the major premise, that defines the whole of the syntax]
Minor Premise: are a [verb action, state, or a relation between two things]
Conclusion: Participant!
Basic. The major premise defines the whole, or the prime of the syntax, but has missing elements. No specification. As "are a" is action state connected to 'a' which 'determiner'. Where are a is the specifications that give detail in reference to the major, and connects to the conclusion. Then "Moderator!" This is the conclusion that completes the syntax. The result. So the definitions are 'you','are a','participant'. That is basic predicate logic.
Here is where your claims lose their base... Definitions by classification are logical in nature. Get me? Logical. And what is logic? Reasoning, right? A systematic ruling system to prove truth with the correct algorithms, yeah?
These examples are to illustrate Logic, where I will give a few examples to logic. The base: to draw the idea of logic, as definitions are inherited from logic. So I will give examples to logic, and reasoning, to justify my claims.
For example
p q p=>q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
That is just a basic example.
0 and 0 = 0
0 and 1 = 0
1 and 0 = 0
1 and 1 = 1
___________
0 or 0 = 0
0 or 1 = 1
1 or 1 = 1
___________
0 xor 0 = 0
0 xor 1 = 1
1 xor 0 = 1
1 xor 1 = 0
__________
I am not going to spell this out for all of you. But, if you have a sharp mind, clearly you can see the pattern in concept?
I am not going to over all logic, here. These are just examples to demonstrate a point!
Logics main agenda is to connect the hypothesis p to the conclusion q with => "connector." We use a number of different components, and compounds to do such, in many different approaches. Here is a few: Formal System, Proposition Formula, Sequent, Assumptions, Laws, operators such as NOT/AND/OR/XOR/IF/THEN/ The list goes on. There are too many to count. Others are axioms, and establishing a theorem, through many algorithmic procedures. This is logic, yes? It is hardly arguable. But remember I am giving examples here, to summarize logic.
Logic is the foundation for problem solving, and rational reasoning.
Here is another idea or example of LOGIC. Let us look at the operand.
What is my point? Well, you see, definitions is from logic.
This is where your negation had its errors... Let me verify.... [QUOTE]If you're not using a word[/QUOTE] ^ [QUOTE]you NEED to define how you're using it.[/QUOTE]
Words and Definition aren't always the same thing.
I mean a poem has words, yes? A parable has word, yes? If you were humming a melody, this has words, yes? Is it logical? No. Poems are narrations used in sequence, in a rhythmic structure, where it can be based on timing and rhythm, to express feeling. Each word has no logical narration, and each word are metaphorical (all/form) which is allegorical in nature. No logic. Definitions are.
So a word isn't logic, but definitions are.
Kanji are words, but have no logical narration. They are based on rhythm, intentions, metaphor. What are Kanji's? They were inherited from Chinese characters from 6th century BCE. This doesn't imply that they are Chinese. The symbols were just used for their own speaking.
Kanji - picturegraphic- ideographic characters, used in conceotual words, which consist of substantives, verbs, and adjectives as well as native names. Kana - phonetic symbols that were devopled in Japan. Where each symbol represents a given sound of one syllable. Where Kana are divided into two groups (syllablaries)
Hiragana used to write endings of conceptual words that are written in Kanji, same with other kind of words that are not written in Kanji
Katakana are used for words in different origin.
Japanese is not logic, but are words. Logic has fixed results based on the reasonable tables of reference. Japanese is based on metaphorical, allegorical, philosophical, where its syntax and structure is of rhythm value, rather than rational.
So let us use a logical table to prove this to be false, and my point to be true?
Japanese AND Reason must hold both true for the conclusion of definition and words
Japanese are words: Fact.
If Japanese words are words ^ NOT Definitions - Then → words that have to be defined as such, is False. Simple.
So that is proof that words don't have to be logical in nature. If I am wrong in the manner, is there a rule here where every little thing has to be logical. If so, point it out to me?? If not, what is your case? I would like to know. You are saying [pretty much] everything has to be presented in logic. In any other situation you are so right, but this is philosophy. debate.
Do you know Greek? Last time I checked, Sophie didn't mean logic; it means wisdom. -- where Philo is Love. The foundation isn't logic, or key principle. Can you prove me wrong? Logic was only used by the Greeks to argue concepts, in rational discussion. But wisdom itself isn't logic. You can't argue with me on that. Because you will have to disprove the most vast cultures who upholder WISDOM for thousands of years, before the Greeks; you would have to prove them wrong. Chinese/Japanese/India/ are they all wrong? Can you really prove the oldest cultures in history to be wrong, with your education?
I've been practicing/studying eastern philosophy/phenomenology - for 30 years.
The oldest philosophies were Tamilans, Indus people, Words of the Kototama-ancestry, and others in East Asia. Much of the philosophies that survived thousands of years. Wisdom is pretty simple, it is life. Learning from life. It is not arguing a concept in informal discussion. That is a narrow western view.
Did I define it well? Did I actually get my point straight across. Oh, and btw, Buddha narrated much philosophy in parables, not logic.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Subjective Personal Final Thoughts To All Of Y'all
Case Closed. I was being trapped, and bullied, just because I was a loner in the debate. Yes, I made errors, such as introducing too many variables, which could've confused the agenda of the argument. But, I admitted my errors, where I was being disrespected, and the other party was parading their authority with such arrogance. The conflict was: definitions, and how definitions don't have to be narrated in a debate in regards to "philosophy". Next time you want to intimate me, or bully, you might want to think twice. I actually never lost a debate, and I do know how to use my mind. So, think about it? Debates aren't based on being right, but reaching a solution. Just because I am very poetic/abstract, and metaphorical- doesn't mean that I am ignorant in the ways of logic. I just try to balance logic with reasoning, as they are lovers of the cosmos. Your fixed ideas is how you lost.
Thank You. I hope the readers get the point to this post. Remember, there is a fine line between words, and definitions. Definitions are logical, where words are expressions.
I hope everyone has a great day. Love and truth <3
There is a big difference between words and definitions - definitions - definitio meaning [QUOTE]specification of the essential properties of something, or of the criteria which uniquely identify [/QUOTE]
Yes?? Simple. To specify the properties components that build a set. In other words, definitions are logical components that are used to specify an elemental set. They specify, individual elements, like stones, where they can structure a foundation. Yes? Yes, they are specifications of a component that identifies the elements. Together they build a set. So definition is the specification and identification of values that structure a given syntax within a specific structure.
Another example: let us look at syllogism in basic predicate.
The syntax is simple- "You are a participant"
Major premise: You [as the major premise, that defines the whole of the syntax]
Minor Premise: are a [verb action, state, or a relation between two things]
Conclusion: Participant!
Basic. The major premise defines the whole, or the prime of the syntax, but has missing elements. No specification. As "are a" is action state connected to 'a' which 'determiner'. Where are a is the specifications that give detail in reference to the major, and connects to the conclusion. Then "Moderator!" This is the conclusion that completes the syntax. The result. So the definitions are 'you','are a','participant'. That is basic predicate logic.
Here is where your claims lose their base... Definitions by classification are logical in nature. Get me? Logical. And what is logic? Reasoning, right? A systematic ruling system to prove truth with the correct algorithms, yeah?
These examples are to illustrate Logic, where I will give a few examples to logic. The base: to draw the idea of logic, as definitions are inherited from logic. So I will give examples to logic, and reasoning, to justify my claims.
For example
p q p=>q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
That is just a basic example.
0 and 0 = 0
0 and 1 = 0
1 and 0 = 0
1 and 1 = 1
___________
0 or 0 = 0
0 or 1 = 1
1 or 1 = 1
___________
0 xor 0 = 0
0 xor 1 = 1
1 xor 0 = 1
1 xor 1 = 0
__________
I am not going to spell this out for all of you. But, if you have a sharp mind, clearly you can see the pattern in concept?
I am not going to over all logic, here. These are just examples to demonstrate a point!
Logics main agenda is to connect the hypothesis p to the conclusion q with => "connector." We use a number of different components, and compounds to do such, in many different approaches. Here is a few: Formal System, Proposition Formula, Sequent, Assumptions, Laws, operators such as NOT/AND/OR/XOR/IF/THEN/ The list goes on. There are too many to count. Others are axioms, and establishing a theorem, through many algorithmic procedures. This is logic, yes? It is hardly arguable. But remember I am giving examples here, to summarize logic.
Logic is the foundation for problem solving, and rational reasoning.
Here is another idea or example of LOGIC. Let us look at the operand.
What is my point? Well, you see, definitions is from logic.
This is where your negation had its errors... Let me verify.... [QUOTE]If you're not using a word[/QUOTE] ^ [QUOTE]you NEED to define how you're using it.[/QUOTE]
Words and Definition aren't always the same thing.
I mean a poem has words, yes? A parable has word, yes? If you were humming a melody, this has words, yes? Is it logical? No. Poems are narrations used in sequence, in a rhythmic structure, where it can be based on timing and rhythm, to express feeling. Each word has no logical narration, and each word are metaphorical (all/form) which is allegorical in nature. No logic. Definitions are.
So a word isn't logic, but definitions are.
Kanji are words, but have no logical narration. They are based on rhythm, intentions, metaphor. What are Kanji's? They were inherited from Chinese characters from 6th century BCE. This doesn't imply that they are Chinese. The symbols were just used for their own speaking.
Kanji - picturegraphic- ideographic characters, used in conceotual words, which consist of substantives, verbs, and adjectives as well as native names. Kana - phonetic symbols that were devopled in Japan. Where each symbol represents a given sound of one syllable. Where Kana are divided into two groups (syllablaries)
Hiragana used to write endings of conceptual words that are written in Kanji, same with other kind of words that are not written in Kanji
Katakana are used for words in different origin.
Japanese is not logic, but are words. Logic has fixed results based on the reasonable tables of reference. Japanese is based on metaphorical, allegorical, philosophical, where its syntax and structure is of rhythm value, rather than rational.
So let us use a logical table to prove this to be false, and my point to be true?
Japanese AND Reason must hold both true for the conclusion of definition and words
Japanese are words: Fact.
If Japanese words are words ^ NOT Definitions - Then → words that have to be defined as such, is False. Simple.
So that is proof that words don't have to be logical in nature. If I am wrong in the manner, is there a rule here where every little thing has to be logical. If so, point it out to me?? If not, what is your case? I would like to know. You are saying [pretty much] everything has to be presented in logic. In any other situation you are so right, but this is philosophy. debate.
Do you know Greek? Last time I checked, Sophie didn't mean logic; it means wisdom. -- where Philo is Love. The foundation isn't logic, or key principle. Can you prove me wrong? Logic was only used by the Greeks to argue concepts, in rational discussion. But wisdom itself isn't logic. You can't argue with me on that. Because you will have to disprove the most vast cultures who upholder WISDOM for thousands of years, before the Greeks; you would have to prove them wrong. Chinese/Japanese/India/ are they all wrong? Can you really prove the oldest cultures in history to be wrong, with your education?
I've been practicing/studying eastern philosophy/phenomenology - for 30 years.
The oldest philosophies were Tamilans, Indus people, Words of the Kototama-ancestry, and others in East Asia. Much of the philosophies that survived thousands of years. Wisdom is pretty simple, it is life. Learning from life. It is not arguing a concept in informal discussion. That is a narrow western view.
Did I define it well? Did I actually get my point straight across. Oh, and btw, Buddha narrated much philosophy in parables, not logic.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Subjective Personal Final Thoughts To All Of Y'all
Case Closed. I was being trapped, and bullied, just because I was a loner in the debate. Yes, I made errors, such as introducing too many variables, which could've confused the agenda of the argument. But, I admitted my errors, where I was being disrespected, and the other party was parading their authority with such arrogance. The conflict was: definitions, and how definitions don't have to be narrated in a debate in regards to "philosophy". Next time you want to intimate me, or bully, you might want to think twice. I actually never lost a debate, and I do know how to use my mind. So, think about it? Debates aren't based on being right, but reaching a solution. Just because I am very poetic/abstract, and metaphorical- doesn't mean that I am ignorant in the ways of logic. I just try to balance logic with reasoning, as they are lovers of the cosmos. Your fixed ideas is how you lost.
Thank You. I hope the readers get the point to this post. Remember, there is a fine line between words, and definitions. Definitions are logical, where words are expressions.
I hope everyone has a great day. Love and truth <3
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Reply To Post
You are in luck! I am on a mission to destroy the whole Reptilian Myth. However, you have to forgive my bluntness.
Why ask a question as such "Debunk" and POST video? That is absurd. No qualified Scientist would waste their time. We do have important things to do, then entertain your curiosity! Instead, use a different word other than debunk, and give a list of the questions that you want some clarity, rather than asking anyone to waste their time on a 2-3 hour video.
The whole idea is completely absurd. It scares me how so many individuals believe such none sense. I happen to have experience in all areas of those claims. Even culture metaphysics experience. It is so absurd. Everything in that video is dead wrong, and is the most silliest thing I ever heard of my entire 31 years on this planet. I am a heavy believer of E/T and UFO's, and still it is so far from reality. To think others believe such nonsense? Only in America. Americans are the biggest fools, and the whole Reptilian idea proves this to be true.
Snake DNA? OMG... That through me literally off the chair laughing. I am so sorry, but I can't help being subjective in this post. This is the most absurd idea I've ever heard in my life. Sadly, my girl believes this crap. This is why I am determined. Okay, on base... DNA? You mean Genome... well think about it... Let common sense show you this truth. Everything in the universe shares the same traits. This truth has been known before the birth of civilization. We are all in the likeness of the cosmos, and we are mirror reflections of one another. It is called Microcosm [compared to the Chinese] where it states that we are all holistic models of the same source. We share the likeness of the all. This has been verified and proven in modern mainstream science.
We share the same elements as the stars: Carbon/Hydrogen/Oxygen/ this is inherited to everything on this planet. All species share the same DNA/RNA through natural mutation (evolution) for millions of years, back when we were all single cell organisms. Dinosaurs were here long before us during The Mesozoic Era - 245-208 million years ago), Jurassic (208-145 million years ago), and Cretaceous (145-66 million years ago) .... A lot of evolution taken place during the Jurassic era, including flora ... This effected the entire planet of natural evolution. I think the first land creatures were insects, but I can't be sure. [anyone feel free to correct me, there].
Every culture before civilization revolved around the wisdom and knowledge of animals. Humans learned from them, and had deep relationships with them. This had nothing to do with aliens lolz Animals are far more evolved than we are, and are in harmony with the planet, as they preserve, and protect the planet. There is much knowledge and wisdom found within animals. Shapeshifting originally was a philosophical, and metaphysical understanding, which was metaphorical, not actual physical, but it is the understanding to shift, and match our rhythm with the rhythm of life, and shift our natural energy to match the circumstances of the situation, and to shift like water, and meet the many patterns of water in life, to shape our spirit and to change, to flow with the rhythm of life. Animals and Totems their characteristics were used to gain more potential.
Totems can be very easily understood, but can be a bit difficult to explain; depending on the narration. In a definition online or other from online -
"a natural object or animal believed by a particular society to have spiritual significance and adopted by it as an emblem."
This is way too narrow, and gives people the false pretense that it is just a emblem that has superstition value, when in fact it isn't superstition, but vast wisdom and truth, that takes many a life time or longer to understand properly.
They are representations and interfaces to our souls, in its dynamics, and also our physical nature. This be said; there is so much to totems, this philosophy and spiritual truth has many layers of understanding and knowledge. From a physical stand point; nature passes on a gift to each of us, and this is the physical make up that is shared with the entire whole of the cosmos. This transcends all which we are, and everything we share from one another, as universal wholeness.
All is energy, and all physical make-up are elements of substance. We all originate (physically) from our star as cosmic dust: hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, where the planet is formed based on these elements. Our base chemical make-up is - carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, and one other ingredient - that is phosphate, which is the major chemical transmitter of carbon based protein life. This is passed on to the entire planet, and all creatures of protein/carbon based life shares the similar genetics, and passes this on and shares it with one another on this planet. In other words; our physical make-up and our characteristics are shared and mixed with all creatures/animals of this planet. So the physical properties of animals are always with us. The sooner we awaken to it, the more potential we will have in many areas, such as sensory awakening, and mental, as well as physical awareness. It is processes that I have been awakening to, and understanding more all my life.
The other part of totem is soul: I ain't going to get into what soul is, but try and be as brief as I can be. Animals are symbols, representations of the primal laws of manifestation of life itself; both invisible and visible- physical and non-physical Totems like animals are symbols of energy that represents many ways of energy and life itself to understand the many manifestations of spiritual to natural life in regards to its characteristics and its way, its process that is extremely vast. In other words: they are archetypes and their own qualities/attributes, which can be understood through their behaviors and their many ways of life of animals and forms of nature. This is passed on to us on the chemical (physical) and on the none-physical (soul) to us, as representations of manifestations of nature itself. Many clans/tribes do honor this by making totem statutes, but there are many totems we have rather than just the four. The four is a universal expression of the ones that mostly our soul is made up of, to illustrate balance to ourselves as a whole.
Snakes were very symbolic, both totem and power animal. Snakes were very symbolic, both to my shamanic [native American people] and to every culture [before and after civilization]. Snakes are reptiles that shed their skin and live through traumatic life, death/rebirth, experience. They are associated metaphorically and philosophical as continuity of life, and transmutation from one experience into another given experiece. One level of existence to another. Snakes teach all of us that we are all eternal beings (energy) experiencing the mortality (matter) The shedding symbolically represents, letting go or changing what already has served its given purpose.
I use to meditate and practice my Ryu Tokgaure arts with the spirit of the Snake. It has guided me, very much in life.
Now, let me look for my notes on ancient Egypt: one second ---->>>
Ah, here they are.
Ancient Egypt is one of the first known civilizations .... the origins is the origins of all of us: Africa. They migrated probably somewhere between 10,000 to 8000 BCE. The first known civilization of Egypt was the Predynastic Period 5500-3100 BCE. There were 9 eras which I am not going to name. It ended to 332 BCE. Egypt probably became a culture from the early dynastic to the early kingdom [3rd dynasty] from the 1st and 2nd, however, that is only my take on it.
The Egyptian myths were meant to be metaphorically for the purposes (not to explain events) but had a metaphorical philosophical deep understanding to the nature of principles and the meaning of natural processes. I need to find my old notes on the precreation myth - one sec ...... ===>
"The Egyptians speculated that the primeval substance was watery and dark
and had no form and no boundaries. These primeval waters, known as the nu or
the nun, continued to surround the world even after creation and were thought
of as the ultimate source of the Nile. When personified as a deity, Nun could be
called the father and mother of the creator, because the creator was thought of
as coming into existence within the nun. After creation, qualities of the primeval
state, such as its darkness"
"ere
retrospectively endowed with consciousness and became a group of deities
known as the Eight or the Ogdoad of Hermopolis (see “Deities, Themes, and
Concepts”). The Eight were imagined as amphibians and reptiles, fertile creatures
of the dark primeval slime. They were the forces that shaped the creator
or even the first manifestations of the creator. In order to become “the fathers
and mothers” of life, they had to change or, in some accounts, to die. Several
temples claimed to be the burial place of these primeval deities.
Amun and his female counterpart Amunet were often regarded as part of
the Eight and personified hidden power. When Amun became a national god, a
new theology made Amun the invisible, unknowable force that began the
movement toward independent life. In some accounts the Eight join together to
be fertilized by the “seed” of the serpent Amun Kem-atef, the “first primeval
god who gave birth to the primeval gods.”2
The serpent may have been considered an appropriate form for the spirit of
the creator because of its undivided body or because it periodically renewed itself
by shedding its skin. When creator gods such as Amun or Atum are spoken
of as serpents, they usually represent the positive aspect of chaos as an energy
force, but they had a negative counterpart in the great serpent Apophis. Apophis
represented the destructive aspect of chaos that constantly tried to overwhelm
all individual beings and reduce everything back to its primeval state of
“oneness.”So, even before creation began, the world contained the elements of its
own destruction.""
For the record: these aren't my words. It is from my studies - 3 years ago. I forgot the source name. Anyway, these documents have much important. They are metaphorical though. Not literal. That is what a myth is. Egyptians valued reptiles on the grounds of their adaptability and evolving qualities. They were metaphors for the nature of creation, due to reptiles ability to change. The 8 primal deities are also in likeness of the creation philosophy of the ancient Chinese - I Ching of the hexagram, of the EIGHT. Eight is a sacred number, which describes the very foundation of manifestation, of the YIN and YANG wisdom. It is wisdom, not facts, and has nothing to do with Aliens.
This pisses me off because this knowledge and wisdom is most sacred to me. I've been practicing it all of my life, and thanks to New Agers they have twisted around and warped what is so sacred to me, and many sages who practice and are protectors and the keepers of such knowledge. Your post has officially pissed me off. How could you believe such a thing? You do have a brain of your own, don't cha? Use it.
The whole Snake resembling the double helix, because snakes and many things in nature represent the nature of the double helix. The double helix doesn't mean merely DNA but is beyond the chemical level, and is the foundation of energy. When you have the energy of two they insect and cross each other, then they match each others rhythm, and revolve around each others axis, in a curvature nature, as they understand each other, they create chains, and expand in harmony. This creates the spiral and creative nature of life. This is why Snakes can represent this nature.
Not just Snakes/Reptiles, but many cultures have warshipped or honored every animal for thousands of years (before modern civilization). Let us look at Owls - North America and other tribes honored Owls due to its nocurtal natural, and its association with the moon. Its healing medicine consisted of many forms of wisdom. To the ancient Greeks, the Owl was associated with the goddess Athena, and its symbol of higher wisdom. Athena was the symbol of wisdom, daughter of Zeus. To early Christians it was associated with Lilith, the first wife of Adam. The Owl represents the wisdom of the night, and its eternal mysteries. Does that mean that there are aliens who are like humanoid owls? Adaption and shape shift qualities are greatly in every 8 million specie that walks the earth. The whole reptile thing, they are [pardon my unorthodox remark] fucktards. They not know nothing of myth, wisdom, and/or convential thinking. It is common sense. They are retarded, and deserve to be beatin. My girl however is extremly brilliant, and wise, but they manipulated and twisted so much of her alien experience, around. Based on this, not all believers are stupid or crazy. They just have been greatly deceived. Many individuals, their alien encounters are real, but this propaganda has tricked what they know. It is the biggest bullshit ever on the Internet.
As for that Pye guy... excuse my wording, but he is a retard. Yes, I know of him, and I challenged and disproved his claims. He is no real researcher, just a fantatic, who obsesses over Sumerian, and has the most absurd claims. He claims just because Sumerian was the first civilization, and they were very advanced in math, they have to be the origin of aliens. What the eff is that? OMG. Retarded. News flash.... humans existed long before Sumerian. They just had no traditional language, or recordings. And humans in the past were very capable of math. He thinks humans are separated from all species, but how can that be. His case might have some grounds if we had no direct close ancestors, but we do, and that is called Apes. Were apes aliens too? LMAOOOOO Maybe every specie were aliens HAHA ROFL
What is your deal, dude? If you haven't had any E/T visitations, and you aren't emotionally vulnerable, than why the fuck are you believing just scrutiny, and rudiment, of retarded nature?? Excuse me for my blunt remarks, but do ya have a brain? Do ya have common sense? What is the matter with you.
I have mixed feelings to this post, and it is a bit paradoxical. One: I feel like kicking your ass. Your post just insulted me and many cultures that we hold very sacred. Two: I am glad that you brought it up. I am determined to bring an end to the whole reptilian myth. Once and for all.
Are you a new ager, or starseed? I don't like them very much.
Please, instead of having us watch lame videos, can ya please just ask questions to the topic, in atleast a summary of a paragraph. I ain't going to waste my time on a video made for loons. I have a lot of work, ya know?
I want to keep contact with ya. Private message me, please. You can add me on Facebook, and you can have my personal email. Okay.
And Btw: if anyone wants to challenge what I've spoken about: in regards to animism, I highly suggest that you have at least 20 years of experience. I've been practicing it my entire life. So, ya better have the experience, and a very profound case.
If anyone wishes to correct or challenge other materials, please do so. But please, make your case very appropriately, please. Be very informal, objective, and obey the rules of persuasion dialogue. Be respectful, pretty please, and thorough, with your framework. No, I am not a moderator, this is my third post HAHA. I just believe that all discussions should be as Orthodox as possible, and respectful, so a better solution can be made. So I hope all of ya can find it in your heart to do so, so we all can work together, as friends =) <333 I do apologize for my rude remarks. This post got me really pissed the fek off. So, sorry for my subjectivity in regards to my thoughts on the idea. No disrespect to anyone. Much love to all.
Let Makoto guide you all to a better and brighter day.
Saturday, February 7, 2015
Problem Solving???
How exactly do we solve a problem? You know holistically principles
and practices can be one of the best, outside of western rules of
logical reasoning structures. Not that I am implying that the basis of
holistic is problem solving [but living and being], but holistic and
other practices can be applied in other areas of knowledge.
Let us say that we have a major problem, and it needs to be corrected. The main problem are errors that are occurring in certain sections, or positions. These could be certain problems, where they needs to be a sense of balance to correct the system.
The average logical problem solver would try to think that the problems are where the errors are noticed. This is a misconception, where the position of where we detect the errors are only where we sense them by those types of observable means. That is only the detection field, where we can interpret a known problem. It lets us know that the problem is there, but it doesn't show the actual error, and if we focus too much on it, we will lose sight of the actual error in the system.
This is where holistically principles comes into play... Let us use an analogy of imbalance to restore order with the example of pressure points and a headache. The headache or the pain ocalitating is how we detect it, but not an initial cause. If we are to find that cause we must feel many nerves bordered throughout our head, really hit certain nerves, and follow the passageways of impulse of how it reacts, depending on our contact. We must experience the many passages of feelings, and where they connect to, and see how they react based on the sequences of pressure points that we can find.
If I had my fingers here, but the flow of electric pulse [energy] moves [here], and the way I move [with] the flow of energy, which restores more order. If I hit this point, the feeling shifts to this, then moves here, and changes to this.
We want to shift different energy together, and see how a new forms, and what happens based on the alignment of the way we hit each point.
The goal is to restore balance.
We really need to explore, move with different forms of energy, and is very much like a dance rhythm of moving with it. The moving with would correspond to different shifts, different energy structures, this would give us insight on where more of the imbalance is.
So think of a structure, and with each way we interact with it, it not only changes, but we discover more of the parallel points where the error is occurring. We start to flow with it, and with this flow we discover more points of the structure that is bringing an imbalance.
The error is based on the formation of the structure, and the result they we perceive is pain, like in a headache. If we learn to shift where needs to be shifted it can ease the pain, but more so we can discover more of the imbalance. We will learn that that error is at many positions we didn't think of before, by analyzing and experiencing the many sources of different points; so we alter the structure, and as we shift the structure, we take away more pain. We discover more areas of imbalance, and correct them. We can't go against them, it is a matter of flowing, and then we interlock with them, like a key through a lock.
We not only discover the many points of where the pain is, but we shift the structure to correct the imbalance and solve the problem.
In any problem we only use the detection points as a frame of reference. The true problem is how the structure is organized, and the way we discover more points and move with them, we can come closer to solving the problem.
In holistic healing this is life as we know it, and is found with much experience, and how we react to them. We can use many of the principles to problem solving though ... wouldn't hurt... even in logical systems based on principle and concept.
My headaches teach me this, so I flow with them, and it is almost like a dance or a song. If I flow against, they become more intense. As the actions is equal to the result.
So how do we apply this in modern applications?
Well, where an error occurs, it is best not to merely focus on the points where an error is located. The region of error is only a single point, where it lets us know where a flaw is positioned. We need to trace each position, as a whole, and all it effects in its given radius. To understand the problem as a whole. We also need to not make changes that will effect the whole, as every action will have its effects. We need to take it one step at a time....
Thank You :-)
Let us say that we have a major problem, and it needs to be corrected. The main problem are errors that are occurring in certain sections, or positions. These could be certain problems, where they needs to be a sense of balance to correct the system.
The average logical problem solver would try to think that the problems are where the errors are noticed. This is a misconception, where the position of where we detect the errors are only where we sense them by those types of observable means. That is only the detection field, where we can interpret a known problem. It lets us know that the problem is there, but it doesn't show the actual error, and if we focus too much on it, we will lose sight of the actual error in the system.
This is where holistically principles comes into play... Let us use an analogy of imbalance to restore order with the example of pressure points and a headache. The headache or the pain ocalitating is how we detect it, but not an initial cause. If we are to find that cause we must feel many nerves bordered throughout our head, really hit certain nerves, and follow the passageways of impulse of how it reacts, depending on our contact. We must experience the many passages of feelings, and where they connect to, and see how they react based on the sequences of pressure points that we can find.
If I had my fingers here, but the flow of electric pulse [energy] moves [here], and the way I move [with] the flow of energy, which restores more order. If I hit this point, the feeling shifts to this, then moves here, and changes to this.
We want to shift different energy together, and see how a new forms, and what happens based on the alignment of the way we hit each point.
The goal is to restore balance.
We really need to explore, move with different forms of energy, and is very much like a dance rhythm of moving with it. The moving with would correspond to different shifts, different energy structures, this would give us insight on where more of the imbalance is.
So think of a structure, and with each way we interact with it, it not only changes, but we discover more of the parallel points where the error is occurring. We start to flow with it, and with this flow we discover more points of the structure that is bringing an imbalance.
The error is based on the formation of the structure, and the result they we perceive is pain, like in a headache. If we learn to shift where needs to be shifted it can ease the pain, but more so we can discover more of the imbalance. We will learn that that error is at many positions we didn't think of before, by analyzing and experiencing the many sources of different points; so we alter the structure, and as we shift the structure, we take away more pain. We discover more areas of imbalance, and correct them. We can't go against them, it is a matter of flowing, and then we interlock with them, like a key through a lock.
We not only discover the many points of where the pain is, but we shift the structure to correct the imbalance and solve the problem.
In any problem we only use the detection points as a frame of reference. The true problem is how the structure is organized, and the way we discover more points and move with them, we can come closer to solving the problem.
In holistic healing this is life as we know it, and is found with much experience, and how we react to them. We can use many of the principles to problem solving though ... wouldn't hurt... even in logical systems based on principle and concept.
My headaches teach me this, so I flow with them, and it is almost like a dance or a song. If I flow against, they become more intense. As the actions is equal to the result.
So how do we apply this in modern applications?
Well, where an error occurs, it is best not to merely focus on the points where an error is located. The region of error is only a single point, where it lets us know where a flaw is positioned. We need to trace each position, as a whole, and all it effects in its given radius. To understand the problem as a whole. We also need to not make changes that will effect the whole, as every action will have its effects. We need to take it one step at a time....
Thank You :-)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)