Stable Topic Developement
Stable Topic research
Normally when I write I don't begin with introductions or greeting, because I count on impressive post names. I do so because I am more reliable with fast generating of verbal rementalizable constructions. I am not quite able to explain how does this method works, because it is like I already know what I want to say, but only find words for it. Can this be scientifically possible? Are we living in the world of words or are those ongoing process which we dare to name? Basically every law of nature is a simple word and as we move deeper into description of for example confrontation of two nature laws, words are getting more complex. Therefore it is clear that the beginning is always genially easy.
This seems like a law already. Our world chooses the most simple way out of all possible ways. How to put it on more clearly, so that it will become wise to speak about? What stops us are moments of further definitions. If world chooses something, then who is this world? I think this question is very misleading to the depths of mental hell. But the question now is do I have to go with the answer, or am I supposed to step back? It seems like every new thesis on this question is more misleading, but maybe that is actually only a defence for us to not step in something we are not ready to know. This seems like an answer, if there is a God, we will find out, if there isn't we won't. Well then if it is so simple I assume that I am the God in that case as well as therefore in every other. But I can not stand in position of God, because it is a taboo in almost every culture. Why is it so? Is there a reason for this, or is it just a sign of our greed?
I assume once again as I am still in position of a God, that it is more complex when reaching for lower power of existence. Lower, because this world does not require any new conscious decisions of how to behave. In other worlds we assume that everything that can happen will never reach the level of chaos or unpredictability.
Let's try for a hypothetical reach onto this construction.
World was created. - It is clear. The question is how world was created. This prequestion shows us that we want to make sure, who was the creator, so that we will know. - The answer is God. Because we presume that it was "who" the most right version sounds like it was God. But when we imagine God, we see him as the product of the process. As the highest and the smartest. I tell's me this is not quite right. The problem is that we can only assume, because we are not in that position when we create ourselves. Therefore any word God will sooner or later reach this position of not being in the position of knowing. Of course if we will not stand somehow else looking on what we are.
God may be the highest but may be a never reaching his highest level. This means two things. God is still creating himself just like a child and it means that I am god too. I am god... I am only small part of the whole universe but can you part a being? Or does being always remain beingself?
This post is really about many things, I want to find a stable topic of what t think and talk about but as well, I am answering my own inner questions as every creation ask the creator. Who is Creator? I know I have Ego. Is ego a creation? It seems logical that ego has a desire to be something because it is a result. But what else makes me myself?
I would like to finish this article, but sadly I do not really have any more time, so if you have any Ideas how you would imagine the way of a solution of what I was speaking about, please take that role of God and tell me a creation as I ask.
I have written three comments for different posts and it seems if I put them all together it would make a good response to your questions. Everything in “” is a paste. “Philosophy is the result of the interaction between mind and concepts (represented by words or symbols). The Interaction is the Argument that some hate. People hate arguing because it is a start to violence in many people lives. Philosophers love arguing because it is a path to the truth and peace.”
“Why human nowadays is possessed with A.I.? Is that the same reason why god created us human in his image (if Bible is truly from God)? Anyway, cleaver bots look for key words and phrases to match its database. Like this “what is your name?” very common question. Answer “cleaverbot. If you ask it like this: if people like to call you what should they say? Answer “I have no idea what are you talking about” meaning I found no match on my database. It will never learn the concepts of the words. And join more than one concept (word) together to come up with new one. This is our essence as human. And A.I. will never understand it. Likewise we will never comprehend GOD.”
“Did you ever express your love by saying to the other person, I worship you? Is not that what God wont (worship = love)”
Like you said until we step out and look pack at us to know. I like to add or if God himself try to communicate with us we will never find out.
Yes indeed.I am fascinated how do we understand what we mean unlike bots. This conversation must include a meaning which can be understanded only by humans. To the computer this can seem like pure informative nonsense. example: I have an allergy on apples; or: I breath. But the overall meaning of all sentences trigger a thought in my imagination which I like to describe later. It looks like humans speak with compliments. interesting is that if you write something out later it will be not seen but the text could seem a little stranger though. Question is when does Humans speak by understanding each other or by trying to understand. In mentioned case when they understand, does it matter on who understood first? It seems like there are some positions that are predetermined. And therefore we do not work like computers. We do have a choice but we do as well have an opinion because we are matterable or opinion-headed towards degradative existence. Do you believe it is possible to speak in creative way of existence?
Existence is the best creativity. if that answer your question.
When you speak with human being, It is more completetive than you can imagine, there are out too many results that came out after, and some humans teach culture the way we cut to some kind of a prefered object. The world completetive I used to shortly describe the situations of tons of possible outcomes of a sentence. This complexions we prefer, they seem to be imaginary therefore we shouldn't make science around but philosophy brings open and clean way of understanding whole process or as to say better you can begin to feel differ about your life and see life more abstracted to the the feelings that life is how life should be or how life should not. But the problem is again that culture is something open it can create itself, cannot be reproduced there fore the problem is that we speak too little, we don't ask ourselves questions and then rush unprepared to life. or wait is it what I am doing? I think our society is open but it still degrades because we do not manage our lifes but once again the problem that we are conscious and we can manage our life only by ourselves but I think this is pre-thought by evolution and that conscious life activates once you give right ambience to children, this explains ritual as the way of cultural growth events Humans has to pass through this anyway but the culture is filling them with right scene. For example in prehistoric age they go hunting or something. This would nice but without adding anything. If we manage to create free and open system of self-research that will go on forever we will soon reach the level of material naturally productive economy where does not exist things as running out of gas or televisions to sell. I believe that human should work toward society even if this may be impossible in the end, it is the preset that causes only good at the small cost of time, but I think the problem is not with the actual time but with the fact we die and we forget what we say and think about life so such a society can very really fast degradate what actually happened in the 20 century but history was very unquiet since 6th century so our society is special because we have degraded for more than thousands years though it is amazing that genotype of humans can learn new things from others who survived without the negative impact of Life style degradations. Philosophy does not solve this, but at least it shows up the existence of that problem. So... After you know you can begin to do something about it... For the beginning i think speaking about philosophy should be okay because everyone could correct his own understatements without tearing up the projects but later we can learn to work upon creation of society about which we talk in philosophy in projects. Therefore it is only good that you can argue with peoples with wrong ideas, because after all nobody is right. And only by collectivity we gain the maximum of prosperity that can happen.
If not so I hope we will understand that everybody has a right to be alone but after all everyone want to live together rather than alone because even if you don't agree with somebody at first sight you can always agree with him right after or may be after some time.
But this is the actual right human society topic it is headed toward itself and affect anyone. Therefore anybody can join or leave whenever they have to in case of time flow mechanicles.
I like this bit: "God is still creating himself just like a child".