posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 12:26 PM
Originally posted by granny smith
Sure it is a prerequisite but I think it is jumping the gun to use methods used to 'decode' 'encoded' texts and present the results as 'proof'
of anything other than the fact that meanings can be 'constructed' from other meanings in that fashion
i agree, but the methods i present have been present for thousands of years. I'm doing nothing more than applying methods that have been previously
accepted by some dating back thousands of years.
the meanings that are extracted are extracted from language, names are created by a fractionalized mind, and names are a reflection of what is
transpiring within our fractionalized consciousnesses. Without an individual's willingness to confront what conflicts reside inwards, recognition
and acceptance of what is influencing our actions and behaviors and our intentionality can not be recognized or accepted as true consciously. And
without that variable, the basis for comparison will be tainted so long as we are not consciously aware of what effects our subconscious mind has on
the development of language.
- this can never demonstrate that language is 'encoded' - why would the subliminal encoding take the esoteric form of the deliberate and
structured encoding of ancient texts - which attempted to 'hide' meaning through that method?
i can only assume, necessity. But, if i were to speak for the subliminal mind, first i would have to know the contradictions it is quantifying.
For as many times as it can be said that this is implausible, numerous examples can be shown and demonstrated.
I think that this is where rigour breaks down - none of the examples are 'evidence' of 'encoding'.
this may be opinion. Where you neither acknowledge or recognize patterns, many do.
If everything named by a fractionalized mind has only one possible interpretation, why do people dissagree upon the meanings of language?
The fact that we dissagree upon the meaning and origin of words provides proof that different meanings within words exists, or else there would be no
problems with communications between humans.
Why, thank you kind sir. Will you even entertain shifting your paradigm though? - it is seemingly a matter of closure for you.
It is not closure for myself i seek. Empathy, Love, and Truth choose my paradigm.
You offer a method which spews forth dubious 'evidence' but is not falsifiable -
I offer nothing that has not existed, and known, for thousands of years.
The method you think i offer, is in accordance and compliance with holy scripture.
go spell gospell.
(I really am trying to help)
as am i. which is why i am not proving it. Free Will.