It's not about you

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
No, it's about a fold. Yes, an aspect overgrasped or undergrasped.

Lets grasp women and grasp men:

First, a woman or a man is a kind. The "a" implying the "single". Mankind is single, but mankind has II specific pairs also. A women or a men is a duality apart each.

So in basic...

A men: Being a appearance and manner.
A women: Being a appearance and manner.

It is that mankind has II specific pairs apart, basically, and basically those II pairs apart are each a pair (duality) also. The appearance and manner are specific apart per basic II specific pairs that is a mankind.

Each and every, a men or a women, is, specifically and basically, a 'first and last', outside any additional series, and an 'original'. An original is outside any image.

It is the manner that does things (outward/inward expressings: acts, behavors, thoughts, countenances, personalities, attitudes, works, hearings, speakings, and the alike.) The manner makes and leaves an impression or mark how it might.

Like a pic of a posed woman... She left the impression of her manner having done a model pose. After you see the pic it doesn't mean or indicate her manner is still doing modeling, though her manner may or may not have purposely left such the impression in the eye of the beholder how she wanted it.

And by way of the pic you see her look, not exact, but her look nonetheless. An image outside an original to be exact.

Mankind (single) is outside image being original. When you look at me, you dont see the original (me), you see the original mankind with just an image of me. And me, being either the original look or the orginal manner. No person's manner is still, so you never see it at any time, though you see what it left you to see, which can be deception like with the example about her manner that may have purposely left the impression that her manner is still a current model or is for doing modeling still when it isnt the case which cant be told at any time either way.

Next time you look at a women or a men, know, you snared have not seen a 1st and last and original II them being present, but you see just an original mankind present that is with its one specific pair (a women or a men) only broadcasting two tricked out images.

So you, specifically, be not a single I. You each be a 'double I' ('II': a look and manner) duality. So... You each be II... You each are II... You each is II... You each II... You: II... II: You. A look is you a person and a manner is you a person. Which is greater? II'd say the manner (I) is, since it actualizes etc. Each time you say something your look looks different with your new, present, different, expressing manner. It is why it's II'd say instead of I'd say. Well, if we're being technical. And who is to say you cant be technical?
So think about the popular quote: "Let us make man in our image." Is the "our" implying more than a single "I"? Perhaps a 'double I' ('a look and manner') apart the quote implied. Ha! So it's not "about" you, though it's concerning you.

Any questions? Any thoughts? Any see what I'm implying?

Or, is my implying manner outside your grasp since you see a '1st and last and original' me (a specific II apart) not?




posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
yeah, the body (which is being posed) and the mind are entirely different. It's like when you look in the mirror, your mind sees itself and you see yourself.

Isn't this common sense?



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Your "implying manner" is outside of my grasp not because "I see a '1st and last and original' me", but because you wrote that so incoherently that it is nearly impossible to decipher.

Would you have happened to be under the influence of anything when you wrote that?



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
It is somewhat confusing.

If you made your point a little more clearly, more might respond to it.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
My implying manner is outside any other grasp. That is technical. That is the point.

The proof is in the respones. Thanks for proving II am correct.

Once II post, all shall be outside the grasp yet again.
II'm working with amazing things. You cant see me. You cant meet me. II'm so advanced you cant read me with any eye.

II be so clever and topping.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Great little ego boost you've got going on there


Not a one liner.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
The remote outside a man is also his remote.

Remote (distant) meaning outside reach and outside control. But the remote reaches and controls any which cant reach or control it. That is the affect it has.

So a II, a men, being 'first and last and original' is for not being reached or controlled with any other. You cant see or read me goes to show you cant reach me.

Therefore you should not ever know me through either my look or manner. For if you can, then II'm not protected and II'm facing great danger.

II have all as my witness that II have nothing troubling a 'first and last and original' me.

And all apart from each other are made, remotely, to truely hate any outsider they cant know.

Every word implied you shall hate and even attack some other way. Why? Since you can know me not. My look and manner is more amazing than grace.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Mabus
 

When we say mankind we don't really mean just 'man'. We are including man and woman. I see duality there.

Are you saying man is woman and woman is man? We are different but are also the same?

I see more than duality. It has to do with the perception of different individuals. Each man/woman can 'see' a different persona than the others seeing you you. It would depend on the situation at that given moment in time.

Mabus, give me a little more information to work with.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I think he is saying that we cannot have one gender, we must have two, the dual that makes the whole.

I wonder what would happen to your opinion, if we had 1 single gender?



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Mabus
 


Mabus, your posts continue to fascinate me.

Somtimes I see truth glimmering in there, and then you go off on these diatribes that make it difficult to follow.

But despite confusing words, I do believe in the duality theory.
Who said there can only be one.
And what did they mean by one?



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 

Yes, I got the feeling he was saying we were both man and women in one body.

Just thinking briefly about what our world would be like if we did have only one gender is mind boggling.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by dizziedame
 


I think it would be a better world personally.

Though none of us will see it, we can dream, lol



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Who's on first. What's on second. And Where's on third. I'm sorry Mabus. I read it twice and was more confused the second time. Perhaps you could tighten it a bit.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Mabus
 


this is what i think you mean. Everyone has there innerthoughts and feelings and beliefs - Your very own private self. You also have the self that if put upon you by society and civilization, The way you are meant to act. Therefore the person you see is in the first instance someonce you just just on observance - you do not know them. Beacuase you do not know them they appear as part of the populas that has for a moment stood out - what you no is limited yet you may allready have a subconious feeling of knowing them through stereotype. They do not know you either so there we have the society face. You can get to know your family and freinds and they will think they know you and they will to a ceratin degree. You will start to take them forgranted in most cases as you feel subconsiously do not feel curious about them, you know them or you think you do. I think this is why that divorce is sso high and why many people aren't getting married. basuse they think there could be something else better than what they have. They let go to what they have and grab something new and shiny only to watch it fade again, then hey here comes another shiny soul. It is a lesson to learn and think why am i really unhappy , what is the source and tackle that rather than giving up. Like desiding to get a new car or get you trustly old banger fixed - again. What ever you say and do on the outside is what other people see. Whether is is how you really feel or not, it is what is perceived and is how people judge you. The real you is the internal you. Some people surpress the real you, others Express it. That is really down to yourselves.

I have added the following link to a few of my posts now, not intentianlly it just seems to somehow to keep relating to what i am posting.

www.i-am-everyone.co.uk...

[edit on 11-10-2008 by MCoG1980]



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dizziedame
reply to post by Mabus
 

When we say mankind we don't really mean just 'man'. We are including man and woman. I see duality there.

Are you saying man is woman and woman is man? We are different but are also the same?

I see more than duality. It has to do with the perception of different individuals. Each man/woman can 'see' a different persona than the others seeing you you. It would depend on the situation at that given moment in time.

Mabus, give me a little more information to work with.


Mankind (Man) is indeed with a pair (a men and a women) apart. That pair is many being more specific apart pairs which be further into different specifications.

There can be a pair that is a feminine look and masculine manner. And vise versa. And a mix or blend where the manner is, in and out, mascluline and feminine on different things. But the manner is much more than just feminine or masculine. It can be a lot. Clever, clumbsy, etc. The manner can go on expressing other aspects that are neither feminine or masculine defined.

But a look and manner, both a whatsoever and whosoever, is a II.

Yeah, each sees and reads everything differently. Each likes and prefers things differently.

If two, both a women, like a men... They like a men differently for different things how they differently see those things. And they both like a men for different reasons.

But it still remains that a man (Mankind) has no allowance for revealing a 'first and last and original' any II to any other. So whatsoever and whosoever, say, both a women like is just tricked out images with the orginal mankind (single) only. Basically, mankind conceals the aliens we are to each other. For if we could see each other outside image, we'd either see the truely hideous or the truely beautiful, and only end up damning each other. Sort of like somebody beautiful having somebody hideous pursuiting a relationship with them. Or sort of like somebody seeing somebody so hideous that they act for killing that somebody.

For now we play along with original single mankind which is allowing only the images of us to get broadcast forthward. And, know, the images are deceptions either which way.

SomeII vs someone? SomeII is technically correct, and is being somebody since not even a whole mankind body front, though might can be it remotely. Mankind is a medium realm world. Outside mankind are two places: the far blessed state and the far damned state.

[edit on 11-10-2008 by Mabus]



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MCoG1980
 




It is so the case indeed.

All this we see is image here. What we leave impressed in other's perceptions they can not truely get (grasp) or can be decieved with, in how a previous, and always truely unknowable manner intended or intended not.

[edit on 11-10-2008 by Mabus]



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Take a wooden chair...

It has a wood look.

And it has more than a certain manner: It has a sturdy and a 'for' positioning and a burnable manner. Such things can be called its manner or such things the manner be called its manners, though, in basic, those many things are not outside "manner". Basically, the wooden chair has a multiple manner or an multi-purpose manner. It's the person to percieve, differently from the next person, what purpose the chair is to be used for, like to their situation. They may want to use the wooden chair for the purpsoe of making a fire only in how they see it, while the next person may want to use the wooden chair for the purpose in how they see it for just positioning it outside on their porch.

So a II is a look and manner. And a look can be looks still a look. And a manner can be manners still a manner.

Basic and specific are a duality casing. Outside that duality is the in general. In general scoops everyting into a single category. Example: Mankind in general know not the universe. Didnt even have to include "in general" in the sentence example to know off the back that the mankind, implied, is in general.


[edit on 11-10-2008 by Mabus]


On a look and manner...

A: Image wise: 'A II' ('A men') may be a rough look and guilty manner.

B: Same 'first and last and original' wise: 'A II' ('A men') may be a smooth look and innocent manner.

Or...

A: Image wise: 'A women' ('A II') may be a sexy look and ugly manner.

B: Same 'first and last and original' wise: 'A women' ('A II') may be a ugly look and ugly manner.

^^The image any II can put forth to decieve on purpose or to not decieve on purpose. And/or the image seen, no matter the purpose or non-purpose, can be precieved differently by others.

[edit on 11-10-2008 by Mabus]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by dizziedame
Just thinking briefly about what our world would be like if we did have only one gender is mind boggling.


Well for one, there goes my favorite hobby.

And also we would probably be bored out of our wits because there would be no drama.

 


reply to post by Mabus
 


I know what the problem is.
Your singulars and plurals are all in a bunch which causes confusion.
Saying 'a men' for example (aside from making everyone think about Sunday school), is confusing to understand what exactly you mean.

[edit on 12-10-2008 by TruthParadox]





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum