It was always going to happen.

a reply to: valiant

a reply to: Layaly

The OP is gonna love that

last one..



mods please review

Its a rant.. so.. rant and love .. Today I don't feel thankful or loving..

a reply to: Layaly

It's ok let it all out, you're on a roll

you should continue to rant for 6 more hours and give yourself a heart attack

a reply to: Mousygretchen

Thanks for the well wishes.

originally posted by: valiant
a reply to: Layaly

The OP is gonna love that

Anyone who thinks that what they themselves think is only an opinion is one who has resolved to not discover the truth.

If you have an opinion about something that you don't understand, discard it, and go understand.

I see why the quote, however. It appears to me that it is a miracle for anyone to choose to be simple, honest, and unbiased.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Thank you ladyinwaiting. Two here have encouraged me a little. Thank you.

originally posted by: valiant
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Opinions aren't allowed in this thread, less they fall inline with the OP of course!

Opinions are useless. Facts are helpful. If you have an opinion about the future, then you haven't learned the past.

I think it was the Bernie Sanders comments that other posters objected to, and other points which tended to sound a little Ayn Randish --- those sentiments I'm not a great fan of either. I tended to overlook the political aspects of the OP last night when I posted, and I do as well today. Not in much of a mood lately to talk politics.

My focus on your posts tended to be on these kinds of comments:

As well, a man in a cave serves mostly himself. But a man in the town can serve those in need. What is the point of going and living in a cave until it becomes your mausoleum? What has been gained?

and....there are other comments regarding friendship, family, hard work and love, that I admired, but I won't quote them all.

you are too busy working to pay the bills because you haven't yet figured out that this is not all there is to life, then you won't have the freedom to make more money to pay the bills and also to help others. As well, you won't have the freedom to determine what the whole point of what you're doing really is

You appreciate living a "life of the mind" and it shows. I like that about you. You are insightful and value ideas.

HOWEVER! lol, I imagine we will tend to be very much apart on political ideologies and actions, as well as candidates, and you might well count me in among what you refer to as the "minions". As far as Bernie Sanders goes, I don't personally believe he has a chance to win the nomination, much less the office itself, but I do very much value his ideas, and hope he 'rubs off' on some of the other candidates. My two.

That being said, I did appreciate your insights on ........ life.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Not at all. I am not here to control thoughts. I appreciate you very much.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Interesting. I had seen the name thrown about, but never really delved into this Ayn Rand person. Decided to look her up.

There is a distinct comparison and contrast I would like to share here, from this page:

en.wikipedia.org...

Rand acknowledged Aristotle as her greatest influence[125] and remarked that in the history of philosophy she could only recommend "three A's"—Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand.[126] In a 1959 interview with Mike Wallace, when asked where her philosophy came from, she responded, "Out of my own mind, with the sole acknowledgement of a debt to Aristotle, the only philosopher who ever influenced me. I devised the rest of my philosophy myself."[127] However, she also found early inspiration in Friedrich Nietzsche,[128] and scholars have found indications of his influence in early notes from Rand's journals,[129] in passages from the first edition of We the Living (which Rand later revised),[130] and in her overall writing style.[131] However, by the time she wrote The Fountainhead, Rand had turned against Nietzsche's ideas,[132] and the extent of his influence on her even during her early years is disputed.[133] Among the philosophers Rand held in particular disdain was Immanuel Kant, whom she referred to as a "monster",[134] although philosophers George Walsh[135] and Fred Seddon[136] have argued that she misinterpreted Kant and exaggerated their differences.

Here are the likenesses: I came to my philosophy by myself as well, except I only have one particular individual that I can credit. Herein is found the split - my Philosopher is Jesus Christ.

As well, I believe Immanuel Kant was on to some truths that Ayn Rand was not willing to even contemplate. While Kant was still way off the mark, at least he put forth a little effort.

They both couldn't wrap their head around "God".

I find there to be an extreme lack of understanding at the most basic level here. Firstly, God is living. Therefore, to assume God is some inanimate object that should easily be scientifically observed at will is entirely foolish. There are human beings that can't be found except by those they desire to find them. How hard could that possibly be for God to do?

As well, just because you haven't experienced something, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. There are people who have experienced God. I have. So when little minds say, "God doesn't exist", it's just laughable and it reveals the ignorance of people very quickly. It's the most effortless way to know if someone is ignorant or not. And anyone who really does believe in God won't be offended by that, but will only feel sorry for them. It would be like me saying to you, "I don't think you exist." There is no arguing with such delusion.

Both Ayn and Immanuel, if they had recognized Jesus Christ, their values would have actually been almost entirely aligned. If you go read between what each person thinks, they're saying quite the same things with a different character.

Ayn is right by saying the individual comes first. It takes pennies to make a dollar. If you have 100 pennies and one of them has gigantic hole in the middle, then you only have 99.

Ayn is not right by saying that one should live life only for their self. There is no point to living then.

Immanuel Kant was right by saying that there is intuition. He teetered between whether intuition was physical or metaphysical. Obviously, intuition is actually just the physical mind working coherently with the spiritual in order to obtain knowledge much more quickly.

Immanuel Kant was wrong because he didn't realize that his "Copernican Notion" implied something that which he neglected to realize: That to contemplate God therefore means that God is real to the subject because, according to himself, one does not simply interact objectively.

I am not for the cowboy capitalists with platinum buckles. I think the greedy are greedy. I am for independence.
I am not for the new-age grown-ups in bibs either. I think the lazy are lazy. I am for independence.

One sees the world the way it is, but chooses to use it to their advantage when they figure it out.
The other doesn't understand one thing at all about the world, but chooses to use the former's misdeeds against the world in favor of their own laziness.

Everyone with a brain and a heart is caught in the middle. I wonder how many are left after all of the polarization.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

I find there to be an extreme lack of understanding at the most basic level here. Firstly, God is living. Therefore, to assume God is some inanimate object that should easily be scientifically observed at will is entirely foolish. There are human beings that can't be found except by those they desire to find them. How hard could that possibly be for God to do?

As well, just because you haven't experienced something, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

What does that mean, "God is Living"??? What other choice is there???

I don't think anyone assumes "God is inanimate" or an object as far as scientific observation is concerned. But who knows, maybe some people do think of God that way and I've just never heard of it. Obviously that would make evidence of him rather easy to show. The problem is the fact that from a scientific POV there isn't any observable evidence to be found whether he's living or not.

That's true that just because you haven't experienced something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I've never experienced Paris but I'm sure it's there even without me seeing it first hand. The difference with God though is that other than simply taking someones word for it, if you haven't experienced him there isn't any other reason to believe he exists. Unlike Paris which still has evidence to share with others about it's existence, the same can't be done for God.

a reply to: mOjOm

Don't ask me, "What other choice is there?" Ask the ones who continually fall short of coming to understanding. I'm the one who said it.

As long as science continues without understanding, it will continue to make the same mistakes - one, for example, being that photons are still considered particles of electromagnetic energy instead of vehicles of electromagnetic energy. It's obvious, but still completely neglected. Another, that there was a beginning to an infinite universe. That's a form of misunderstanding to which I can barely relate. Either there is a beginning to a finite matrix, or there is no beginning. Of course, we know there must be a beginning because there are changes. There would not be changes within an infinite universe. Therefore, Einstein was right for his desire. This is a finite universe. This implies that there is an outside. This implies the rules of the inside are not reality, but are a subset of the true natural guides. Planck said that could only be one singularity in the entire universe. If the universe is as the physicists say, then that is true. But if it is not as they say, but it is as I say, then they are allowed to have multiple black holes, because the finite can borrow from the infinite. That implies a relationship between the interior and the exterior. Therefore, the rules of the interior are VARIABLE.

I'll be back later. Work. Enjoy.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
As long as science continues without understanding, it will continue to make the same mistakes - one, for example, being that photons are still considered particles of electromagnetic energy instead of vehicles of electromagnetic energy.

What do you mean photons are vehicles rather than particles??? What is the difference between a vehicle and particle exactly???

Another, that there was a beginning to an infinite universe.....

I agree, we are living in a finite universe. I'd also agree that it implies all kinds of interesting possibilities. So by saying that the interior is variable because it can borrow from outside itself that our universe as a whole should be considered an open system???

These are some pretty interesting ideas. I'd like to hear more of your thoughts about this if possible. Have you expanded more on these ideas with more detailed examples and theories??? (I suppose we might have to make a new thread to discuss them though so we don't cause a derailment on this one.)

a reply to: mOjOm

No. NO worries. This is all a part of my rant: "It was always going to happen."

Think about it. In an infinite universe, nothing happens. In a finite universe, the world is a set of dominoes and the "vector" (for lack of a better word, for me, if you know a better one...) of the energy of the catalyst determined the passage of this universe.

Just ranting.

Before I continue, long day of wiping everyone's butt. I feel sorry for Jesus. He had to clean all of our crap. I only have to clean the crap of some people. But... it's some crap. Let me tell you. It's some dang friggin' crap.

Will do more tomorrow. Tired.

To clarify: The difference between the vehicle and the driver must be understood.

If I hit a tennis ball, and someone calls that tennis ball "Tarzan", then they would be wrong. The tennis ball is the vehicle for the energy that I put out. Of course, the energy read out could not be determined without the tennis ball. The racket matters, too.

But the energy has a source. The particle is not the source. It is the vehicle.

That's the point.

As long as science continues to judge light by its vehicle, it will never determine the reality of its source.

An intelligent person could deduce a lot about me based upon the tennis ball I hit, yes indeed. But they would not be able to deduce as accurately unless they learned about ME.

Goodnight, will explain much more tomorrow. Too tired. Love.

I've got a little time to go further into this.

Now if nothing happens in an infinite universe, then how can the finite borrow from the infinite?

Because the infinite universe can simply be defined as "potential". That's all.

So when the finite borrows from the infinite, what you get is variable results.

How can something finite be within that which is infinite? Conversion.

When potential becomes real, that brings the infinite into the finite.

There is absolutely no need for quantum mechanics. This is real, not imagined.

The reason why math will hold scientists back is because math can only function in the finite. Math is not suited for the infinite. Therefore, it will always miss an infinite part of the equation... or rather, it will always be wrong as far as developing a flawless model. Therefore, anyone who requires mathematical proofs will always be hindered.

Put a number on infinity.

I had asked someone in another thread to calculate the entire potential energy of the universe. This is a question based upon classical reasoning.

Of course, it would seem the thought fails in the narrow mind.

You don't calculate the entire potential energy of the universe because potential is the infinite that is within and without the finite universe.

Potential is the source of electromagnetic energy. Photons are the vehicle.

In that respect, you could view a star as a portal between the infinite and the finite. Of course, since it seems to be possible for a massive object to collapse into a singularity, therefore, it should not be a far stretch to understand that point (get it?).

Now if you consider this reality, then you will see what that really means for us if we were to ever finally realize these things.

IT would mean that what we have considered miracles are actually physically and realistically possible.

Teleportation: Because the infinite obviously is comprised of every possible arrangement, then teleportation is simply the act of entering into the infinite universe and appearing wherever one pleased (in the infinite universe, speed is non-existent, boundaries are non-existent, therefore, a simple thought brings the desire instantly).

Healing: Because the infinite obviously is comprised of every possible arrangement, then healing is simply the act of bringing alignment to that which is misaligned. There is nothing more orderly than the infinite, for there is no change.

On that topic, there have been those who claim that infinite number of possibilities means that there is a potential for God and potential for no God.

That's simply illogical thinking.

The infinite IS God. Existence relies upon that. Considering existence must exist, because if it didn't there would be no contrast by which to say that it does not exist, it's obvious existence is infinite. Therefore, God Is Existence.

All possibilities are in and of the infinite, therefore, they are of God.

But the mortal mind barely tends to realize what infinite actually means, but instead uses limited vocabulary to offer meaning where it is not.

Therefore, when considering these things, it is important to realize what the source of light is.

If the source of electromagnetic energy is potential, and potential is the whole of the infinite, and the infinite is God, then it becomes quite obvious that God is the source of light.

Now man has tapped into that power a little bit, but only on the surface. It seems to me that if it is very easy for me to come to these conclusions, then of course, others must have.

Indeed, they may be the ones using the LHC.

But potential does not have to offer all things to the finite. If they end up scratching beneath the surface, I'm afraid it will be because they were allowed to, and I'm also afraid that they wouldn't want to open up that can of invisible worms.

Our minds are given the ability to access the infinite. We however will be unable to create a machine that has an imagination which interacts with reality, because that's what our bodies are. Some have realized this. Many haven't really come to a full understanding of what that actually means.

IF our bodies are machines, then we are something else.

Our bodies are vehicles. That means there is a driver inside. So they try to determine the seat of the driver and they still can't completely say that the driver sits in the brain.

They inspect the battery of the vehicle, the wires, the computer system, the intake, the exhaust, and so on. But they can never find the driver's side door. They've only ever been looking under the hood.

But with this vehicle, the driver's side door is in the potential. It's not in the finite. And from the potential is sent the energy which resides within the finite.

Now because potential is infinite, of course, therefore, we have personality. Personality only comes from the infinite. It cannot come from the finite. That's obvious because no two people are 100% copies of each other. And though when the bodies reproduce, many characteristics are shared with the new one, there is still personality that differs wildly, in some way.

And yet, interestingly enough, all of the personalities of all of the human beings that ever lived are also all SO INCREDIBLY CLOSE. This further proves the character of our mind and its derivation from the infinite. The infinite is ordered because it is limitless. There can not be disorder in something which is infinite. SO disorder therefore comes from the body and not from the mind. Therefore, the finite is found struggling against the infinite because the finite changes and desires either for a temporary change to settle into something better into which it may rest, or it desires no change at all so that it may rest. But it won't rest because it is timed. The finite exists because of decomposition.

Time is a filter for the infinite. That which comes into the finite from the infinite must be filtered through the temporal fence. Therefore, the infinite, when it comes into this universe, CAN BE VIEWED TEMPORALLY AND PHYSICALLY. But it will not at all reflect the reality of how the infinite is in its own place. The character of it will be obvious as to its limitless potential, and yet its knowing that time only has power over the vessel and not over itself. But as for any pattern to be discerned as to our definition of an image, that would be a fool's errand. Consider this: Look at the sky. Now see a large black hole open up. Now watch as a black as oil liquid-like tornado touches the ground, whipping in and out of an "S" shape.

That's a form of the infinite coming into the finite. That is not what the infinite is, but in the finite, it chose to have an image by passing through the temporal filter. The observer does not have a choice as to what perspective he or she has. That is entirely and utterly up to the infinite, for from it comes forth all observation.

More later. Enjoy.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

Nope

I don't agree with you at all. We may be down, but we sure as hell aren't out, nor done for that matter.

Is my country a trainwreck? Yeah, sometimes. The laughing stock? Sometimes. Would you rather live in Cuba, North Korea, Russia?

Maybe I have a different perspective because of my 20 years of military service.

Of course you had to drag politics into it by whining about Bernie Sanders. Sorry you feel that way.

If you think this country isn't good enough for you, perhaps you should move to some other country.

a reply to: ChiefD

Your 20 years of service are in vain.

If you had read, you would have seen how I made a clear distinction between politics and reality. You would have seen how I defend America against policy that is set out to destroy it. That is not politics. That is reality. But, even so, if I were to speak about what is considered politics, I am allowed. I am one of The People. I am allowed to be in politics, to develop conclusions regarding politics, to participate in politics, and to freely speak as I please about politics.

Your 20 years of service are in vain because your words do not reflect the Constitution, but rather reflect that of the very disease which is overwhelming this nation.

I am the one standing up for America between you and I.

America will not be the greatest for long. Please do not be like the unwise toddler that thinks his parents will never grow old and die. Every nation has its end. It just happens to be that this will be the most important end of the millennium.

This is reality. This is not my desire.

I could say my desire is that America becomes free again. That would be nice for me. That might become nice for my children. But then what about my grandchildren? What will they have to suffer? And their own? And theirs?

Someone is going to suffer the downfall of this nation. If I imagine my great-grandson or granddaughter as a little infant when hell breaks loose, it bothers me to think that I could enjoy this life and that my progeny would have to suffer the terrible inevitability that is death of the individual, the community, the nation, and its laws.

Of course, that is not necessarily a healthy fear.

One who can see inevitability in the time line with love has lots of heart ache. Except I also have wisdom from outside that fear that helps me. I know that America is iron mixed with miry clay. I know that it is the wilderness into which the woman soared like an eagle. I know that its citizens are the son which could have been swallowed up by the dragon, but the flood came and devoured his minions. This was only for some time.

The inevitable is coming. You need to figure out where you're going to be. In the meantime, you should open your eyes and see that the country you defended in vain is taking on the mentality of those against whom you fought.

Well, if you look at the course of America. It's very reminiscent of the Old Roman Empire.

Perpetual warfare

Money lenders and merchants (today's banks and corporations) fingers mingled in the political system. Bribery and such.

Overly diversified

I have come to the conclusion that back when I heard that America was an "experiment," that's exactly what was meant. I used to think "Great American Experiment" was just a figure of speech. However, as I have gotten older, I have come to the disturbing conclusion that that's literally all it has ever been and not even one that was even meant to last as long as it has.
I know that's not what anyone wants to hear or believe, but it certainly appears to be fact.