I am worried about the implications of recent "trends" in the treatment of scientific topics by science journalists. The new topic seems to be the treatment of "scientific knowledge" by science journalists, especially those writing for popular publications.
It seems that the assumption is that knowledge is self-evident and must be accepted without question. The treatment of the topic of the power of scientific knowledge to alter our lives is especially worrying because it seems to me that, by putting a more positive spin on the value of knowledge, the mainstream media is ignoring the possibility that scientific knowledge can be twisted to serve political or commercial interests.
I am worried about the implications of...the treatment of "scientific knowledge"
Knowledge represents perceived inspiration; not suggested information. Nature offers (balance); those within consent (choice). Everything suggested under the umbrella of scientism represents choice suggests (information); choice consents to submit to suggested choices; while ignoring balance.
The corruption of science (to know aka to perceive) into scientism (submisson to suggested) operates underneath anything suggested. Your choice needs to response to balance (need/want); while resisting suggested conflict (want vs not want). One does not need suggested information; on needs perceived inspiration.
All these groups formed under scientism and any other suggested -isms; represent idol worshipers, an idol represents suggested information over perceived inspiration.
Example....A "cow" represents form (life) within flow (inception towards death), and we can perceive the behavior of form within flow as needed inspiration to respond to by choice; which allows us to grow our understanding of everything perceived. Nature communicates inspiration by moving us.
The word "cow" represents a suggested meaning (idol) for the form within flow; which when consented to by choice (believing and not believing); allows those who suggested the word "cow" to define; redefine; corrupt or withhold at will the meaning of the idol "cow" for all those attached to it. Nature does not brand any information; it moves everything within itself as perceivable inspiration.
All words; all languages represent suggested spell-craft by the few as idolized meaning for the many; as to deceive them to ignore to respond by choice (evaluation) to real meaning of balance (value) within movement.
It seems that the assumption is that knowledge is self-evident and must be accepted without question.
It is the ignorance of the many towards knowledge (perception of inspiration) being self evident; to instead consent to believe that the idol "knowledge" (suggested information) is self evident. It is our consent to the suggested word "knowledge" that gives the parasitic few the power to define its suggested meaning against the many.
the value of knowledge
Perceived knowledge represents value; responding choice represents evaluation. All suggested knowledge represents devaluation of evaluation by choice; by misusing choice to submit to the suggested choices of others.
the mainstream media
As form (life) within flow (inception towards death); flow represents the main stream of all perceivable; while media (Latin medius; middle) represents the middlemen between perceived inspiration and choice of reaction. Those parasitic middlemen represents the suggested information by the few towards the consenting choice of the ignorant many. The choice of want over need.
to serve political or commercial interests.
a) the highest value within ALL existence represents ONEs evaluation thereof. Suggesting a substitute value (money) tricks one to consent to devalue ONEs evaluation of ALL existence. How? By submitting to the will of others for suggested value.
b) representative government aka govern (to control) and ment (from mens; mind) represents ignoring free will of choice for representative choices suggested by others. Each needs to respond as choice to balance and ignoring to do so does not give choice away; it just corrupts understanding of being choice within balance, hence being mind controlled by the will of others.
c) if one would have a choice to evaluate ALL existence (representative government), one needs to evaluate all suggestions (suggested values) that are presented as alternatives. One cannot have a choice without evaluation; hence one needs to be choice in order to be responsible for one's choices. One cannot be responsible for one's choices without choosing to be responsible. One cannot choose to be responsible for one's choices without having a choice.
d) there is NO "government" for any people; there is only a government of one's own choices. All people need to be responsible for their own choices. Each one needs
if one would have a choice to evaluate ALL existence (representative government)
Representative government represents choice of want towards suggestion by choice of other ones, while ignoring to evaluate ALL.
one needs to evaluate all suggestions (suggested values) that are presented as alternatives.
One evaluates suggestions (wants aka temptations) by either resisting to consent to them or falling for them and then get inspired by the consequences thereof (so far the many chose to stay ignorant; while wanting more suggestions).
As form; there's no alternative for flow. Also; ALTERN'ATIVE, adjective - "offering a choice of two things"...there's the two again.
One cannot have a choice without evaluation
You try to evaluate want vs not want; which ignores that you already evaluated need/want (balance); while choosing to ignore need for want. Evaluating the choices of others already represents the devaluation of ones own choice in response to balance.
Example: a suggested pile of poop. Want vs not want; while ignoring need. If one consents to a suggested pile of poop; by either wanting or not wanting it; both sides will reasoning about the suggested poop. That's not evaluation; that's self devaluation.
Choice already represents evaluation in response to the value of balance. Other suggested choices do not represent value; the behavior of other choices in response to balance represents perceived value (inspiration)...if one adapts to it.
One cannot be responsible for one's choices without choosing to be responsible
Choice represents "response" to balance. The status quo of choice represents "responsibility" aka self sustenance as choice within balance; yet balance requires both need (self sustenance) and want (temptation to ignore need).
It's not about choosing responsibility; it's about struggling to resist shirking responsibility through ignorance.
there is only a government of one's own choices.
Yep; hence govern (control) and ment (form mens; mind) by suggestion in exchange for consent by voting for representatives aka choice shirking responsibility onto suggested choice of others.
Nature operates on real (perceived) inspiration by those attached to it, and it is not limited by suggested words; to operate on suggested information.
One does not need to know; one needs to know what one chooses to believe; one needs to respond to real balance; one needs to respond to real inspiration.
The word "nature" represents a suggested meaning (idol) for the balance within movement; which when consented to by choice (believing and not believing); allows those who suggested the word "nature" to define; redefine; corrupt or withhold at will the meaning of the idol "
Nature operates on real (perceived) inspiration by those attached to it, and it is not limited by suggested words; to operate on suggested information.
a) nature represents energy (internal power); the internal balance of nature represents flow (loss) and form (growth). So nature operates as flow/form; we operate as form within flow aka in response to it. For each ONE of us; ALL perceived represents inspiration (need) and temptation (want) aka balance for choice.
b) a word shaped out of perceived sound represents idolized meaning; which is what suggestions represent. Consenting to a suggestion made by the choice of others represents the choice of want over need aka ignorance of balance.
c) as choice you represent the responsibility to respond to balance (hence need); while all consented to suggestions represents ignorance of need (hence want). Any suggestion towards your choice represents want or not want; and whichever you choose will cause want vs no want (conflict of reason). Reason represents the suggested rebranding of ignorance; which tricks us to indulge in reasoning about consequences of ignorance.
One does not need to know
Knowledge represents perception aka input by flow into form. Each ONE needs to adapt to perceived input form ALL; because ONE represents a response to ALL.
When you use "not need" you imply nothingness defining need aka ignorance of everything (ALL) defining need.
one needs to know what one chooses to believe
Choice as a response to balance does not need to believe anything suggested; it needs to adapt by to everything perceived. To believe implies to submit choice ; therefore to restrict responsibility through ignorance (want to believe over need to response).
Go at your basic needs (breathing; drinking; eating and sheltering)...what does one need to believe about them?
If flow (inception towards death); then form (life). If balance; then choice. Implication (if/then) represents balance; reason (want vs not want; true vs false; good vs bad; believing vs not believing etc.) represents imbalance caused by ignorance of balance.
If question for choice (want vs not want); then balance (need/want) came before and want over need (ignorance) was chosen.
need/want (if/then) = need (balance) over want (imbalance)
Need/want represents "for" choice; if/then implies "as" flow/form. The latter represents ones positioning; the former ones response to it.
What matter for balance/imbalance is ones perspective of being the imbalance(form) within the balance (flow) aka the temporary chaos (form) out of ongoing order (flow).
Flow causes momentum (balance); form reacts to balance; while being enclosed within momentum of flow. Only within momentum can temporary form sustain; for it represents a resistance to the velocity of flow.
good/bad (if/then) = good (balance) over bad (imbalance)
Good and bad implies good versus bad; hence not being a balance; but an imbalance caused by choice (want vs not want in ignorance of need). Nature does not define good or bad; we are being tricked by labeling wants (temptations). Label deceive us to ignore momentum; hence "this apple is good" leading to "this apple is bad" after a short while within momentum.
We worship the idols of suggested meaning (good vs bad); while a) reasoning about it against each other; b) while ignoring different perspectives (victim perceives bad; perpetrator perceives good) and c) while at will of those who made the suggestion; and who deliberately contradict whatever we believe; just to keep us reasoning about it.
Truth/false (if/then) = truth (balance) over false (imbalance)
Same here...true vs false represents choices response (want vs not want) upon suggestions from others; while ignoring the need to adapt to balance. Flow/form implies that we are within ongoing movement; which implies energy, and neither is there such a state as false within energy; it also doesn't proclaim any true states; only constant change.
Choice represents response to balance; balance represents momentum of flow and flow represents energies internal loss of potentiality.
Balance (need/want/good/true/false) is the reason
Only need/want are defined by nature; while good vs bad and true vs false represents suggested rebranding of want vs not want; which represents the conflict of reason.
Example: left vs right (politics) represents reason; choosing to take a step to the left; implies coming from a right and vice verse; hence left/right balance. It's out consent to the words "left and right" that allow others to attach meaning to them (politics); which is then used to divide us by reason.
Now make a step to the left; which implies coming from a right; while trying to reason against it...doesn't work; for one can only reason about want vs not want; not over need; unless ignored.
Choice/choice in ignorance of balance (to bind anew) creates choice/choice in ignorance of balance. The essence of the religion (to bind anew) is not the original bond, but the will to submit to others.
The original bond under natural law represents offer/consent. As form (life) within flow (inception towards death) we each represent choice (consent) within balance (offer). To bind anew implies choice consenting to suggested choices of others aka to submit to the will of others.
In short: original bond represents balance/choice; religion (to bind anew) represents choice
In short: original bond represents balance/choice; religion (to bind anew) represents choice
Just choice implies without balance, yet as choice one represents the response to balance aka being within balance with the choice to either adhere to it or ignore it. Ignorance (imbalance) represents a state within balance.
"free" will of choice represents response to the "dom"inance of balance. Therefore; free-dom implies being free within being dominated. The suggested choices of others deceive us to ignore balance; but it's always there; while our choice of want over need imbalances us.
we are never free to choose what we want over what we need
Choice (free); Balance (dominance)...that's the system of free-dom we respond to, so having choice (need/want) implies being "free" within dominance of balance. Choosing want of need (ignorance) corrupts ones understanding of this system; which is why one can get to the point of feeling imprisoned within oneself (me against the world allegory). It's not that we lose freedom; it's that we corrupt our understanding of what freedom means.
Have a sleight of hand from a videogame called Nier..."Rules do not exist to bind you, but so that you may know your freedoms".
to grow outside its nature...to be within your nature.
Individual self sustenance leads to collective self sustenance. The seed of the tree represents the ecosystem surrounding it that also hosts you. Understanding the in-between represents first gaining self discernment as ONE within ALL; then leads to the understanding of the ONEness of ALL; which allows the growth of potential.
In short...understanding that differentiation (ONEs) represent an expression of sameness (ALL) is where one balances between within/outside for growth. Understanding sameness; still represents being within differentiation.
SCI'ENCE, noun [Latin scientia, from scio, to know.] + KNOW, verb transitive [Latin nosco, cognosco.] - "to perceive".
What if consent to suggested scientism corrupts understanding of perceived knowledge?
I am worried about the implications of recent "trends" in the treatment of scientific topics by science journalists. The new topic seems to be the treatment of "scientific knowledge" by science journalists, especially those writing for popular publications.
It seems that the assumption is that knowledge is self-evident and must be accepted without question. The treatment of the topic of the power of scientific knowledge to alter our lives is especially worrying because it seems to me that, by putting a more positive spin on the value of knowledge, the mainstream media is ignoring the possibility that scientific knowledge can be twisted to serve political or commercial interests.
Knowledge represents perceived inspiration; not suggested information. Nature offers (balance); those within consent (choice). Everything suggested under the umbrella of scientism represents choice suggests (information); choice consents to submit to suggested choices; while ignoring balance.
The corruption of science (to know aka to perceive) into scientism (submisson to suggested) operates underneath anything suggested. Your choice needs to response to balance (need/want); while resisting suggested conflict (want vs not want). One does not need suggested information; on needs perceived inspiration.
All these groups formed under scientism and any other suggested -isms; represent idol worshipers, an idol represents suggested information over perceived inspiration.
Example....A "cow" represents form (life) within flow (inception towards death), and we can perceive the behavior of form within flow as needed inspiration to respond to by choice; which allows us to grow our understanding of everything perceived. Nature communicates inspiration by moving us.
The word "cow" represents a suggested meaning (idol) for the form within flow; which when consented to by choice (believing and not believing); allows those who suggested the word "cow" to define; redefine; corrupt or withhold at will the meaning of the idol "cow" for all those attached to it. Nature does not brand any information; it moves everything within itself as perceivable inspiration.
All words; all languages represent suggested spell-craft by the few as idolized meaning for the many; as to deceive them to ignore to respond by choice (evaluation) to real meaning of balance (value) within movement.
It is the ignorance of the many towards knowledge (perception of inspiration) being self evident; to instead consent to believe that the idol "knowledge" (suggested information) is self evident. It is our consent to the suggested word "knowledge" that gives the parasitic few the power to define its suggested meaning against the many.
Perceived knowledge represents value; responding choice represents evaluation. All suggested knowledge represents devaluation of evaluation by choice; by misusing choice to submit to the suggested choices of others.
As form (life) within flow (inception towards death); flow represents the main stream of all perceivable; while media (Latin medius; middle) represents the middlemen between perceived inspiration and choice of reaction. Those parasitic middlemen represents the suggested information by the few towards the consenting choice of the ignorant many. The choice of want over need.
a) the highest value within ALL existence represents ONEs evaluation thereof. Suggesting a substitute value (money) tricks one to consent to devalue ONEs evaluation of ALL existence. How? By submitting to the will of others for suggested value.
b) representative government aka govern (to control) and ment (from mens; mind) represents ignoring free will of choice for representative choices suggested by others. Each needs to respond as choice to balance and ignoring to do so does not give choice away; it just corrupts understanding of being choice within balance, hence being mind controlled by the will of others.
c) if one would have a choice to evaluate ALL existence (representative government), one needs to evaluate all suggestions (suggested values) that are presented as alternatives. One cannot have a choice without evaluation; hence one needs to be choice in order to be responsible for one's choices. One cannot be responsible for one's choices without choosing to be responsible. One cannot choose to be responsible for one's choices without having a choice.
d) there is NO "government" for any people; there is only a government of one's own choices. All people need to be responsible for their own choices. Each one needs
I am fucking thrilled that you two Tardbots found each other. It's a match made in sheol.
Representative government represents choice of want towards suggestion by choice of other ones, while ignoring to evaluate ALL.
One evaluates suggestions (wants aka temptations) by either resisting to consent to them or falling for them and then get inspired by the consequences thereof (so far the many chose to stay ignorant; while wanting more suggestions).
As form; there's no alternative for flow. Also; ALTERN'ATIVE, adjective - "offering a choice of two things"...there's the two again.
You try to evaluate want vs not want; which ignores that you already evaluated need/want (balance); while choosing to ignore need for want. Evaluating the choices of others already represents the devaluation of ones own choice in response to balance.
Example: a suggested pile of poop. Want vs not want; while ignoring need. If one consents to a suggested pile of poop; by either wanting or not wanting it; both sides will reasoning about the suggested poop. That's not evaluation; that's self devaluation.
Choice already represents evaluation in response to the value of balance. Other suggested choices do not represent value; the behavior of other choices in response to balance represents perceived value (inspiration)...if one adapts to it.
Choice represents "response" to balance. The status quo of choice represents "responsibility" aka self sustenance as choice within balance; yet balance requires both need (self sustenance) and want (temptation to ignore need).
It's not about choosing responsibility; it's about struggling to resist shirking responsibility through ignorance.
Yep; hence govern (control) and ment (form mens; mind) by suggestion in exchange for consent by voting for representatives aka choice shirking responsibility onto suggested choice of others.
Nature operates on real (perceived) inspiration by those attached to it, and it is not limited by suggested words; to operate on suggested information.
One does not need to know; one needs to know what one chooses to believe; one needs to respond to real balance; one needs to respond to real inspiration.
The word "nature" represents a suggested meaning (idol) for the balance within movement; which when consented to by choice (believing and not believing); allows those who suggested the word "nature" to define; redefine; corrupt or withhold at will the meaning of the idol "
a) nature represents energy (internal power); the internal balance of nature represents flow (loss) and form (growth). So nature operates as flow/form; we operate as form within flow aka in response to it. For each ONE of us; ALL perceived represents inspiration (need) and temptation (want) aka balance for choice.
b) a word shaped out of perceived sound represents idolized meaning; which is what suggestions represent. Consenting to a suggestion made by the choice of others represents the choice of want over need aka ignorance of balance.
c) as choice you represent the responsibility to respond to balance (hence need); while all consented to suggestions represents ignorance of need (hence want). Any suggestion towards your choice represents want or not want; and whichever you choose will cause want vs no want (conflict of reason). Reason represents the suggested rebranding of ignorance; which tricks us to indulge in reasoning about consequences of ignorance.
Knowledge represents perception aka input by flow into form. Each ONE needs to adapt to perceived input form ALL; because ONE represents a response to ALL.
When you use "not need" you imply nothingness defining need aka ignorance of everything (ALL) defining need.
Choice as a response to balance does not need to believe anything suggested; it needs to adapt by to everything perceived. To believe implies to submit choice ; therefore to restrict responsibility through ignorance (want to believe over need to response).
Go at your basic needs (breathing; drinking; eating and sheltering)...what does one need to believe about them?
I do not answer what if questions.
If flow (inception towards death); then form (life). If balance; then choice. Implication (if/then) represents balance; reason (want vs not want; true vs false; good vs bad; believing vs not believing etc.) represents imbalance caused by ignorance of balance.
If question for choice (want vs not want); then balance (need/want) came before and want over need (ignorance) was chosen.
Want is from "to want" (not want); true is from "true" (false); good is from "good" (bad); and balance is from "balance" (imbalance).
To balance:
need/want (if/then) = need (balance) over want (imbalance)
good/bad (if/then) = good (balance) over bad (imbalance)
Truth/false (if/then) = truth (balance) over false (imbalance)
Balance (need/want/good/true/false) is the reason
Need/want represents "for" choice; if/then implies "as" flow/form. The latter represents ones positioning; the former ones response to it.
What matter for balance/imbalance is ones perspective of being the imbalance(form) within the balance (flow) aka the temporary chaos (form) out of ongoing order (flow).
Flow causes momentum (balance); form reacts to balance; while being enclosed within momentum of flow. Only within momentum can temporary form sustain; for it represents a resistance to the velocity of flow.
Good and bad implies good versus bad; hence not being a balance; but an imbalance caused by choice (want vs not want in ignorance of need). Nature does not define good or bad; we are being tricked by labeling wants (temptations). Label deceive us to ignore momentum; hence "this apple is good" leading to "this apple is bad" after a short while within momentum.
We worship the idols of suggested meaning (good vs bad); while a) reasoning about it against each other; b) while ignoring different perspectives (victim perceives bad; perpetrator perceives good) and c) while at will of those who made the suggestion; and who deliberately contradict whatever we believe; just to keep us reasoning about it.
Same here...true vs false represents choices response (want vs not want) upon suggestions from others; while ignoring the need to adapt to balance. Flow/form implies that we are within ongoing movement; which implies energy, and neither is there such a state as false within energy; it also doesn't proclaim any true states; only constant change.
Choice represents response to balance; balance represents momentum of flow and flow represents energies internal loss of potentiality.
Only need/want are defined by nature; while good vs bad and true vs false represents suggested rebranding of want vs not want; which represents the conflict of reason.
Example: left vs right (politics) represents reason; choosing to take a step to the left; implies coming from a right and vice verse; hence left/right balance. It's out consent to the words "left and right" that allow others to attach meaning to them (politics); which is then used to divide us by reason.
Now make a step to the left; which implies coming from a right; while trying to reason against it...doesn't work; for one can only reason about want vs not want; not over need; unless ignored.
Choice/choice in ignorance of balance (to bind anew) creates choice/choice in ignorance of balance. The essence of the religion (to bind anew) is not the original bond, but the will to submit to others.
The original bond under natural law represents offer/consent. As form (life) within flow (inception towards death) we each represent choice (consent) within balance (offer). To bind anew implies choice consenting to suggested choices of others aka to submit to the will of others.
In short: original bond represents balance/choice; religion (to bind anew) represents choice
Just choice implies without balance, yet as choice one represents the response to balance aka being within balance with the choice to either adhere to it or ignore it. Ignorance (imbalance) represents a state within balance.
"free" will of choice represents response to the "dom"inance of balance. Therefore; free-dom implies being free within being dominated. The suggested choices of others deceive us to ignore balance; but it's always there; while our choice of want over need imbalances us.
Therefore, we are free to choose what we want and need, but we are never free to choose what we want over what we need.
As the tree grows, it is only free to grow within its nature; and it is not free to grow outside its nature.
The choices we make are in balance, and the choices we make are within our nature.
If you want to be free, you must be in balance, and you must be within your nature.
Choice (free); Balance (dominance)...that's the system of free-dom we respond to, so having choice (need/want) implies being "free" within dominance of balance. Choosing want of need (ignorance) corrupts ones understanding of this system; which is why one can get to the point of feeling imprisoned within oneself (me against the world allegory). It's not that we lose freedom; it's that we corrupt our understanding of what freedom means.
Have a sleight of hand from a videogame called Nier..."Rules do not exist to bind you, but so that you may know your freedoms".
Individual self sustenance leads to collective self sustenance. The seed of the tree represents the ecosystem surrounding it that also hosts you. Understanding the in-between represents first gaining self discernment as ONE within ALL; then leads to the understanding of the ONEness of ALL; which allows the growth of potential.
In short...understanding that differentiation (ONEs) represent an expression of sameness (ALL) is where one balances between within/outside for growth. Understanding sameness; still represents being within differentiation.