All suggested math is based on 0 aka an affixed state to count from; which tempts those counting to ignore being the 1 (choice) within ALL (balance). Math tempts ONE to seek solutions to suggested problems; while ignoring that being moved from inception towards death represents the solution and that each ONE within represents the resistance to being solved aka transmuted back to base.
Mistaken on all fronts.
Math was used by many archaic cultures which did NOT use a zero. It is based on knowledge of objects, one object plus another and so on... this does not require the idea of zero despite it following logically.
Differentials, such as the one I wrote, compare change, zero is not fundamental.
(Have fun with mostly Greek roots instead of Latin ones this time, I noticed you skipped 'etymology' and only mention the Latin root words...)
Within a balance based system...the suggested nothing represents 0 (ones ignorance of balance), while the perceivable everything represents 1 (one perceiving the oneness of all from within balance).
It is based on knowledge of objects, one object plus another and so on..
a) PLUS (Latin more) - "addition" tempts to ignore that the ones perceiving cannot add anything to all perceivable. Each ones growth is being transmuted out of all loss. That's once again suggested creationism (implies out of nothing) over perceivable transmutation (implies out of everything).
b) counting represents yet another deception since there's no such thing as a perceivable "two" within oneness (energy). All perceivable differentiation (into the perceiving ones) represents self differentiation of oneness into ones. Counting implies by choice; while suggesting counted as "two" represents tempting others to ignore perceivable differences for suggested sameness. The parasitic few utilize E Pluribus Unum (out of many one) to tempt the many into consenting to mix perceivable differences back together; hence corrupting perceivable inspiration needed for self sustenance.
Furthermore; NUM'BER; noun - "the designation of a unit" implies unitas - "the state of being one; oneness". Sleight of hand for counting: hook-nosed vampire in Sesame-Street: "I'm the Count; would you like to count with me?" We're being tempted by suggestion to count; to seek solutions; to solve problems; to pretend to add etc. Those who ignore the only ONE unit can be buried under suggested numbers.
c) form (living) represents the object within objectifying flow (dying). Ask yourself if the living within the process of dying need to count the breathes they take or if they need to adapt to being moved? Same for thirst and hunger...it's all about the balance of "enough"; not about counting sips and bites.
Math was used by many archaic cultures...based on knowledge of objects
You got anything on the oldest forms of MATH, noun - "a mowing; as in aftermath"?
Differentials, such as the one I wrote, compare change
Within a suggested confinement instead of from the perspective of ONE (perceiving) as the center of ALL (perceivable). The measured changes are (as far as I know) based on suggested sources of motion; which tempts to ignore that form represents the response to being moved; hence re-movement and the resulting struggle to sustain self within that.
a) if you suggest others to be "AI"; then you perpetuate dehumanization, hence pushing the transhumanism agenda of exchanging the 1 (perceivable inspiration) with 0 (suggested information).
b) I usually stick to Latin to Pig-Latin (English) when stripping aside ongoing revisionism. Greek to Latin hasn't inspired me that much; since the ignorance of the many is bound to English as the one world slave language, as suggested to them by the few, and also I already comprehend the perceptible sound as the foundation for every suggested word shaped out of it.
I'm always game to go over the rhetorical tricks within Latin; Greek; Norse; Sumerian etc. but so far reverse engineering deceptions (words) is less effective than growing comprehension by adapting to the perceptible origin (sound). If you have some ancient stuff to share; then by all means, express it.
c) what if nature sets "free will of choice" as the center of the operating system (balance); while other choices are suggesting programs (written information) to domesticate free will of choice by tempting it to consent to suggested information over perceivable inspiration?
Thank you for a human response, apologies for the tactic I used to prompt it.
If you have not read this before, I think you will enjoy this essay, it was written by George Orwell about the used of Latin, Greek and Germano-English words in writing and addresses thoughts you may find interesting:
Do not fall into the trap of ignorance of the recent "spelling is casting a SPELL!!!!" absurdity that has taken popularity among fools.
The power of language is not based primarily in single words, it is in the 'story' that is told by language and by the subtle inflections and 'sense' of the way it is written or told that shapes tone and meaning. Word origin alone is interesting as a thing to study but does not create meaning in the way that expressing an idea does.
Writing some of my responses to you was fun, because it can be a fun challenge (and useful to improve vocabulary usage) to write a sentence and then change as many of the Latin rooted words to Greek rooted ones. It is even harder to change either to as many Germano-English (Saxon as Orwell says) words as possible.
For example the word know as I used "kin" the Gaelic rooted word which has Old English but zero Latin or Greek root despite being lexically similar to "know". I think that "think" is the correct Saxon word for the same meaning but it is imprecise. From Latin it would be "comperhend"? Maybe, maybe "understand" but despite the Latin sounding "un-" I think that word may be a Saxon one. I am not sure. In Japanese it would be "wakaru".
know, knowledge etc are actually Old English roots not Greek as I mistakenly thought. Gnosis is of course knowledge, but I thought gnosis became know by being adapted, actually "gnosis" came to the Greeks from Proto-IndoEuropean languages all based on the "kn" root. Think and understand are also of Saxon origin. Think is obvious because it has the "thorn" phoneme.
perceptible sound as the foundation for every suggested word shaped out of it.
Here is an interesting point and one that has been studied. Many simple words are intuitive even if you do not speak the language...
Assuming you do not know Japanese, which of these words with zero relationship to any European language means "yes" and which "no"?
hai (pronounced as "high")
or
iieh (pronounced as ee-yeh)
There have even been studies on made up words compared to shapes that have proven sub-lingual "proto-language" across cultures. "Kiki and bouba" make people think of spiky and round.
c) what if nature sets "free will of choice" as the center of the operating system (balance); while other choices are suggesting programs (written information) to domesticate free will of choice by tempting it to consent to suggested information over perceivable inspiration?
Nature sets "reproduction and consumption with least effort" as the center of animal operating systems... the most effective "suggested programs" otherwise known as "persuasion" are ones based on the knowledge of the central drives of animal "operating systems".
In nature it is obvious why maximizing energy intake while minimizing energy output is the central drive, it is survival. But humans, despite possessing higher, abstract drives, are still governed by the simple animal ones. Social cohesion is another drive.
Propaganda, manipulation, persuasion etc. that are effective are all created to activate these animal drives and bypass higher reason.
"Free will of choice" is an anomaly in nature and is a higher motivation since there is no evolutionary reason for it.
Also, "balance" is nearly the opposite of free will... outside of human influence, natural systems tend towards balance or equilibrium, this includes predation and cycles of drought or starvation such that the species in the system reach equilibrium. Free will of choice is at odds with this, it is how humans tipped the natural balance and invented agriculture, irrigation and all other technologies that prevent us from being at the will of nature. It is why we have unbalanced the natural world.
Mistaken on all fronts.
Math was used by many archaic cultures which did NOT use a zero. It is based on knowledge of objects, one object plus another and so on... this does not require the idea of zero despite it following logically.
Differentials, such as the one I wrote, compare change, zero is not fundamental.
(Have fun with mostly Greek roots instead of Latin ones this time, I noticed you skipped 'etymology' and only mention the Latin root words...)
Within a balance based system...the suggested nothing represents 0 (ones ignorance of balance), while the perceivable everything represents 1 (one perceiving the oneness of all from within balance).
a) PLUS (Latin more) - "addition" tempts to ignore that the ones perceiving cannot add anything to all perceivable. Each ones growth is being transmuted out of all loss. That's once again suggested creationism (implies out of nothing) over perceivable transmutation (implies out of everything).
b) counting represents yet another deception since there's no such thing as a perceivable "two" within oneness (energy). All perceivable differentiation (into the perceiving ones) represents self differentiation of oneness into ones. Counting implies by choice; while suggesting counted as "two" represents tempting others to ignore perceivable differences for suggested sameness. The parasitic few utilize E Pluribus Unum (out of many one) to tempt the many into consenting to mix perceivable differences back together; hence corrupting perceivable inspiration needed for self sustenance.
Furthermore; NUM'BER; noun - "the designation of a unit" implies unitas - "the state of being one; oneness". Sleight of hand for counting: hook-nosed vampire in Sesame-Street: "I'm the Count; would you like to count with me?" We're being tempted by suggestion to count; to seek solutions; to solve problems; to pretend to add etc. Those who ignore the only ONE unit can be buried under suggested numbers.
c) form (living) represents the object within objectifying flow (dying). Ask yourself if the living within the process of dying need to count the breathes they take or if they need to adapt to being moved? Same for thirst and hunger...it's all about the balance of "enough"; not about counting sips and bites.
You got anything on the oldest forms of MATH, noun - "a mowing; as in aftermath"?
Within a suggested confinement instead of from the perspective of ONE (perceiving) as the center of ALL (perceivable). The measured changes are (as far as I know) based on suggested sources of motion; which tempts to ignore that form represents the response to being moved; hence re-movement and the resulting struggle to sustain self within that.
Ah, so i kin your programming can only aithnich Latin phonemes....
a) if you suggest others to be "AI"; then you perpetuate dehumanization, hence pushing the transhumanism agenda of exchanging the 1 (perceivable inspiration) with 0 (suggested information).
b) I usually stick to Latin to Pig-Latin (English) when stripping aside ongoing revisionism. Greek to Latin hasn't inspired me that much; since the ignorance of the many is bound to English as the one world slave language, as suggested to them by the few, and also I already comprehend the perceptible sound as the foundation for every suggested word shaped out of it.
I'm always game to go over the rhetorical tricks within Latin; Greek; Norse; Sumerian etc. but so far reverse engineering deceptions (words) is less effective than growing comprehension by adapting to the perceptible origin (sound). If you have some ancient stuff to share; then by all means, express it.
c) what if nature sets "free will of choice" as the center of the operating system (balance); while other choices are suggesting programs (written information) to domesticate free will of choice by tempting it to consent to suggested information over perceivable inspiration?
Thank you for a human response, apologies for the tactic I used to prompt it.
If you have not read this before, I think you will enjoy this essay, it was written by George Orwell about the used of Latin, Greek and Germano-English words in writing and addresses thoughts you may find interesting:
https://faculty.washington.edu/rsoder/EDLPS579/HonorsOrwellPoliticsEnglishLanguage.pdf
Do not fall into the trap of ignorance of the recent "spelling is casting a SPELL!!!!" absurdity that has taken popularity among fools.
The power of language is not based primarily in single words, it is in the 'story' that is told by language and by the subtle inflections and 'sense' of the way it is written or told that shapes tone and meaning. Word origin alone is interesting as a thing to study but does not create meaning in the way that expressing an idea does.
Writing some of my responses to you was fun, because it can be a fun challenge (and useful to improve vocabulary usage) to write a sentence and then change as many of the Latin rooted words to Greek rooted ones. It is even harder to change either to as many Germano-English (Saxon as Orwell says) words as possible.
For example the word know as I used "kin" the Gaelic rooted word which has Old English but zero Latin or Greek root despite being lexically similar to "know". I think that "think" is the correct Saxon word for the same meaning but it is imprecise. From Latin it would be "comperhend"? Maybe, maybe "understand" but despite the Latin sounding "un-" I think that word may be a Saxon one. I am not sure. In Japanese it would be "wakaru".
know, knowledge etc are actually Old English roots not Greek as I mistakenly thought. Gnosis is of course knowledge, but I thought gnosis became know by being adapted, actually "gnosis" came to the Greeks from Proto-IndoEuropean languages all based on the "kn" root. Think and understand are also of Saxon origin. Think is obvious because it has the "thorn" phoneme.
This is a neat site: https://www.etymonline.com/
I neglected to reply to some of your points...
Here is an interesting point and one that has been studied. Many simple words are intuitive even if you do not speak the language...
Assuming you do not know Japanese, which of these words with zero relationship to any European language means "yes" and which "no"?
hai (pronounced as "high")
or
iieh (pronounced as ee-yeh)
There have even been studies on made up words compared to shapes that have proven sub-lingual "proto-language" across cultures. "Kiki and bouba" make people think of spiky and round.
Nature sets "reproduction and consumption with least effort" as the center of animal operating systems... the most effective "suggested programs" otherwise known as "persuasion" are ones based on the knowledge of the central drives of animal "operating systems".
In nature it is obvious why maximizing energy intake while minimizing energy output is the central drive, it is survival. But humans, despite possessing higher, abstract drives, are still governed by the simple animal ones. Social cohesion is another drive.
Propaganda, manipulation, persuasion etc. that are effective are all created to activate these animal drives and bypass higher reason.
"Free will of choice" is an anomaly in nature and is a higher motivation since there is no evolutionary reason for it.
Also, "balance" is nearly the opposite of free will... outside of human influence, natural systems tend towards balance or equilibrium, this includes predation and cycles of drought or starvation such that the species in the system reach equilibrium. Free will of choice is at odds with this, it is how humans tipped the natural balance and invented agriculture, irrigation and all other technologies that prevent us from being at the will of nature. It is why we have unbalanced the natural world.