I guess they're really out of options, and would rather keep the fantasy alive to avoid their own lynching and/or theres intent behind it
I think it will be one of a couple things the wannabe NWO use to justify a digital currency that they control and that you will be required to use for “official” (likely any taxable) purchases. Other things like the shoddy mortgage lending markets (main cause of the 2007 collapse) which still haven’t been reformed, combined with massive debt defaulting because of the economic stress of the lockdowns...not looking forward to things in the near future
Sup pussy you got an answer yet?
LOL this faggot is still lurking here? You’re fucked dude
What about the star of remphan in the header, does that tickle your taint rabbi?
It appears that way on the surface, but I’ve been gradually convinced that nothing in our world is an accident, and that ESPECIALLY applies to language. Like fwoc always points out, words themselves are finely tuned tools for promulgating ignorance (“science denier” and similar terms makes me wretch).
It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest to learn that a group which has historically been referred to as “the Synagogue of Satan” is a very real parasitic group which has wormed their way into the host which we call “the jewish people” over the course of history. Further, that this group would sacrifice “their own” in a “burnt offering” to the darkness that commands them (just like the good old days with the golden calf) I find entirely believable and historically valid as well. If the “burnt offering” of 6 million wasn’t a massive blood ritual to bring about control over the masses, it was the worlds most convenient accident, and infact the existence of the Haavara agreement between the zionists and hitler in 1933 invalidates that line of thought
Trump is behind the vaccine you absolute retard, have you gotten your jab yet?
Holocaust = burnt offering, from the story of Cain and Abel
What’s the conspiracy? That you have to post this shit for your rabbi to perform your annual bris re-enactment?
how does form within flow perceive other form as being destitute of animation; when perception represents communication between flow and form?
Do you see a delineation (in terms of “life” or “animate”) between, say, a single celled organism which propels itself with a flagella versus something like a wind up toy?
Interesting point regarding “materia”, I would wonder, what does the preffix “ge” mean in hebrew, such that we get “gematria”, itself highly related to numbers as symbolic representation of logic.
while being deceived to ignore the motion causing the symptoms.
Do you refer to us ignoring nature (the agent) for the distractions offered to us, or do you refer to our ignoring reality (the stage, as opposed to the agent) by fixating on fiction?
How haven’t you gouged out your eyes in the last year and a half?
A few months ago, I made a post on a similar topic. I think it fits nicely with the video so I’ll paste it below:
The Game of Life through Math
Mathematician John Conway constructed a model of the universe that not only could simulate all of existence, but also simulate a computer simulating all of existence. It can simulate a single quark gluon or atom, or an entire multiverse. As above, so below
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
The Game of Life, also known simply as Life, is a cellular automaton devised by the British mathematician John Horton Conway in 1970.[1] It is a zero-player game, meaning that its evolution is determined by its initial state, requiring no further input. One interacts with the Game of Life by creating an initial configuration and observing how it evolves. It is Turing complete and can simulate a universal constructor or any other Turing machine.
The Game of Life through Physical Reality and the Feedback Mechanism
Douglas Hofstadter wrote two amazing books which he says “ are a very personal attempt to say how it is that animate beings can come out of inanimate matter. What is a self, and how can a self come out of stuff that is as selfless as a stone or a puddle?"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Hofstadter
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel,_Escher,_Bach
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_a_Strange_Loop
The way he answers this question is nothing short of revelatory. I would be unable to do it justice in anything less than directly transcribing those two books, but alas word limits and human imperfection limit me to just stealing more from Wikipedia:
the book discusses how, through self-reference and formal rules, systems can acquire meaning despite being made of "meaningless" elements. It also discusses what it means to communicate, how knowledge can be represented and stored, the methods and limitations of symbolic representation, and even the fundamental notion of "meaning" itself.
What may seem like the random motion of senseless chemicals in space, with enough distance and perspective may resemble the chemical exchange of our synapses, a fungal network, or the structure of the universe itself. As above, so below.
The Game of Life through “Fiction”
Now I know people here can have harsh opinions on modern fiction and the transition from narrative to propaganda. However, what I see as one of the most important abilities for a human to have is the ability to see the truth in fiction. Joseph Campbell (expanding on the works of Jung mainly) best described this process through the language of symbolism and archetype. The same patterns and plays that dominate our subconscious dominate our waking reality or at least our interpretations there of. As above, so below.
Short 1
These are the rules of a game. Let it be played upon an infinite two-dimensional grid of flowers.
Rule One. A living flower with less than two living neighbors is cut off. It dies.
Rule Two. A living flower with two or three living neighbors is connected. It lives.
Rule Three. A living flower with more than three living neighbors is starved and overcrowded. It dies.
Rule Four. A dead flower with exactly three living neighbors is reborn. It springs back to life.
The only play permitted in the game is the arrangement of the initial flowers.
This game fascinates kings. This game occupies the very emperors of thought. Though it has only four rules, and the board is a flat featureless grid, in it you will find changeless blocks, stoic as iron, and beacons and whirling pulsars, as well as gliders that soar out to infinity, and patterns that lay eggs and spawn other patterns, and living cells that replicate themselves wholly. In it, you may construct a universal computer with the power to simulate, very slowly, any other computer imaginable and thus simulate whole realities, including nested copies of the flower game itself. And the game is undecidable. No one can predict exactly how the game will play out except by playing it.
And yet this game is nothing compared to the game played by the gardener and the winnower. It resembles that game as a seed does a flower—no, as a seed resembles the star that fed the flower and all the life that made it.
In their game, the gardener and the winnower discovered shapes of possibility. They foresaw bodies and civilizations, minds and cognitions, qualia and suffering. They learned the rules that governed which patterns would flourish in the game, and which would dwindle.
They learned those rules, because they were those rules.
And in time the gardener became vexed.
Short 2
From the Journals of Toland, the Shattered
I drive myself to the edge of madness trying to explain the truth.
It's so simple. Elegant like a knife point. It explains - this is not hyperbole, this is the farthest thing from exaggeration - EVERYTHING.
But you lay it out and they stare at you like you've just been exhaling dust. Maybe they're missing some underlying scaffold of truth. Maybe they are all propped on a bed of lies that must be burned away.
Why does anything exist?
No no no no no don't reach for that word. There's no 'reason'. That's teleology and teleology will stitch your eyelids shut.
Why do we have atoms? Because atomic matter is more stable than the primordial broth. Atoms defeated the broth. That was the first war. There were two ways to be and one of them won. And everything that came next was made of atoms.
Atoms made stars. Stars made galaxies. Worlds simmered down to rock and acid and in those smoking primal seas the first living molecule learned to copy itself. All of this happened by the one law, the blind law, which exists without mind or meaning. It's the simplest law but it has no worshippers here (out there, though, out there - !)
HOW DO I EXPLAIN IT it's so simple WHY DON'T YOU SEE
Imagine three great nations under three great queens. The first queen writes a great book of law and her rule is just. The second queen builds a high tower and her people climb it to see the stars. The third queen raises an army and conquers everything.
The future belongs to one of these queens. Her rule is harshest and her people are unhappy. But she rules.
This explains everything, understand? This is why the universe is the way it is, and not some other way. Existence is a game that everything plays, and some strategies are winners: the ability to exist, to shape existence, to remake it so that your descendants - molecules or stars or people or ideas - will flourish, and others will find no ground to grow.
And as the universe ticks on towards the close, the great players will face each other. In the next round there will be three queens and all of them will have armies, and now it will be a battle of swords - until one discovers the cannon, or the plague, or the killing word.
Everything is becoming more ruthless and in the end only the most ruthless will remain (LOOK UP AT THE SKY) and they will hunt the territories of the night and extinguish the first glint of competition before it can even understand what it faces or why it has transgressed. This is the shape of victory: to rule the universe so absolutely that nothing will ever exist except by your consent. This is the queen at the end of time, whose sovereignty is eternal because no other sovereign can defeat it. And there is no reason for it, no more than there was reason for the victory of the atom. It is simply the winning play.
Of course, it might be that there was another country, with other queens, and in this country they sat down together and made one law and one tower and one army to guard their borders. This is the dream of small minds: a gentle place ringed in spears.
But I do not think those spears will hold against the queen of the country of armies. And that is all that will matter in the end.
Like I said, your contribution is whatever, I just don’t have much to offer on the subject. If the extent of what this video evoked in you was a schitzophrenic sovereign citizen’s attempt to circumvent legal precedent through a self-made system of grammar, I do see the (limited) overlap, I just wish you were able to link the concepts more wholistically.
I'd agree that it is true in life.
I, and Gödel himself, would likely agree. And it appears that man has understood this throughout his-story, even if he sometimes forgets and another must remember for him.
My personal experience is that belief and faith in the Creator of All Things and Jesus leads to a better outcome in life. And dabbling with witchcraft and other belief systems usually leads to ruin.
I agree, but I ask you, what do you think Jesus spent his formative years doing? My research leads me to conclude he spent them “dabbling” enough to discern the truth about reality.
And while I think everyone on this site would agree that technology has been an avenue of disruption, that disruption has had both positive and negative effects. Medicine is a type of technology, same with language. But as Gödel demonstrated, these systems based on logic will always be incomplete. While they comprise useful tools, they do not comprise an everlasting foundation. I think we have to look within for that. Thanks for checking it out!
Have you come up with a counter to either of his incompleteness theorems? Are you able to propose a more complete and wholistic system? Feel free to try, that was one of the many points of this post
¯_(ツ)_/¯
Whatever dude
The entire point of Gödel’s work was to remove the unreliability of language. He reduced “Logic” (i.e. or,and,if, etc) to symbols. He then demonstrated that even when reduced to their most fundamental form, symbolic representation (i.e. math and thus language and thus human culture and so many other things), logic is INCOMPLETE. When you understand what that means, the way your perceive the world will change.
Regarding that silly shit you mentioned, here is the quote from wiki, aka the first thing that comes up when searched:
He was a proponent of the use of certain syntax he created to be used by people involved in legal proceedings. He referred to his syntax as QUANTUM-LANGUAGE-PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR which he asserts constitutes "correct sentence structure communication syntax."[7] This is a variation of the tax protester "capital letters" argument, a form of strawman theory. People seeking remedy with Miller's syntax in court have not met with success.[2][8]
Sounds worthless, am I missing something? Because according to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, not only is the idea of a “perfect language” (much less one that magically wins court cases for you) silly, but literally not real
u/rightsidefunding u/cuomoisamassmurderer u/free-will-of-choice u/mark4-39 u/swamprangers u/firesky
Particularly think this might be of interest to yous guys, no rush on a response
Oof just looked that up on (wiki), and I’m gunna just say “finish the video and let’s see if you want to take the convo in a different direction because I have nothing of value to say about the sovereign citizen movement and especially not about weird grammatical sub-theories therein”
Lol
Sounds good, the terms in my OP aren’t even directly relavent to the video, they were more conversation prompts than anything, and they certainly worked! Hope you enjoy
Both really, the foundation that allows you to discern valid ideas from invalid ones. I feel like if you attempted to understand what ein sof means here you’d have no issue with the term. Do you have an issue with the terms “erotic” or “hermetically sealed”? Those are derived from Greek gods (Eros and Hermes)
These terms and ideas long predate the kabbalah (approx. 600ad), though they are certainly meditated on in there. I picked the term because it is relatively well known and succinctly expresses the idea
What is your foundation?
Yeah, it’s the one I figured most people would have seen before, but you could also say “pleroma” from the gnostic/Christian tradition, or “godhead” as a more general term common to the abrahamic faiths, basically that aspect of the divine which is by definition ungraspable by us.
Quite a mind blowing video. Gödel proved that any and all worthwhile systems of logic are incomplete. That is, there are true statements which exist within any given system which the system itself is incapable of proving.
If you’ve studied ancient conceptions of religion, you may be familiar with the term “ein sof”,”pleroma”, or “Godhead”, and if you’re familiar with military interventionism and history you may have heard the idiom “known unknowns and unknown unknowns”. Could the ancients have instinctively understood the limits of logic, without having formally proved such things?
I just think that this video could produce so many interesting discussions I want to try not to limit them too much here, so please post anything this video evokes in you and let’s discuss
(((unsourced claims)))
Ok rabbi whatever you say. What books comprise this school of Gnosticism?
Oy vey