There are some trivial bits in relation to this discussion, one can skimm naturally or see it as ornament usefull as illustration in this or other discussions.
Short critique on law (Also with Godel & Einstein ) (woman and man..)
If law
makes people to behave, they surely do not behave in a lawless situation after some time.
The nature of humans does seem to change when one does not only let somone learn words but letting them experience how to falsify for themselves why different orientations can have different uses.
1)To put your hands before your wais: "immersive but swift attack".
2)To let your hands hang besides waist (or when having computer arms muscle stretch a bit):
"no immersion here thus, trusting one's reflexes".
2 here needs the question of: "What model can falsify reflexes for longer then 10 seconds?" (10 secs arbitrarily choses, however a single reflex can be pushed away, 10 second of reflex experience is hard to attain).*
1 keeps people untrustful to eachother, 2 makes people trivialize agressivity. Being blind fooled often is a painful redundant experience.
my step in the proces
How you decide if facial features are strongly correlated (in mind). (also how quickly one is aware of this)
When people decide slowly in life, stress is high.
Perhaps I will live longer because a lot is not 'objected to'? (thus understood)
I see it a lot: "faces that look like: 'holding pee'".
It is good to recognize this because otherwise stress is high. (thus registered but not being aware of it makes one feel stress and not handle towards)
You see it a lot in not so adult individuals, they make a point, someone else intervenes (pee face starts until decision is made (intuition) that 'to say something is possible'), then the intervention is trivial because both parties did not recognize facial features.
So how to discuss if facial features beforehand already show: 'not wanting to listen'?
--
some mother
"Not wanting to listen".... my teenage grandson of 15 years spent Easter with us! One look at his face showed boredom, distain and closed ears!
I find it all mildly amusing... mention a restaurant or a day skiing in the mountains...the eyes light up, the grin stretches from ear to ear and he can even be persuaded to take a shower!
He'll love the expression "holding pee"! He'll certainly take that on board...may even be a pathway for us all when those features fall into position!
another mother
My ADHD/audio processing disorder daughter has the holding pee face when you talk to her because she is translating the words as you speak.
My 16 year old son has the "I just peed" look of "ooooh goooood when is this going to be over" on his face.
My 15 year old daughter has her mouth open like a guppy constantly posed for a retort (which to me means she is not listening, only planning)
My 8 year old is looking around and thinking about anything but what you are talking to him about.
My mother, on the other hand, doesn't have the holding pee face...she has the "I have been constipated for 2 weeks" face.
And my dad just tends to look angry.
Note
The mother's mother here cannot make her point indeed. Somewhere someone said Paris Hilton looks like someone continuously constipating. Funny bit I figured.
Critique part
Law needs not stimulate good behaviour, it needs be a last resort. Law in the back makes one lazy if the law pushes you in certain roads if you deviate.
The American Constitution can also be summarized and has been in a childrens tiny little book. However the IRS and lower court judges deviate from this a lot.
"Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
This Amendment allows the Congress to levy an income tax without regard to the States or the Census.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_ ... nstitution
Stanton argued that the tax law was unconstitutional and void under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that the law denied "to mining companies and their stockholders equal protection of the laws and deprive[d] them of their property without due process of law." The Court rejected that argument. Stanton also argued that the Sixteenth Amendment "authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment, to which the tax in question does not conform" and that therefore the income tax was "not within the authority of that Amendment." The Court also rejected this argument. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court, in upholding the constitutionality of the income tax under the 1913 Act, contradicts those tax protesters arguments that the income tax is unconstitutional under either the Fifth Amendment or the Sixteenth Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protes ... _arguments
The question here is for me. Is the Supreme Court consistent with the rest of America? If this is not the case it surely shows that the Supreme Court will be denied just because 'below' it all changed.
There are legal and illigal taxes and both end up because of law in the central reserve. But the central reserve and the white house or states are dependent on banks.
Hypothesis: More poor people pay more taxes relatively per person and rich perhaps don't pay taxes at all. There have been a lot of people who's houses where completely raided. And they follow 'some' law indeed! But is the IRS law or making a supreme strong case of it?
If all are dependent on law people become docile. 'No law' tends to do the opposite. If people use all their senses and use the available words for it, not even a deeply Oriental person from any tribe will be disturbed because all who observe are grown. Not tolerance or acceptance but understanding. Tolerance is the last resort and acceptance the second in this three alternative approach. Also understanding removes distance or not being seen.
Godel and Einstein on the Constitution
In my study on the collected works of Godel a while ago (which I never took up because..yet..) I found some fantastic gems, the following is retreived from the net because of it.
Gödel and Einstein
Gödel and Einstein formed a special bond during their time in Princeton. The two men were often seen conversing in German, walking to and from the Institute, engaged in discussion about relativity, including Gödel’s rotating universe model, among other topics. It was Einstein who suggested Gödel for the prestigious Einstein Award, which he received in 1951 jointly with Harvard mathematical physicist Julian Schwinger, a move designed by Einstein to bolster Gödel’s morale at a time when he had been ill.
When Gödel applied for naturalization as an American citizen in 1948, it was Einstein who, together with Princeton University mathematician Oskar Morgenstern, accompanied Gödel to his interview with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
On September 13, 1971, Morgenstern recorded the following memory of Gödel’s 1948 Trenton interview with an official of the Immigration Service.
“[Gödel] rather excitedly told me that in looking at the Constitution, to his distress, he had found some inner contradictions and that he could show how in a perfectly legal manner it would be possible for somebody to become a dictator and set up a Fascist regime never intended by those who drew up the Constitution. I told him that it was most unlikely that such events would ever occur, even assuming that he was right, which of course I doubted.
But he was persistent and so we had many talks about this particular point. I tried to persuade him that he should avoid bringing up such matters at the examination before the court in Trenton, and I also told Einstein about it: he was horrified that such an idea had occurred to Gödel, and he also told him he should not worry about these things nor discuss that matter.
Many months went by and finally the date for the examination in Trenton came. On that particular day, I picked up Gödel in my car. He sat in the back and then we went to pick up Einstein at his house on Mercer Street, and from there we drove to Trenton. While we were driving, Einstein turned around a little and said, “Now Gödel, are you really well prepared for this examination?�? Of course, this remark upset Gödel tremendously, which was exactly what Einstein intended and he was greatly amused when he saw the worry on Gödel’s face.
When we came to Trenton, we were ushered into a big room, and while normally the witnesses are questioned separately from the candidate, because of Einstein’s appearance, an exception was made and all three of us were invited to sit down together, Gödel, in the center. The examiner first asked Einstein and then me whether we thought Gödel would make a good citizen. We assured him that this would certainly be the case, that he was a distinguished man, etc.
And then he turned to Gödel and said, Now, Mr. Gödel, where do you come from?
Gödel:
Where I come from? Austria.
The examiner: What kind of government did you have in Austria?
Gödel:
It was a republic, but the constitution was such that it finally was changed into a dictatorship.
The examiner: Oh! This is very bad. This could not happen in this country.
Gödel: O
h, yes, I can prove it.
So of all the possible questions, just that critical one was asked by the examiner. Einstein and I were horrified during this exchange; the examiner was intelligent enough to quickly quieten Gödel and broke off the examination at this point, greatly to our relief.�?
*A short while ago in a nearby park I phoned with my dad and saw a tree over the water, I was pretty reflexmatic at that moment and while phoning walked over it, then back again, I didnt need to balance, it was done 'for me'.
