GENIUS FORUMS

Religion, like science or politics have shaped us in some ways we believe we understand, and other ways we probably don't understand. We are all product of a culture that embraces some conformity, and with believed maturity of that which shape our lives comes rejection or acceptance of certain things of childhood, for this is the crucial time of our indoctrination. Generally we either accept or reject moderately total submissiveness to our cultural system of thinking because it agrees or disagrees with our personal experiences.

We all accept and reject things from our childhood unto this present moment because they do or do not bear witness to our beliefs or inner conscience. What we accept or reject is a part of the form which comprise the intellectual, spiritual, or non-spiritual adaptation of jufa's, Bob's, Mary's, or Sue's living. With all being adaptable bits and pieces of our individual living, how we accept or reject portions of who we are and how we present ourselves to other means we have exposed bits of the pieces of the bits and pieces of our conscience integrity to others from our truth. This is the point to be made here, that it is our truth, our truth, our truth, which is not truth unified. Does this means what one believes or accept irrespective is not the truth? Who knows?

Please allow me to continue in abstraction, and tell you upon my journey I have discovered, concerning only my living, the greatest lie is believing the collective sum of plurality is the objective which makes up conformity. That individual man is not the foundation of the singularity of pluralities collective determinism of subjectiveness, which base its existence on self-survival. In walking the path of self-survival, I have seen self-survival to be a farce just a selectiveness, because everything we do, and actions we take have come to us from someone else. Our personalization of anything is a personalization which originally belonged to the original thinker and producer of that which we now accept, believe upon, and live within the framework of, and claim to be our creativeness. Can someone elses adaption of someone elses adopted beliefs make ones living a lie because of this fact?

The illusion [and I use the word illusion loosely, you can make it a mirage should you care to] is we never come to the realization of our living from hand-me-down beliefs and philosophies intellectually or spiritually. And so in our selectiveness -whether spiritually or intellectually- we are selecting that which belongs to someone else.

Let me illustrate this a little further. The object of a finished work of art is for the purpose of the observer to see what the artist comprehended, and in comprehending, expressed in matter of materialization. That is the illusion of art, whether written or placed upon a canvas. But no one sees or feels that which culminated as the written word or painted drawing of experience through the eye of the artist's comprehension. So the viewer or reader becomes selective in relativity points which are relative to their eye of comprehensive living and evaluation. The reader or viewer has accepted or rejected something they do not comprehend, and thus become the greatest liars to themselves, because they have accepted or rejected what someone else has lived and experience, when their only responsibility is to not add to, nor take away from something which is incomprehensible to them.

Let me be sure, in attempting to make myself as clear as words of relativity can be make clear about what I am saying. We quote poets like Frost who states " a poet is entitled to whatever response he gets from his poems." In a sense this is true, but a poet can only get from his poem what it was that inspired him/her to pen the poetry. Once the poetry is complete, another's interpretation of that works belongs to the interpreter, not the poet, unless the poet accept another's interpretation as his own. But the reality of this is as the interpreter has no Entitlement of Cause to say what is the reason behind the penning of the poem, so also the poet has no Entitlement of Cause as to the reasoning as to what belongs to the interpreter for the reasoning given above.

And then there is Van Gogh or Montaigne, in continuing the illustration, who are no different than Frost, you, or I. What Frost, Van Gogh, or Montaigne accomplished was in their time of thinking and living, not mine, or yours, or anyone else reading these words now. So what can these men say in our time of thinking or living which will make us step beyond their comprehension into our own comprehensive time? Their saying, whether in pictures or words, can only be pointers, not truths to be expanded on, because they were reaching to grasp, in their time of living, the same things we are reaching to grasp today in our time of living.

What these men did and said is not to be displayed as intellectual, or inventive truths to others, for words are interpretations, and inventions are expanded manifestations of those interpretations individually expanded upon. This reality is verified by men like Edison, Einstein, and Dr. saltz. These men took that which they heard and received of that which was already in existence in Pure Mind, and applied their expanded reality to their times. The results became clear in our comprehension, and in our comprehension, those displayed pointer has led to the space and technological and inner conscience pointers of today.

Pureness is Pure only when expanded for the betterment of the whole, not individually, for the individual is only a disappearing part of Pureness in this parenthesis of time, space, distance and matter, or words, pictures, imagination, and thoughts. Pureness is the taking of yesterday; eliminating that taken out of the thought pattern of it time, by expanding on the experience of living today to keep one from living within the past and quoting that which was of a different time logical, but are only pointers now. One should never march time to the beat of a dead drummer.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......................

Are we being invaded by AI content generators?

For example: this text, completely meaningless and randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator (based on the Dada engine).

Perhaps someone made a version to talk philosophical trash. Wouldn't that be great?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Are we being invaded by AI content generators?

For example: this text, completely meaningless and randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator (based on the Dada engine).

Perhaps someone made a version to talk philosophical trash. Wouldn't that be great?

Very good, Diebert. You win a cookie :-)

Does that university student deserve a "C" for effort?

I might add that Barack Obama has an AI generator that when a pre-selected White House correspondent asks a question, the "generator" comes back with several filtered responses in a few seconds or so. Then, Obama reads the pre-selected answer submitted by his handler - Obama then reads the "answer" off of the telepromptor, except when that goes down.

Nothing against Obama but he comes across as a bit clueless, even when I first noticed him at the 2004 Dem convention, that speech seemed panned because of his use of the telepromptor. Obama doesn't make it with paper notes, the stuttering of uhhhs and ummms start up. As bad as George W. Bush was, he at least kept some paper notes handy and stumbled his way through, but neither of whom can talk (bullshit) off-the-cuff as could Ronald Reagan. Though, when Reagan's Alzheimer's popped up in mid-1983, his handlers had to come up with Morning in America for the 1984 Big Brother newspeak Repub convention.

Diebert van Rhijn/Sarah Palin - 2012

I made one of these programs for making up stories. It could be.

No one can define a Word, or group of words because it is always thought analyzing thought. I've found individuals attempt to describe functioning mechanism of words, i.e., thoughts receptivity, thinking, analyzing, imagining, projecting, and interpreted thought conclusions, not to mention visions of idealism for group absorption, which are pretty successful -note the Hitles', Stalins, Po Pot, the D. Kareshs', J. Campbell, J. Goldsmith, Rosa Parks, the majority speaker of the U.S. house of representitives, and the Senate, the Supreme Court, and those who ascend to the Presidency, like the Roosevelts, Bushes, or Obama. It matters not who speak, what is spoken, it all boils down to mind battling mind, and minds accepting illusions of being intelligent, of being able to go to the utmost point of logic and reasoning only to find their efforts have been for naught, for all end up in the same situation as the dog, the rat when mother earth reclaims her soil back unto herself. But until the earth beckon for that which is of its kind:

"Man is not only what he thinks in his heart, he is influenced by descriptive words and knowledge of other men. Man's thoughts and actions may, or may not be dictated by what others say and do, nevertheless, the conscience of the individual is what truly dictates that man bear the total consequence of the good and bad, pain and pleasure. as well as the causes and effects of that which is and have been influential coming from and unto him, and what he have sat in motion by his thoughts" - jufa

Word are transparent. They are transparent in the evolution of growth and chemical atonement in man's body, and the body of the earth and all within an upon it. The Word spells out the path all things must take to be true to the forms temporal. And should everything be true unto itself, abiding by the principle "everything after God's kind," some read "everything after its kind," there would be no conflict of energies, for the Spirit, or psyche would be intune with Life. "And life gives to death so death can die, and death gives to life so life can live."

Man's words comes out of the invisible. There words are finalized in physical forms, and scientist and quantum physicist's microscopes have not even begun to discover what are their cause of existence. for there is no logic to ponder concerning any logical reason for creation. Nonetheless, finalize forms evolve to levels which are discussed in the scientific world today without finding reasoning as to how they appeared, found life, and began their evolution, then die out and return to the invisible. So man's words can only be referenced as to a mystery which produced the structures and forms of creation from conscious awareness, but not conscious comprehension.

Never give power to anything a person believes is the source of their strength - jufa

.


-jufa-
Religion, like science or politics have shaped us in some ways we believe we understand, and other ways we probably don't understand. We are all product of a culture that embraces some conformity, and with believed maturity of that which shape our lives comes rejection or acceptance of certain things of childhood, for this is the crucial time of our indoctrination. Generally we either accept or reject moderately total submissiveness to our cultural system of thinking because it agrees or disagrees with our personal experiences.

-tomas-
Yeah, for me it was two twin towers.

# 1 was jesus died on a cross and rose three days later.
Mother was a religious fanatic so had to go Sunday, morn, evenin' and Wed nite.
Note: always tried to fake placing money in the offering plate :-)
Bummer: a witness to the act sat on each side of pew

#2 sit on santa's lap and you will have a wind-up train set placed under the christmas tree.
Was terrified of that ol' faggot cried just being around him the whole time.
Note: never sat on ol' jolly but got the train anyway :-(


-jufa-
We all accept and reject things from our childhood unto this present moment because they do or do not bear witness to our beliefs or inner conscience. What we accept or reject is a part of the form which comprise the intellectual, spiritual, or non-spiritual adaptation of jufa's, Bob's, Mary's, or Sue's living. With all being adaptable bits and pieces of our individual living, how we accept or reject portions of who we are and how we present ourselves to other means we have exposed bits of the pieces of the bits and pieces of our conscience integrity to others from our truth. This is the point to be made here, that it is our truth, our truth, our truth, which is not truth unified. Does this means what one believes or accept irrespective is not the truth? Who knows?

-tomas-
The belief system as set up in the United States says: conform or be cast out.


-jufa-
Please allow me to continue in abstraction, and tell you upon my journey I have discovered, concerning only my living, the greatest lie is believing the collective sum of plurality is the objective which makes up conformity. That individual man is not the foundation of the singularity of pluralities collective determinism of subjectiveness, which base its existence on self-survival. In walking the path of self-survival, I have seen self-survival to be a farce just a selectiveness, because everything we do, and actions we take have come to us from someone else. Our personalization of anything is a personalization which originally belonged to the original thinker and producer of that which we now accept, believe upon, and live within the framework of, and claim to be our creativeness. Can someone elses adaption of someone elses adopted beliefs make ones living a lie because of this fact?

-tomas-
This tells me , jufa, that you are (still) in your twenties or sixties :-)


-jufa-
The illusion [and I use the word illusion loosely, you can make it a mirage should you care to] is we never come to the realization of our living from hand-me-down beliefs and philosophies intellectually or spiritually. And so in our selectiveness -whether spiritually or intellectually- we are selecting that which belongs to someone else.

-tomas-
Yes, having to get up five and a half days every week and work for a living totally sucks. It's to learn how to enjoy each and every day while at that job. The plus side is that interaction with fellow humans who don't care to waste their life philosophizing - just watching them explain their drab life - of course it isn't drab, but it is presented in such a way that I recall from when I was a child.


-jufa-
Let me illustrate this a little further. The object of a finished work of art is for the purpose of the observer to see what the artist comprehended, and in comprehending, expressed in matter of materialization. That is the illusion of art, whether written or placed upon a canvas. But no one sees or feels that which culminated as the written word or painted drawing of experience through the eye of the artist's comprehension. So the viewer or reader becomes selective in relativity points which are relative to their eye of comprehensive living and evaluation. The reader or viewer has accepted or rejected something they do not comprehend, and thus become the greatest liars to themselves, because they have accepted or rejected what someone else has lived and experience, when their only responsibility is to not add to, nor take away from something which is incomprehensible to them.

-tomas-
One of my conflicts was/probably still is is the guilt of not taking care of my parents (both, now deceased) was when they needed me the most. So caught up on enjoying the good life, my growing family, starting another business venture, playing golf with the buddies, surfing etc that my parents grew old and dropped hints that they would like to move in with me .. I just didn't get it, first my dad fell ill when I could have sought this doctor out and he wouldn't have had to suffer the way he did. Then my mother needed assistance (I assumed my sister the nurse and her husband the doctor) would've lifted a finger but, she OD'd on Coumadin, developed a clot behind her leg and it went undiagnosed for four months. She lost the ability to walk and her arms went bad from the overdosing of the coumadin. The last five years she wasn't able to cook, clean, drive, wipe her butt etc. I couldda did something earlier as far as the coumadin dosing because of my paranoia about "modern drug therapies"... oddly, this all transpired while a member of several different Genius forums including a couple at their old server in 2001-02.


-jufa-
Let me be sure, in attempting to make myself as clear as words of relativity can be make clear about what I am saying. We quote poets like Frost who states " a poet is entitled to whatever response he gets from his poems." In a sense this is true, but a poet can only get from his poem what it was that inspired him/her to pen the poetry. Once the poetry is complete, another's interpretation of that works belongs to the interpreter, not the poet, unless the poet accept another's interpretation as his own. But the reality of this is as the interpreter has no Entitlement of Cause to say what is the reason behind the penning of the poem, so also the poet has no Entitlement of Cause as to the reasoning as to what belongs to the interpreter for the reasoning given above.

-tomas-
Yeah, I enjoy the peoples' different writing styles when they don't reveal where they are from on this planet. Not being a good student in English class (my gpa was like 0.1) didn't help matters, fortunately my speech is fluent in person but butchered in forums, or on paper. But hey, I was always a whiz in reading class, debate team. But, my liking is to "guess" where they are from and attempt to worm it out of them in a genteel writing manner :-)


-jufa-
And then there is Van Gogh or Montaigne, in continuing the illustration, who are no different than Frost, you, or I. What Frost, Van Gogh, or Montaigne accomplished was in their time of thinking and living, not mine, or yours, or anyone else reading these words now. So what can these men say in our time of thinking or living which will make us step beyond their comprehension into our own comprehensive time? Their saying, whether in pictures or words, can only be pointers, not truths to be expanded on, because they were reaching to grasp, in their time of living, the same things we are reaching to grasp today in our time of living.

-tomas-
Reminds me of growing up around the farmers whose parents spoke Russian, Swede, Lebanese, Norse, and German etc. The native Indians were Arikara and Hidista. Perhaps this is why I have such a difficult time writing in american English as I can speak fairly well in the aforementioned tongues but not able to read, write those tribal tongues. But yes, the fascination is inreading their body language when they speak their different languages it helps to discover who/what kind of man I turned out to be(come).


-jufa-
What these men did and said is not to be displayed as intellectual, or inventive truths to others, for words are interpretations, and inventions are expanded manifestations of those interpretations individually expanded upon. This reality is verified by men like Edison, Einstein, and Dr. saltz. These men took that which they heard and received of that which was already in existence in Pure Mind, and applied their expanded reality to their times. The results became clear in our comprehension, and in our comprehension, those displayed pointer has led to the space and technological and inner conscience pointers of today.

-tomas-
Yup, don't miss the days of 707 travel, or calling the Operator before direct dial came about. Adjusting rabbit ears, fine-tuning AM radio every couple minutes before it wows out of tune. The hand-pump sewing machine is still kinda groovy, though.


-jufa-
Pureness is Pure only when expanded for the betterment of the whole, not individually, for the individual is only a disappearing part of Pureness in this parenthesis of time, space, distance and matter, or words, pictures, imagination, and thoughts. Pureness is the taking of yesterday; eliminating that taken out of the thought pattern of it time, by expanding on the experience of living today to keep one from living within the past and quoting that which was of a different time logical, but are only pointers now. One should never march time to the beat of a dead drummer.

-tomas-
A lesson well-learned in VietNam.

Tomas, although religion is just one of the isms of man's intellect that subscribes to the belief that consciousness is divided into two realities or minds - a subject (cause) named "I" and an object (effect) named "this thing", it is the most intense manifestation of man's belief in dualism. It is this lie of believing that one's creator could possibly be separate from its creation that is at the heart of man's search for logic for his existence, which is at the heart of man's unending suffering of his seeking to know the absoluteness - the why - of himself. Only that which believes itself cut in two can also come to believe that it can find the beginning/ending of itself as a known subject or a known object. The question every man faces who comes to realize that Life is not caused into effects (cannot be cut in two standing in judgment of one another) is as jufa presented in the title of this thread: what are you going to do about it?