A sub morality is a model of coexistence between multiple opinions designed to be compatible with differing views of opinion, morality and coexistence attempted by an individual through considerations.
Below details the progression of my own and where it ended and continued with advice, as a basic way to to understand each other and coexist, when we can't agree on a planet, except on one thing.
Which for foresight is not an opinion that is in agreement here, but merely peoples nature prior to it. This idea should not be taken as any form of application on others by necessity, because this fundamental idea isn't compatible people rejecting it as morally justifiable to removal, since that corrupts the essence of people getting what they want, so represents those who choose to use it.
However it reminds you that a place where you don't get what you want when reasonable, is not the same place as somewhere where at best attempted what is wanted by any opinion, in its most reasonable solutions and more explained below, is.
It also goes into detail about how it came about, given I studied opinions and how to make them.
This was my first model in how I brought about the solution between these things related to my countries issue with refugees. If I remember correctly it used synthesis of opinions to construct a new one and used a specific cardinal called the middle cross.
https://discordedtieunited.blogspot.com/p/it-is-necessary-to-help-refugees-since.html
The middle cross is a cardinal I was using at the start of my attempt to find a way for numerous opinions to coexist and interact, given I was making a way to make numerous opinions.
https://discordedtieunited.blogspot.com/p/the.html
However it was because I realized not all opinions are compatible with one method of organizing solutions the same way, in fact at the time I was conversing between my Id and Ego, my ego doesn't show up in the posts here because I am paranoid about him then.
Following this blogs end I went here with a renewed philosophy based on separation aka discord rather then the prior that was on synthesis aka unity. I made this post here about what I accused at the time as the whore of babylon as first Ita the one who claims truth is singular, but later its synthesis as Ypoc.
As I am seeking the deceiver in the city who fools the conflict essentially, by the end I stop being paranoid about opinions and their basis's, since that paranoia is deceptive in itself as the same fear it fools you in, as I'll explain later, but below is my thought that One truth is counter to Many:
https://initiateoftheparsense.blogspot.com/p/a-note-on-persomnia-and-god.html
Below is a set of opinions I constructed temporarily much later on, then what I built from a synthesis of all their basis. This demonstrates previous claims synthesis and compromise is not a solution.
However, this same opinion is what gave me the idea for making technology without electricity and brought about what prior seemed impossible from lack of knowledge of electricity or chemistry, albeit mildly exaggerated since I later ordered electricity and lessons to use as well.
As this condition becomes inherently whether or not someone will accept a solution from compromise.
https://hazerhrounds.blogspot.com/
I first made a shorter post about Ita and Morius, who represent the ideals that their is only one truth and the other that their is more then one truth, I pursued a solution between this seeming contradiction and defined it first as Parsimp, that it is one truth and many beyond even synthesis as compromise. But this post is unclear yet origin, it follows with better after it.
https://initiateoftheparsense.blogspot.com/p/the-battle-of-it-and-more.html
It solves it with discord which represents conversation and separation, regarding distance of occupation apart as first solution of coexistence, keep what doesn't agree in separate places, be it from the extremes of racism to all race loving since firstly they show where they are in balance or not and where they can survive, I mean this all the way to heaven and hell.
Let them dwell away from each other among their kind and allow the respect of conversation where they meet, but leave each other alone from each other unwelcome when not in meeting for fairness:
Then I persue which thing is the truth of them all and I never find it, giving up for what is essentially the sense of self as they will be able to see it at all. In fact I do this by first rejecting my own position that the all things be true as the totality that should be believed, for what after I build many possible opinions on what is the truth, by criticism of each prior, until I simply loose interest.
https://initiateoftheparsense.blogspot.com/p/its-not-everything.html
This was to demonstrate that truth is both whatever you make it, because you can always find confirmation and rejection for it at any position, it can be believed or doubted at least in sense of basic opinion, unmentioned then is a fear that if an ideal reaches progression of power effective enough and able enough like science it becomes threatening and so more often believed.
While that represents only a sense of worth and depth in someone's opinion, in science's case crafted by many peoples smaller ideas in assessment. I doubt this confirms the truth of science strictly, because any opinion or religion when in sufficient understood complexity. Since the prophets of religion demonstrate only in remaining claim of it, that they possessed the same capacity as science itself in group amassment, they alone for miracles they did or computers now, in single person ability instead.
None the less only recently do I manage enough perhaps to show that true in coming time, the reason its like that is because as Prophets came they were too believed strictly and by the book, not as amassment in multitudes of enlightenment. Alchemy then science broke the trend by ceasing prophets to allow in some sense of that silence the amassment of one miracle by no man.
Which in an age without prophets and by many people shows how they all come from amassment not one idol. Thus I seek to use in separation another line of thinking to show such the case and my balance things almost manage now.
However this is just my honest opinion springing from over analysis of a suggestion, in the fact computers are seemingly miraculous, atheists best argument for validity and my skepticism based on the question of why old religions have claims of miracle workers, but without modern levels of proof required.
The prophets had a complexity of magical sense of spirit not material, that's the difference. Below is a post on my thoughts about alternat physics at the time:
https://initiateoftheparsense.blogspot.com/p/the-further-study-of-other-physics.html
This is another important but always forgotten aspect of previous self rejection of practice for demonstration of additional with the previous past all things as truth, with parts my model:
https://initiateoftheparsense.blogspot.com/p/its-not-part-suprise.html
I do this because the point is their are more then myself that can be explored and also function, but I sought to find a way to make them all coexist in better sense of stability and survival.
I did this cause I was trying to build a philosophy of interaction for a planetary age, due to that formation with internet communication yet having a paradigm that supported it presently.
Below is a link to where I was at in sense of moral structure by this point of discussion, I had at some point tried to mention that my virtual physics prior were real after all, but that only something like the same proof of the atom as a electron microscope could show such valid, and I had nothing to use matter with to study these randomly made models yet so I just played with it and tried writing a story.
The story had these characters at this point, they represent my Id ( Pharath ) Ego ( Mazer ) Superego ( Sam ) Luck ( Myself as a child, and a literal all three in separation of the other three ). He's me as a child by what I was told of the world as polarly good, bad and beyond, later I reject that entirely.
However, after this idea of seperational coexistence I sought to go beyond this entirely for how to inherently solve disputes. Because I was too overwhelmed by the pestering need to use everything and all things at once all the time and wanted less need for all parts together. All things is everything and its factoring of itself as even more.
This came about from the previous use of separation and averence as parsimp eventually became after, I needed an answer to what was beyond everything itself, it was too huge for a one person answer.
https://initiateoftheparsense.blogspot.com/p/characters-of-avondale.html
Averence was the final cardinal of the first four, being an idea, and inversion, a synthesis and a group. The issue was from my point with the four horsemen shown at the very beginning of this blog shared presently were too vast to be fully resolved by myself anymore.
As those four horsemen which represented the core natures of global opinion are faith, wisdom, fear and madness, which represent in simplicity the four fundamental sides of global opinions.
As these three or less basic words aren't known by each themselves unless found in depth what they represent in sense of religion, science, depression and delusion.
What I was studying specifically about each was inherently to make a subject that met between them to show how they can all coexist and co-interact, as they actually represent the depths beyond event alteration by law of attraction, material modelling by research and prediction, the psychedelic manipulations of feeling self and many, many and many more beyond these as all the psych ward's worth of subjects.
I focused on these four for being close to norms and far simultaneously but also what I liked, that was the key to what followed afterwards.
This was to build an example of them functioning together and not false in bias of each separately but also because I had always found each fascinating. I followed it in sense of probability manipulation by intent, pattern modelling by match, problem solving by manipulation and artistic iconography by feelings. This allowed me problem solving, mood, material and event manipulations.
I then realized suddenly one day that the best key to solving all conflicts between others in different views was to begin with what they wanted and to always prioritize what everyone wanted at once.
However as you can see on September 15 2017, I ran into an issue, if we all want what we want and some things we want conflict incompatibly with others who want it all blue, who gets it if they both want whole planet but not the other color, theirs no answer to that spoil.
As such Spoil, such as wanting the sky completely pink on the planet as an absolute is not compatible with the idea of separation on a planet. This is what I ran into a problem with the idea of basing it all on wants, which the next post mentions and ends the blog, for this problem termed spoil is one for tomorrow.
Its passed the dichotomy of good and evil, because in my basis of wants as goal for everyone's better in separation of dwelling, it is a problem of neither polarity, rather I realize later its a problem of spatial restrictions.
Years later I actually encountered it in person with my sister in the kitchen, she wants to make lunch alone and wants it always clean, I want to be there to do work and have access to my stuff. The issue with these problems is actually a physical restriction in the laws of physics of reality and thus the blogs after this begin on the level of wants as I pursue improvements of problems with it for a year.
The problem becomes four terms called Hwall, Beura, Loweth and Raoth, which mean wants, spoil, unfair and solution, because wants spoiled by restriction of physicality is unfair and needs solution.
If you take these apart as of one side they form people that want what all want but can't give it to you perfectly, people that reject the changes you want by prior presence forbidding it such as businesses owning a product, people that think that is unfair and protest such prior presence as rebels even if this is misleading bias to what both want and raoth which suggests their must be a solution in the ways as as the many ways of infinity.
The design for these four sides were beautiful but not important, because I took them firstly from the listening and believing of all four, because the other option of only one as choice is unwise.
All four of those positions are extremes of what can't be solved except by time tomorrow with outer space and near complete resource accessibility of infinity and aren't supported by a planetary level of accessibility, thus the best solution, much like my sister found for her many she had at home, was moving which fixed many relationships with her family.
Infact the modern conflicts can be best resolved by moving the two divided sides apart out to sea, sky, underground and outer space. Since I must strongly suggest those two sides of political left and right are vital to the survival of people humanity especially, given business is fundamental to people and climate is hardly understood nor is nature, so either must be considered by separate groups.
As such past this point I focused on my own thing, with the concluding summary of what all that prior had been before as the following posts past a buffer that re identified myself as a Dog Deman not Jesus and the Anti-christ. However, when I used that word, I meant it as originally meant as false-prophet.
Because I am not a prophet, nor am I the messiah, since neither are the beast in sprung book. In fact I later call myself a shaphet, because while I met Jesus in a dream once, that is the term I needed for what is looking into the unknown, past the last prophet that also represents the ages after much development.
Since I equally spring from after Lovecraft and Nietzsche that were not what was the ages of plato and socrates, Jesus in turn if he be here at all or always is, I would suggest be in his church I admit. Which I merely hear and listen from what is a question regarding coexistence of many views in an age that indeed saw what those men speak, but yet have they seen or thought what is after today.
Which I had used as an identifier shocking and contradictory for being not the time of the second coming, because firstly I don't save the world I suspect more would come after me, needing more then me, I sought only to help it into a new age recognizing that all opinions were true and not individually false in sense of practice legitimate.
Truth but not necessarily truth in sense of intent desirable or sense of real consequence in cases of people who make choices with actions and am not the end just the middle still on its way, acting from fear of what any do to each other.
Which hearing and knowing the other spare, for what is not truth by validity of beliefs tells what they seek in what they say. Thus hear them for not rather truth but concern of it, as it may save thee or they,
I merely sought what actually solves that catastrophe in simplicity bot majority and the fact that not all practices are necessarily in everyone's best interest only time and many answer.
Which this all attempted to help by basis before too many find themselves met with many truths cofunctioning in separation of disbelief, but in sense of likes to science, opinions that can do miraculous things, that aren't science or of any specific denomination. Which then find the question of which or what is correct difficult, but said conflict also risking veil where perhaps it best be not distracted.
Yet further I chose that title fpr the fear and deception it sounds, and is to force others to think past and apart from me themselves to guarantee I'm not taken from strict absolute of opinion.
Because I'll show you what morals I focused on thinking about after this, past all this they are only in sense of where they draw the line of in discomfort of other's wants, not when they allow the better of anyones wants in the fairness of all wants. I did this in the sense of recognizing when desires were extreme for the age but not tomorrow, that extreme however is for any themselves to recognize.
Since this gave the most universal translation and agreeable point among all people on the planet, what they wanted in the reasonable of its expectation. But first lets show when I turned into a dog deman in the imidiate next blog from prior shown, since that is just what dog deman started as before turning:
https://howfariwalked.blogspot.com/
Past this I wandered posting not on reddit but rather 4chan for a time as characters where I made a few blogs and then return to reddit with the exploration of how to make novel things. After this, this is the last mention of wants in the beginning of my own personal focus apart from basic philosophy.
It was my interests in them past the wants and my personal exploration of wisdom, equally trying to find a way to having some ability of wisdom by my own two feet with some considerations of other too. Technically the latter is just additional past the fundamental of my mind, not the stability of any people.
https://meaningandbeyond.blogspot.com/2018/01/what-stands-at-door-is-not-what-lay.html
In fact other's can study past or without this, ( preferably recommended you consider it except in conditions of real reasonable justification as follows in an example. ) as to provide more fine lines to moral behavior or what is wiser done to better survive as a species or even multiple.
As we can call this the study of solutions as for others to consider many must be able to speak and best listen to those ideas, because this provides a basic guide to interaction among different opinions but its not complete. People often have reason to tell you its unwise, even if they misunderstand or do, especially from their insight that might save your life if you keep it in mind.
Believe others don't necessarily follow them, but tell them what you fear.
As below I studied and asked also whether forcing others at all was a good idea or not, I realized that in many cases forcing others to do something is unkind, it inhibits their rights. This I coined the first monotheists position I recognized, since their prophets stood and watched babylon fall.
But I then realized later that forcing others not to stop in concern of their safety is a justification in the opposite direction, then I noticed a rare third thought. This I coined the second monothiests position I recognized, since Jesus and the Saints feared the devil and wished to save you too.
However, last was what if they risk their safety in some way you saw, that they when told or forwarned of did nothing about but could still cause trajedy for being ignored. The muslims would respond with moral causation of the tragedy by justification of your disrespect, as that's their prophet did.
Their Prophet saw the Christians invading, so he took control of his land by force under justification of the Qran and monotheism third, to push a front in the opposite direction, demonstrating what the invasion of other peoples worlds are, when all turn back on the invasion for fear of their ways taken.
Consider this just my opinion on what the three monothiesm are about in small interpretation I take from either end, none the less that is where I presently stand on considering others at least in what they tell me.
Which I could go on, but wiser is to see what they might mean, especially in their less extremes of intolerance, given I'd say one thing they all know is tolerance of themselves expected in others. In my mind this applies for all domains of thinking more then fraudulent.
Fraudulent ideas, often takes the form of a claim with either costly purchase to know how and always little explanation for its capacity. However, that does technically leave out the honest person who chooses to use the same method of secrecy and is serious, to which I recommend providing proof of legitimacy, since that forces frauds to do work that is all they really are missing from their wealth.
I also added far later not to take from other's possessions what belongs to them without permission, as I would point out they often take back or want back what you took without permission.
Further my advice is always respect laws of a country dwellt within, if you don't like it find a way to peacefully build a new one with followers by lack of conflict and perhaps prove its safe at all and stable so it doesn't have loop holes like half well baked communism that collapses later. Since I can assure you a model is predictable when put in practice, if it falls to pieces, it needs improvements.
I also initially spent some time on fear and pain specifically in a sort of interest as for the fun the of it, in sense similar to videogames, film and sadomasochism but in a sense of same as sadomasochism reasonable methods, since I in prior writings also like games and so I focused some part on that.
This is where it was at at the time of writing and still needed work, is mostly dark concepts and story played games, which I find for larping or story of fiction are fun for either team red team blue type combat and are also equally a good alternative to what I fear be, if someone dare take fictional villains to reality and form themselves into real equivalents. Since this at least gives some place they can fair be.
The other is where they often meet the same fates of fiction told and often be.
https://gameofmonsters.blogspot.com/2018/09/introduction.html
The reason is also to show you what that is like, when some focus on dark, be it for their own comfort or for what other's would rather they keep to themselves, not share with undesiring. Infact, I've seen some that seemed already to lean into ranges my own view here, didn't think was friendly.
But I can't represent an answer at this time for what all that brings about, only a useful key.
However, given the present advancements with protophorms, I must review this posts ideas too, refreshing it for what may as time is slowly telling me, is like in what isn't nanobots for me, but partbots of like in sense of between magic's and science's own methods to the powers of substantial effects.
Which took me not more then using the between of either be, to find what both had already.
https://initiateoftheparsense.blogspot.com/2017/09/virtual-reality-nanobots-and-random.html
Science's nanotech is made by knowing what matter does in high diversity to allow accuracy of tiny intended alterations to matter to shape tiny particulates to specific ends of definition.
Magic's spellcasting is done by knowing the metaphysics of rich complexity on the elements of matter in intention of causation, that describe the exact formation of itself in literal manifestation.
My own started once as being focused on science and magic apart, but due to curiosity and need for demonstrating either's compatibility, I built a secondary in-between reality apart from either that enables a third sort of capacity.
As compared to the scifi and fantasy of these two, which merely represents stereotypes of likes of scifi and fantasy classics, Averence is something off the cliché and often imagined fiction but in all three are real within this propositions.
Averence's holocoding is done by defining iconographs of complex coded functionality that produce projections of modelled behaviors onto surface polygons of real submachine consequantilias.
Here are all my other blogs:
https://thepileofincomplition.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html?zx=a0ea2286c0bbef1
No comments:
Post a Comment