[M]an is the measure of all things to man, because man is the only system of measurement available to man. God is a system of measurement in the group’s ideal of man to imitate (as in Jesus, or Achilles) a demigod to aspire to (Odin, Hercules), a god to negotiate with (zeus, thor, tyr), one to obey (jehova, allah), or one to simply understand (deism, the physical and natural laws). Any creature inventing a god would invent one in his image just as we have – and just as the hundreds of gods have been invented abandoned or lost before the present gods.
Source: Original Site Post
-
A God is a System of Measurement
[M]an is the measure of all things to man, because man is the only system of measurement available to man. God is a system of measurement in the group’s ideal of man to imitate (as in Jesus, or Achilles) a demigod to aspire to (Odin, Hercules), a god to negotiate with (zeus, thor, tyr), one to obey (jehova, allah), or one to simply understand (deism, the physical and natural laws). Any creature inventing a god would invent one in his image just as we have – and just as the hundreds of gods have been invented abandoned or lost before the present gods.
-
There Is Only One Scientific Method for The Constitution of Gods – and I Think We Know It
—“Empirical mechanism for such phenomena not yet found, “—
[W]ell as the top physicists have already stated, we know the complete spectrum of forces because there is no ‘room’ for any other force. So no, no information can exist in the spectrum. I can’t remember who works on this (but I know how to find out), and it’s sort of taboo for the reasons that are obvious – it threatens faith the occult that faith depends upon. But, just as we know the complete composition of chemistry, we know the complete composition of interacting forces. What we don’t know is the geometry of the primary force that creates the grammar we know of as quantum mechanics, that would explain gravity at the quantum level and unite quantum(small) and relativistic (large) – both of which are currently descriptive rather than causal. God is just what I said it was above: an archetypal character with whom we intuititionistically (auto-associatively) role play (predict), as we would a parent or headman, and through that filter – a filter to whom we are as transparent as we were to parents and headmen – we can judge our intuitions. Man is the measure of all things to man, because man is the only system of measurement available to man. God is a system of measurement in the group’s ideal of man to imitate (jesus, Achilles) a demigod to aspire to (odin, Hercules,), a god to negotiate with (zeus, thor, tyr), one to obey (jehova, allah), or one to simply understand (deism, the physical and natural laws). Any creature inventing a god would invent one in his image just as we have – and just as the hundreds of gods have been invented abandoned or lost before the present gods. Science killed the lie of god and discovered the truth of god, and the laws of the universe, and only europeans have done so.
-
There Is Only One Scientific Method for The Constitution of Gods – and I Think We Know It
—“Empirical mechanism for such phenomena not yet found, “—
[W]ell as the top physicists have already stated, we know the complete spectrum of forces because there is no ‘room’ for any other force. So no, no information can exist in the spectrum. I can’t remember who works on this (but I know how to find out), and it’s sort of taboo for the reasons that are obvious – it threatens faith the occult that faith depends upon. But, just as we know the complete composition of chemistry, we know the complete composition of interacting forces. What we don’t know is the geometry of the primary force that creates the grammar we know of as quantum mechanics, that would explain gravity at the quantum level and unite quantum(small) and relativistic (large) – both of which are currently descriptive rather than causal. God is just what I said it was above: an archetypal character with whom we intuititionistically (auto-associatively) role play (predict), as we would a parent or headman, and through that filter – a filter to whom we are as transparent as we were to parents and headmen – we can judge our intuitions. Man is the measure of all things to man, because man is the only system of measurement available to man. God is a system of measurement in the group’s ideal of man to imitate (jesus, Achilles) a demigod to aspire to (odin, Hercules,), a god to negotiate with (zeus, thor, tyr), one to obey (jehova, allah), or one to simply understand (deism, the physical and natural laws). Any creature inventing a god would invent one in his image just as we have – and just as the hundreds of gods have been invented abandoned or lost before the present gods. Science killed the lie of god and discovered the truth of god, and the laws of the universe, and only europeans have done so.
-
Testimony: “Many Ideas Are Scary at First”
by Brandon Potts I have to say when I first learned of you and saw your words they worried and angered me. Then I put my arrogance aside and I analyzed and researched what you had said. While many of your ideas are scary to those that are set in their ways to those willing to learn and listen they are freeing. Even my wife agrees with much of what you say. Don’t ever stop my friend and one day you may be the king we need.
-
Testimony: “Many Ideas Are Scary at First”
by Brandon Potts I have to say when I first learned of you and saw your words they worried and angered me. Then I put my arrogance aside and I analyzed and researched what you had said. While many of your ideas are scary to those that are set in their ways to those willing to learn and listen they are freeing. Even my wife agrees with much of what you say. Don’t ever stop my friend and one day you may be the king we need.
-
Testimony – P Is the Rational Expression of Our Ancient Traditions.
TESTIMONY – P IS SCIENTIFIC(LOGICAL, OPERATIONAL, EMPIRICAL) ARTICULATION OF OUR ANCIENT TRADITIONS. by Scott Strong What’s brilliant about you Curt is your ability to articulate it all so methodically. The reality is these Western ideas weren’t really formed by one great philosopher but are rather an an hod, kit-bashed collection of mostly intuitive practices that our ancestors accumulated, not out of some great philosophy or moral conviction, so much as pure pragmatism in that they were the best practices that simply worked and because if people did things that didn’t work, the group would die in battle, or starve in the lean winter months. Propertarianism is not your invention, but rather your codification and articulation of the mostly intuitive unconscious pragmatic wisdom of our ancestors. === That’s right. I just wrote it down for the first time the way others have written their bibles of primitive thought in primitive language. It may not have been possible to our body of advanced thought until we had an advanced language to write it in. But we’ve been practicing it for thousands of years. And that’s why propertarianism is a product of our European civilization, not me – i’m not that important and our ancestors are. And that is why it has more legitimacy than some other nonsense some philosopher pulled out of his had. I’m just a scientists discovering and capturing the rules of western civilization. I’m just doing natural science in the natural law of our people – writing down the formulae.
-
Testimony – P Is the Rational Expression of Our Ancient Traditions.
TESTIMONY – P IS SCIENTIFIC(LOGICAL, OPERATIONAL, EMPIRICAL) ARTICULATION OF OUR ANCIENT TRADITIONS. by Scott Strong What’s brilliant about you Curt is your ability to articulate it all so methodically. The reality is these Western ideas weren’t really formed by one great philosopher but are rather an an hod, kit-bashed collection of mostly intuitive practices that our ancestors accumulated, not out of some great philosophy or moral conviction, so much as pure pragmatism in that they were the best practices that simply worked and because if people did things that didn’t work, the group would die in battle, or starve in the lean winter months. Propertarianism is not your invention, but rather your codification and articulation of the mostly intuitive unconscious pragmatic wisdom of our ancestors. === That’s right. I just wrote it down for the first time the way others have written their bibles of primitive thought in primitive language. It may not have been possible to our body of advanced thought until we had an advanced language to write it in. But we’ve been practicing it for thousands of years. And that’s why propertarianism is a product of our European civilization, not me – i’m not that important and our ancestors are. And that is why it has more legitimacy than some other nonsense some philosopher pulled out of his had. I’m just a scientists discovering and capturing the rules of western civilization. I’m just doing natural science in the natural law of our people – writing down the formulae.
-
More on Learning Operational Grammar
(core) What is the difference between an actor and subject? My understanding of traditional grammar is that: “John threw the ball” Subject-verb-object Which you describe as Actor-operation-subject John is an actor in this case, and the “subject” (as I was taught in school, anyway). Another example: “The fruit fell from the tree” Subject-verb-object In this sentence, one might think the actor is gravity, or the wind. Since that is what caused the change in state. From a testimonial or vitruvian measurement, though, it would be more like: “I saw the fruit fall from the tree.” The actor is myself as an observer? And the subject is the fruit? Any clarification on terms “actor” and “subject”? by Adam Jacob Robert Walker: You could consider the tree as an actor as well. The tree produces fruit. But a tree isn’t necessarily following incentives. But rather it’s “act” is a result of nature adaptations or mechanisms of survival. I think you are correct that you’d have to switch it to the orientation of the observer. I saw the fruit fall from the tree (actor-action), after I went outside to get my mail (incentive to go outside and observe), and the fruit splattered on my driveway (state change on the ground). I think “subject” refers to the concept in which the whole of the testimony describes, but through the description of operations by an actor or group of actors. by Bill Joslin: In english grammar the subject is the agent subject-verb-object. the subject “acts upon” the object (side note: this distinction subject “that which acts upon”and object “that which is acted upon” lay the foundation for the initial use of the terms subjective, objective. prior to the 19th century of so, religion was considered the pursuit of “objective truth” in that one would he changed by the truth (truth acts upon the seeker) and subjective truth was what one did when they sought truth to a specific ends (such as science investigates a particular phenomenon to eventually be able to do something with it). the rise of science (seeking truth to a specific ends) “killed” objective truth – this was the assertion in Horkhiemer and Adorno’ Dialectic of enlightenment. by Adam Jacob Robert Walker Nice. That puts it in a philosophical context for me. I wasn’t aware of all that. by Curt Doolittle[I promise I saw] [gravity cause] the fruit [fall/fell] [from the tree] [to the ground.] Promise, Testimony, Actor, Subject of testimony, Transaction. Use subject or object if you want, but my point is that we need to use “actor, and in the OP that I started this discourse with, I was making the point that we habitually start sentences with the subject being acted upon to provide context, and the cost of ‘thinking’ in operational terms is the extra step required to start with actor instead – which eliminates the problem of the verb to be from the sentence structure. If you have a difficulty with eliminating the verb to be, start with the actor not the object( or as I prefer, subject). ADAM IS CORRECT: Actor, Subject. —“I think “subject” refers to the concept in which the whole of the testimony describes, but through the description of operations by an actor or group of actors.”— Well done!!!!!
-
More on Learning Operational Grammar
(core) What is the difference between an actor and subject? My understanding of traditional grammar is that: “John threw the ball” Subject-verb-object Which you describe as Actor-operation-subject John is an actor in this case, and the “subject” (as I was taught in school, anyway). Another example: “The fruit fell from the tree” Subject-verb-object In this sentence, one might think the actor is gravity, or the wind. Since that is what caused the change in state. From a testimonial or vitruvian measurement, though, it would be more like: “I saw the fruit fall from the tree.” The actor is myself as an observer? And the subject is the fruit? Any clarification on terms “actor” and “subject”? by Adam Jacob Robert Walker: You could consider the tree as an actor as well. The tree produces fruit. But a tree isn’t necessarily following incentives. But rather it’s “act” is a result of nature adaptations or mechanisms of survival. I think you are correct that you’d have to switch it to the orientation of the observer. I saw the fruit fall from the tree (actor-action), after I went outside to get my mail (incentive to go outside and observe), and the fruit splattered on my driveway (state change on the ground). I think “subject” refers to the concept in which the whole of the testimony describes, but through the description of operations by an actor or group of actors. by Bill Joslin: In english grammar the subject is the agent subject-verb-object. the subject “acts upon” the object (side note: this distinction subject “that which acts upon”and object “that which is acted upon” lay the foundation for the initial use of the terms subjective, objective. prior to the 19th century of so, religion was considered the pursuit of “objective truth” in that one would he changed by the truth (truth acts upon the seeker) and subjective truth was what one did when they sought truth to a specific ends (such as science investigates a particular phenomenon to eventually be able to do something with it). the rise of science (seeking truth to a specific ends) “killed” objective truth – this was the assertion in Horkhiemer and Adorno’ Dialectic of enlightenment. by Adam Jacob Robert Walker Nice. That puts it in a philosophical context for me. I wasn’t aware of all that. by Curt Doolittle[I promise I saw] [gravity cause] the fruit [fall/fell] [from the tree] [to the ground.] Promise, Testimony, Actor, Subject of testimony, Transaction. Use subject or object if you want, but my point is that we need to use “actor, and in the OP that I started this discourse with, I was making the point that we habitually start sentences with the subject being acted upon to provide context, and the cost of ‘thinking’ in operational terms is the extra step required to start with actor instead – which eliminates the problem of the verb to be from the sentence structure. If you have a difficulty with eliminating the verb to be, start with the actor not the object( or as I prefer, subject). ADAM IS CORRECT: Actor, Subject. —“I think “subject” refers to the concept in which the whole of the testimony describes, but through the description of operations by an actor or group of actors.”— Well done!!!!!