why I have settled on Tao, not deity, still creationism

[Comrade]

I am not an evolutionist, I believe Tao creates, I believe a full
determistic universe, full creation, and no randomness, but no deity. ANd
I will prove such points here. Search for acausality or randomness in this
message if you want proof that there can be no randomness, and without
randomess, thta leaves full causation, and determistic reality.

1) if space and time, are infinite, then the possibility of irrationality
in physics, exists, and all mathematics fall apart, as do statistics, and
any statement of empiricism, because infinity is not a limit, it is an
irrationality, it can be concieved, but not characterized, or quantified,
an expression can be put forth for it, a symbol, a conception, a
expression of a conception, but none of the questions: how, when, or
where, can be answered. Somewhere along that plane of space and time,
causality could not be determined, AT ALL. And I have proof there is no
acausality, that we can discuss, in the Liebniz sense of a proof. Now,
that means somewhere in space and time, all empiricism, is invalid.
Because our system of spacial coordinates becomes irrational, and there is
no qualification or quantification of matter possible. And no forces can
be observed, without qualification of matter. So, if matter exists in the
same dimension as space, and energy the same dimension as matter, then
matter and energy become undefined as some point. They at least reside in
a shared dimension, because we observe them and space together, so these
dimensions at least intersect with each other and that of psyche. There is
no matter if it does not occupy space, it does not matter until it does,
it is nothing. So, the dimension of matter and space are one. And as we
said, time is not a dimension, it is a conception and metric, and part of
the psychic dimension. And since matter and energy are one, via the
Schrodinger equation, then space and matter and energy are one dimension.

2) space cannot be finite, because if nothing exists on the other side
where space ends, then space is contines, and time cannot be finite,
because time is a metric, not a fabric, a conception, not physics, and an
infinite conception

3) so, if empiricism, all observation and perception become invalid at
some point, only conscious is, and not even conscious for without any
perception at all, without any senses, there is nothing to be conscious
of, the mechanism of the process of generation of thought, is solely
dependent on perception, when there is nothing to think about, all there
would be is you thinking only of you

thinking is the function, f
you are the variable, y
you are the result, y
y=f(y)
the change in y with respect to itself (a delta) dy/dy = 1, that means,
the only change in you, can result, from only a change in you

if the psyche (not the conscious) is rational, it is qualifiable and
quantifiable and finite, and mechanistically cannot change itself, so the
premise that a function of thought would exist in true solitude, is
falsified, and the psyche would have no conscious in any case it had no
perception, but suffering is not solitude

if the psyche is irrational, it is infinite, and I mean irrational, in the
sense, no psychological causation can be made from behavior to motivation,
behavior is irrational, or motivation itself is irrational, then, an
infinity exists, and in solitude, infinity=f(infinity) and in boolean
sense this means f, the function does not exist, because it is not
relevant, infinity alone suffices, infinity=infinity suffices, so the
premise that a function of thought would exist in true solitude, is
falsified, and the psyche would have no conscious in any case it had no
perception

so conscious only exists, when there is perception, and by quantum
mechanical studies, perception exists only when there is conscious, and
although I have a proof there can be no hidden transactional mechanism,
that I am willing to share if you are interested

you and the
environment are intricately and explicitly tied, as is anything that has a
conscious, including a deity that had a conscious, so we are living in a
pantheistic verse of events

we have proved space and time and matter and energy are one dimension, and
now we have proved the conscious and all conscious is also part of this
dimension,a nd if the conscious enters another dimension, or other
variable, then everything goes with it, and the new dimension is just the
old dimension, immediately, except for the conception, conscious
conception, stays in that dimension, since we proved conscious does not
exist without perception, and we have even proved, there is no unconscious
perception, because we proved there is no conscious when there is no
perception, so even conception is in this dimensions, and we have to still
deal as the psyche itself as a possible second dimension from conscious

so, how do we explain the conception of multiple dimensions? well, we do
not concieve of abstract dimesions, since true abstraction, is really
nothing at the limit of maximal abstraction, with no specifics, a
conception becomes nothing at all, so there is no concept of the true
abstract, just the conception of abstraction and the realization that at
the end of the abstraction process is nothing, and nothing is the same as
the total abstract, and we have to still deal as the psyche itself as a
possible second dimension from conscious

so, any 2nd dimension we concieve, is an abstraction from this dimension,
since we have determined that the limit of all abstraction is nothing, and
nothing, space, is a possibility in this dimension, and it exists in the
dimension, so, that bounds both infinity and nothing to this dimension,
and all possible dimensions are one, we just have not used the right word,
when we concieve of something totally different, and something totally
different from every possible rational possibility, is an irrationality,
and irrationality exists in this dimension, so we do not concieve of new
dimensions, we concieve of multiples of equal or lesser composition than
this one, and we have to still deal as the psyche itself as a possible
second dimension from conscious

we know that at the limit of complete nothing, that conscious ends, but
every other dimensional possibility is concieved, there is no conception
without perception, since there is nothing truly abstract, so it is
percieved, by some sense, so they exist

we start at infinity/irrationality and coming to nothing of any dimension,
but we have proved there is nothing truly abstract, so there is nothing
truly irrational, complete irrationality is nothing, so we live in a
pocket of reality, bounded on all sides by infinite nothing, with a
possibility that the psyche, seperate from conscious may just be a
dimension that intersects with these seperate dimensions, but we must no
revisit this, since if thet are part of consciuous they are part of
perception, so conscious exists in one multi-faceted dimension, by which
there are no bounds, and psyche itself at least intersects with this
dimension, psyche exists everywhere conscious exists, so, it is not an
intersection, it is either an encompassment or equality

the backward equation says if there is not multiple perception, there
cannot be multiple conscious, and there appears there are multiple
perceptions, so multiple conscious is possible, for a psyche

what does the forward equation say? with a single conscious, you have to
have multiple senses, for multiple perception, so perception, is dependent
on senses, dimensionally, and there can be for a psyche, only as many
perceptions as there are senses

in the focus of all psyche combined only as many perceptions and the
combined senses of all psyches, so in reality only as many perceptions and
the combined senses of all psyches, and since we have determined there are
infinite matter and energy, there are infinite perceptions, and therefore
infinite senses, in the forward equation

there are only 1 category of possible senses, because there are only 1
dimension of conscious, all senses are sub-categories of such, sub
categories does not mean they cannot be disjoint sets, but all sets
intersect at conception, and an intersection is a joining, so there is
only one sense, and only one perception, so the backward model says there
can only be one conscious, and there is no conflict with the forward
equation

the concept of the soul (psyche is the Greek word for soul) having a
fabric is completety irrelevant to conscious, and since there is only one
conscious, it is completely irrelevant to itself, which means it is
abstract and nothing and does not exist, and at least there is one
intersection, so there is one set, and only one dimension, and there is no
soul or psyche, only conscious

and with reason and logic, in the Liebniz sense, this is all we can
surmise in the macro sense of reality

1) there is one sense and one perception and one conscious 2) one
perception means reality is a single verse, a uni-verse, a song between
conscious and perception

we have not talked about causation much to this point

there are two possibilities

1) consensual reality by which that one conscious begets the perceptions
2) non-consensual reality, by which the perceptions beget conscious

since I am a conscious, and I am not conscious my consensus in reality,
then the second possibility is the reality, and at this point, I am not a
Darwinist, since he proposes a transactional causation model between life
and physics, natural selection, I am even more of an evolutionist since I
do not believe there is a transaction, but no evolutionists at all, since
life is not an evolution it is a cycle of nothing to nothing, birth to
death, and perhaps there is rebirth, and a cyclical nature of reality, but
not evolution in any macro sense, only temporalities. I have to be a
creationist, since there is a deterministic universe and things are
created, not by conscious, but not by chance either.

there is not even pantheism any more, because we can see, that conscious
and perception are not always a joined set of one dimension, but two
dimensions that intersect at the will of perception

so, I declare I must be a Taoist, I must find the yins and yangs, of
reality of perception, and Taoists follow the art of "wu wei" which is to
let nature take its course, and find your place in nature.

And the more popular interpretation of "wu wei" is to study nature, and
comply with its logic. And so, I am a scientist. And by science, I see I
am not omnipotent, and I need laws of civilty to protect me, so I am not
an aristocrat, I am a communist, until I am forced to tell an untruth in
some siutation and say I am an aristocrat, to protect my asylum. So I am
an individual, in only one reality scenario. An individual in one resort,
a communist by rule. Yang by rule, yin by resort.

Another interpretation of "wu wei" is non-doing. That can be interpretated
as doing absolutely nothing and letting reality do what it does. And since
this is the mechanism of causation, we have no choice, it is indeed a
deterministic uni-verse, a deterministic reality. Anything we do is "wu
wei" in that interpretation, because we are never doing anything we are
just reacting to causation. So there is no free will.

so, deterministically, I will elucidate yin and yang.

Yang is the rule, is
science and communism, and science applied to every facet, and communism
is just the best science, for the rule. And there is no pure science, you
never just "know" anything, everything is deterministic, there is just the
concept of the scientific process, you follow, to stay sane, and since the
unni-verse is determistic, you don't follow you just do it.

Yin, the resorts in life, when yang fails, in terms of sociology by
science, I see I am not omnipotent, and I need laws of civilty to protect
me, so I am not an aristocrat, I am a communist, until I am forced to tell
an untruth in some siutation and say I am an aristocrat, to protect my
asylum. So I am an individual, in only one reality scenario. An individual
in one resort, a communist by rule. The only other resortS I have to deal
with is when science fails me in physics and psychology. If psychology
fails me, I would be irrational, irrationality is abstract, abstract does not
exist, so psychological irrationality does not exist, only crime as a
result of un-communal thought, crime as a result of aristocratic thought.
And I am a devout communal thinker, so I do not have to consider this,
before my realization of communism, I had my aristocrat thoughts, and
problems because of such in life. And in order for me to have aristocratic
thought again, I would ahve to lose the science and logic of communism as
I defined above, Which would entail loss of memory. In terms of other
physics, if yang fails, if science fails, then physics will prevail over
me. And in some cases this may be irrelevant, in other cases it is not,
and I find a grasp on science at some point in such a situation, so there
is no resort, there is no yin, there is no dark, there is only yang, there
is only science, and loss of science, and there is no return of science by
non-science, only by science, or deterministic reality.

Here is my proof there can be no acausality

now, can there be acausality?

there can be no partial acausality like radioactive decay, which professes
causal relationship to some variables and not others, direction of
particle spin falls into this category since it si causally related to
matter, the particle, and vacuum fluctuation also, since it is related
causally to low quantum states

let z=f(x,y)
let dz/dx be random
and dz/dy not be random

now if dz/dx is random,
then df/dx is random,

if x and dx are not random, then the premises
are falsified, since that means df is random
and therefore df/dy is random, and dz/dy being
random

now if dx is random because x is random,
then f is random, df being
completely random, and dz/dy being random
and falsifying the premises

so, the there can be no "partial" randomness
and radioactive decay is not random

it is just "characterizable" as random

so, acausality is not the mechanism

and acausality IS NOT validated by radioactive decay

SO, this leaves us to address, FULL ACAUSALITY

nowm before we do, let us not characterize vacuum
fluctuations as FULLY ACAUSAL, because they are either
causal with the variable of low quantum state, or they
are no low quantum states, they are NOTHING and nothing
cannot fluctuate, so they are another case of supposed
"partial" acausality

and particle spin, is also causal with respect to particles,
so it is a case of "partial" acausality, and has also been addressed above

SO, there NO true emprical examples of FULL ACAUSALITY or
FULL RANDOMNESS, but let us pursue this anyways

the universe is a function of ALL variables
y=f(x1,x2,x3,x4,.....xn) where xn can also be infinite if we allow the
concept of no bounds to space and time

can any dy/dx be random, can there be ANY randomness at all?

well, obviously if dy is random, y is random, then this
is possible, but the universe as a whole is not random,
we observe and document "some" causation all the time

so that leaves us with the case that dy is not random

now, if any specific variable is completely random, any
x or dx is random, then, y is random, because it is a function of
randomness and that would again
require the whole universe to be random, which it is not, because we
observe at least "some" causal relationships

so can dy/dx be random, without dy or dx being random?

well, if ANY one dy/dx is random, then ALL dy/dx are random, since
there can be no partial acausality as proved above

now if all dy/dx are random, then y is completely random AGAIN, and
we are left to deal with why we have evidence, in terms of ANOVA that
there is causation in the universe

and here is my proof there can be no transactional mechanism, including
Many Worlds, of Quantum Mechanics

Everett fails, Many Worlds, because all manifestations are even
less of a probability than one,

and ANY hidden variable/mechanism/transaction/law of
physics fails, like Cramer, because all those mechanisms are superpositioned
also. The wave traveling back in time, does not happen, until the collapse
happens. So that wave, is superpositioned also, and so is any theoretical
transaction or any combination of transactions you can concieve. And so,
transactions of physics do not collapse superpositioning.

So, we have determined physics beget psyche, and we have determined that
only psyche brings definiteness to physics and collapse of
superpositioning. So, determinism is falsified at this point, and while
consensual reality is not validated, transactional reality, between psyche
and physics are.

mathematically

let p = physics
let s = psyche
let f be the function

(p,s)=f(p,s) and in boolean sense, the function once again is logically
irrelevant, p,s is p,s without the function, and we are back to pantheism,
and a transactional determinism that happens outside of conscious.
So we have met the subconscious and superego. It is not as Freud said, the
ego does not cause the superego, since we have proved conscious is not the
prime causation of reality. So, there is perception, conscious and
superego. And supergo is the transaction resulting in conscious and
perception, conscious and reality. And as we said, this entity cannot be
abstract or irrational, since irrational is abstract, and full abstraction
is nothing. So this superego, is rational. Is it a psycho-physical
machine? Or is it no machine, but a conscious and entity of itself?

Is this Tao, and there is nothing else, or is this God?

We have determined there is only one conscious, and if such intersected
with conscious, it would be part of conscious and not the subconscious.
Therefore it is a machine, and Tao, and just Tao. As we discussed it
cannot be irrational, so there is a rationality, with respect to it,
perception and conscious. It is the full causer, it needs no rationality
for itself, but existence. Perceoption needs no rationality but existence,
so its rationality must be toward the conscious. It is singing the
uni-verse, it is singing the single verse, and if we oberve the verse, we
will know the very rationality of the perfect rational thing. And we must
look beyond the transaction, to the higher meaning and purpose of the
transaction, what is the message that is sent, what do we see from the
biggest picture of life we can grasp? We see strife, and we see struggle
and we see fight, and once in awhile we see success. We see a glimmer of
hope, and we see vigilance and dedication and withstanding as the path
there, AND, the only path there. And we see the bounty of that dedication
to be as grand as the Pharoahs. We see that the fruits of strife and
success are the greatest fruits there are. And with no strife, we see
lesser excitement, and lesser and lesser excitement. No, not many men,
have reached a point of complete boredom, and we discussed psychic
solitude as an impossibility above. And likewise our goal can never be to
pursue strife, or pursue the rat race and dog eat dog capitalism, since in
doing so , we forget the higher goal of getting beyond the rat race, annd
conquering the rat race. And not simply suceeding in it, but after sucess,
tearing it down, and creating a utopia of peace and pleasure. And when we
get bored with uptopia. Can we get bored with utopia? We discussed that
total solitude is impossible, but suffering is possible. So the suffering
of lonlyness, you are not in solitiude, the superego, Tao, is still there.
But I think we can count on Tao providing a rainbow at the end of out
strife, and at least enough high points to make it worthwhile along the
way. And that is my experience.

--
Comrade
see my friend Average Joe's site
http://www.mysolution.ws
the aristocracy was the problem in 1776
the aristocracy is the problem today
http://www.aclu.org/dissentreport
we must close the door by which aristocracy arises

"Does God want goodness? or the choice of goodness?
Is the man who chooses bad, somehow better,
than the man who has the good forced upon him?"
a quote from the movie, A Clockwork Orange, Kubrick

Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage.
Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding
without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when
its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution
and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude!
"Have courage to use your own reason!" - that is the motto
of enlightenment.
Kant -- What Is Enlightenment? 1784

Ayn Rand just professed laissez faire, another Jewish mysticist
of Zionist status quo social order, and aspiring to such, she
never challenged "the establishment" she was a radical crony,
not a radical individual, the very anti-thesis of individualism

[Comrade]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:11:48 +0000, Comrade wrote:

> I believe Tao creates

BUT, there is nothing to say, that does not have senses, but not
conscious. So it could indeed by an ultimate entity, eminating pure
empathy, and experiencing pure empathy in return. And such is omnipotent,
omnipresent, and omniscient, but it is an entity, not a being. It does not
know the pleasure it exudes or experiences. But, we can apsire to be like
it, AND, have the experience of complete empathy.

[flotsam]

"Comrade" wrote

> I am not an evolutionist, I believe Tao creates, I believe a full
> determistic universe

so your beliefs are determined?

[Comrade]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:31:30 +0000, flotsam wrote:

> so your beliefs are determined?

everything is determined in a deterministic universe, it is just a matter
of realization

[flotsam]

"Comrade" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.07.15...@mysolution.ws...

> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:31:30 +0000, flotsam wrote:
>
> > so your beliefs are determined?
>
> everything is determined in a deterministic universe, it is just a matter
> of realization
>

so your realizations are determined?

[Teresita]

In article <pan.2003.07.15...@mysolution.ws>, "Comrade" says...

>
>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:31:30 +0000, flotsam wrote:
>
>> so your beliefs are determined?
>
>everything is determined in a deterministic universe, it is just a matter
>of realization

And those of us who don't realize that are determined not to realize that.

--
Encyclopedia Teresita
http://web.newsguy.com/teresita

[Thomas H. Faller]

Comrade said:

>I am not an evolutionist, I believe Tao creates,...
<big snip>

The Tao you can post is not the real Tao.
Nice try.

Tom Faller

[Kermit]

"Comrade" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.07.15....@mysolution.ws>...

> I am not an evolutionist, I believe Tao creates, I believe a full
> determistic universe, full creation, and no randomness, but no deity. ANd
> I will prove such points here.

<snip Average Joe posing as his own buddy>

Those who know, do not speak.
Those who speak, do not know.

--- Kermit

[B. Hawes]

"Comrade" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.07.15....@mysolution.ws>...
>

> thinking is the function, f
> you are the variable, y
> you are the result, y
> y=f(y)

HEY! I think he is finally on to something. Obviously, for him,
thinking accomplishes nothing.

[Chris Krolczyk]

"Comrade" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.07.15....@mysolution.ws>...

> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:11:48 +0000, Comrade wrote:

>
> > I believe Tao creates
>
>
> BUT, there is nothing to say, that does not have senses, but not
> conscious. So it could indeed by an ultimate entity, eminating pure
> empathy, and experiencing pure empathy in return. And such is omnipotent,
> omnipresent, and omniscient, but it is an entity, not a being. It does not
> know the pleasure it exudes or experiences. But, we can apsire to be like
> it, AND, have the experience of complete empathy.

Answering your own posts makes you look a bit like...

Ed Conrad.

Not a good thing at all, IMHO.

-Chris Krolczyk

[Moonshadao]

http://www.cartoons-cartoon.com/pictures/head_up_your_ass.jpg

[AC]

[X-posts removed]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:11:48 +0000 (UTC),
Comrade <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote:

<snip>

Hey, Comrade Joe, when are you going to answer my hypothetical situation?
I'm sure you haven't forgotten. The set up is that we are now in a
communist state, as you desire, and you are Comrade Joe, esteemed leader and
protector of the Revolution, etc. etc. etc.

I am an opponent of Communism who wishes to overthrow communism via the
electoral process, by committing my party to dismantling the Communist
structure and permitting free enterprise. What will you, as Comrade Joe,
leader of the Communist state, do, if anything? For extra points, tell me
what you will do if you notice a sizable portion of the electorate starts
swinging my way?

--
Aaron Clausen

maureen-t...@alberni.net

[Rasputin]

"Comrade" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.07.15....@mysolution.ws...

> I am not an evolutionist, I believe Tao creates, I believe a full
> determistic universe, full creation, and no randomness, but no deity. ANd
> I will prove such points here. Search for acausality or randomness in this
> message if you want proof that there can be no randomness, and without
> randomess, thta leaves full causation, and determistic reality.

So what to do with all of those posts you've made proving free will? What
lead to your conversion?

[La Vaca Grande]

"Comrade" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.07.15....@mysolution.ws>...

><SNIP>

>
> let z=f(x,y)
> let dz/dx be random
> and dz/dy not be random
>
> now if dz/dx is random,
> then df/dx is random,
>
> if x and dx are not random, then the premises
> are falsified, since that means df is random
> and therefore df/dy is random, and dz/dy being
> random
>
> now if dx is random because x is random,
> then f is random, df being
> completely random, and dz/dy being random
> and falsifying the premises
>
> so, the there can be no "partial" randomness
> and radioactive decay is not random
>

> <SNIP>

Ok, I'm just a lurker here, but you've been posting this crap so many
times that it's becoming tiring to look at.

Aside from a huge ambiguity about what the hell a "random" derivative
is supposed to mean, you're main problem is right here:

> if x and dx are not random, then the premises
> are falsified, since that means df is random
> and therefore df/dy is random, and dz/dy being
> random

First, I'm going to assume that these are partial derivates.

Now, assuming that you've ever taken multivariable calculus, you'd
remember:

df/dx = lim(Dx->0) (f(x+Dx,y) - f(x,y))/Dx and
df/dy = lim(Dy->0) (f(x,y+Dy) - f(x,y))/Dy
(I can't type a delta on this keyboard, so pretend that those capital
D's are deltas)

NOTICE, the differential df is AMBIGUOUS: think about it. Is it an
infintessimal change in f along the x-axis? the y-axis? If it's the
former, then it can be written as f(x+Dx,y) - f(x,y), but if it's the
latter, then it's f(x,y+Dy) - f(x,y). NOTICE the difference.
Basically, what am saying is that making f(x+Dx,y) - f(x,y) (the 'df'
part of df/dx) does NOT necessarily make f(x,y+Dy) - f(x,y) (the 'df'
part of df/dy). df/dy is free to be nonrandom is df/dx is random.

Want an example?

One of the other poster here (sorry, I can't remember where/who is
was) already gave you a very lucid one:

Let f(x,y) = y + g(x), where dg/dx is a "random" function of x.

df/dx = dg/dx, which is random
df/dy = 1, which is not.

Is this in any way unclear??

For bonus credit, show me exactly what a graph of a "random" function
is supposed to look like, and tell me what exactly acausality has to
do with calculus

[Comrade]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:17:02 +0000, Rasputin wrote:

> So what to do with all of those posts you've made proving free will? What
> lead to your conversion?

I spelled it out, in the post that started this thread. We have will, but
it is determined, so it is not really free.

[Comrade]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:41:12 +0000, La Vaca Grande wrote:

> First, I'm going to assume that these are partial derivates.

they were deltas, if I used derivatives I owuld have had to establish
differentiability first

[Comrade]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:49:53 +0000, AC wrote:

> Hey, Comrade Joe, when are you going to answer my hypothetical situation?
> I'm sure you haven't forgotten. The set up is that we are now in a
> communist state, as you desire, and you are Comrade Joe, esteemed leader and
> protector of the Revolution, etc. etc. etc.
>
> I am an opponent of Communism who wishes to overthrow communism via the
> electoral process, by committing my party to dismantling the Communist
> structure and permitting free enterprise. What will you, as Comrade Joe,
> leader of the Communist state, do, if anything? For extra points, tell me
> what you will do if you notice a sizable portion of the electorate starts
> swinging my way?

well, there lies the difference between majority and community (communal
thought, communism), so my choices are

1) let you create an aristocracy, an anarchy, which is in noones interest
not even your own
2) stop you

and if I muster the electoral power to get there, first legislative
action, will be as Marx said, a temporary period of authoritarianism,
because I do think I have it all figured out, and if you think I do not,
see my website in my signature and let us discuss, when you have a valid
criticism, you can argue against me, until then, I am indeed an
unquestionable, undeniable authority

and I will let my platform speak for itself,
http://www.mysolution.ws/platform.htm
and my justifications
http://www.mysolution.ws
speak for themselves
and make my statement of
authoritarianism clear, find a hole in my platform, or concede, I am an
absolute authority, and THEE absolute authority, and in such paradigm,
anything but me, would be an error on anyone's part

[Comrade]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:49:53 +0000, AC wrote:

> I am an opponent of Communism who wishes to overthrow communism via the
> electoral process, by committing my party to dismantling the Communist
> structure and permitting free enterprise. What will you, as Comrade Joe,
> leader of the Communist state, do, if anything? For extra points, tell me
> what you will do if you notice a sizable portion of the electorate starts
> swinging my way?

my answer simply, is democracy is a process, communal society and
communism and communal thought, the abolishment of aristocratic is THE
GOAL, when the goal is reached, there is no need for the process, I
believe I have the perfect platform, that will allow such logic, judge for
yourself http://www.mysolution.ws/platform and realize that if you have no
credible argument, then I am an absolute authority, on the matters of the
goal intended, and my platform is perfect in achieving the goal

what you are saying kind of, is when we reach perfection, man will want
ikperfection and rat race and dog eat dog again, man does not want dog eat
dog ever, he wants to get beyond it and leave it far behind, and sit
there, and smoke the best opium, the best opium of the masses, communism,
and really when we reach perfection, soma, in the Hindu Vedic sense, not
the Huxley sense, will be there and no one will have a care for ANYTHING
except soma from then afterward, and a solar/wind/water powered soma maker will keep
every one on intravenous for 8 million years or so, and when we reach
perfection, control over matter and energy wil be theri too, and we can
just make another sun, there will be plent of higher inspiration and
aspiration, once the rat race is gone for all comrades, as evident by USSR
winning all olympic sports, being the first in space,a nd winning the arms
race

[Teresita]

In article <pan.2003.07.15....@mysolution.ws>, "Comrade" says...

>
>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:41:12 +0000, La Vaca Grande wrote:
>
>> First, I'm going to assume that these are partial derivates.
>
>they were deltas, if I used derivatives I owuld have had to establish
>differentiability first

Well first you have to define randomness before you can go around tossing
it off as a meaningful function.

[Comrade]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:19:41 +0000, Teresita wrote:

> Well first you have to define randomness before you can go around tossing
> it off as a meaningful function.

no causation

[Teresita]

In article <pan.2003.07.15....@mysolution.ws>, "Comrade" says...
>

>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:19:41 +0000, Teresita wrote:
>
>> Well first you have to define randomness before you can go around tossing
>> it off as a meaningful function.
>
>no causation

Set up a modulo counter with a 1 MHZ square wave triggering it, which is fed
through a momentary-contact switch. Hire a kid to push the button, release it,
and record the value (0-99) which results. Publish the table of results. These
are true random numbers, yet they have causation.

[Aron-Ra]

"Comrade" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.07.15....@mysolution.ws...

> I am not an evolutionist, I believe Tao creates, I believe a full
> determistic universe, full creation, and no randomness, but no deity. ANd
> I will prove such points here. Search for acausality or randomness in this
> message if you want proof that there can be no randomness, and without
> randomess, thta leaves full causation, and determistic reality.

"Nature acts without intent,
so cannot be described
as acting with benevolence,
nor malevolence to any thing."
--Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching

If you're a Taoist, then you believe in randomness.

[Comrade]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:38:18 +0000, Aron-Ra wrote:

> "Nature acts without intent,
> so cannot be described
> as acting with benevolence,
> nor malevolence to any thing."
> --Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching
>
> If you're a Taoist, then you believe in randomness.

no, I am just a better Taoist than Lao Tzu

[Comrade]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:31:39 +0000, Teresita wrote:

> Set up a modulo counter with a 1 MHZ square wave triggering it, which is fed
> through a momentary-contact switch. Hire a kid to push the button, release it,
> and record the value (0-99) which results. Publish the table of results. These
> are true random numbers, yet they have causation.

no, if they have causation they are no random events, they are caused,
they are just characterizable as random

[Lenny Flank]

"Comrade" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.07.15....@mysolution.ws...

> I am not an evolutionist, I believe Tao creates, I believe a full
> determistic universe, full creation, and no randomness, but no deity.

Well, I'm a Shidoshi who has studied Taoism and Tantric Buddhism for well
over 20 years now. And I have just two words to say to you:

Wu wei.

[Christopher Denney]

"Comrade" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote in
news:pan.2003.07.15....@mysolution.ws:

> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:38:18 +0000, Aron-Ra wrote:
>
>> "Nature acts without intent,
>> so cannot be described
>> as acting with benevolence,
>> nor malevolence to any thing."
>> --Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching
>>
>> If you're a Taoist, then you believe in randomness.
>
> no, I am just a better Taoist than Lao Tzu
>

That is probably the the single most asinine thing I've every heard.
It also proves you are no Taoist.

--
-- Cd -- Christopher Denney
--
The wages of sin are death, but after taxes are taken out, it's just a
tired feeling -- Paula Poundstone

[AC]

I just want answers to the questions I have posed. I don't want a dull
debate with a Marxist over the pros and cons of various political and
economicsystems. This is purely a hypothetical situation. I want my
questioned answered here, AJ, not in private.

I want you tell this entire group what you will do, as leader of the
Communist state. Will you suppress me or will you suffer my opposition to
the Communist government?

If I pose a real threat via my electoral popularity, will you prevent me
running in an election, or will you allow me to run? If I run and win, will
you respect the will of the people to end the Communist system and bring in
a free-enterprise system, or will you use the powers of the state, while
still available to you, to assure that I do not form a successor government?

In other words:

1. Will you permit a capitalist-supporting opposition to the Communist
system?
2. If that opposition forms a united political front, will you permit that
opposition to run in an election?
3. If that opposition is guaranteed to win the election, will you permit the
election to continue?
4. If the opposition wins the election, will you honor the will of the
people (whatever your opinion of the wisdom of the electorate), and step
down from power, permitting the opposition to form the government?

--
Aaron Clausen

maureen-t...@alberni.net

[Aron-Ra]

"Lenny Flank" <lfl...@ij.net> wrote in message
news:bf22in$2l37$1...@news1.ij.net...

That's what I said.

Of all the world's religions, I have the most respect for Taoism and
Buddhism respectively.

[Aron-Ra]

"Christopher Denney" <ch...@DO.pagan.NOT.net.SPAM> wrote in message
news:Xns93B9B1DE785...@206.124.0.13...

> "Comrade" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote in
> news:pan.2003.07.15....@mysolution.ws:
>
> > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:38:18 +0000, Aron-Ra wrote:
> >
> >> "Nature acts without intent,
> >> so cannot be described
> >> as acting with benevolence,
> >> nor malevolence to any thing."
> >> --Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching
> >>
> >> If you're a Taoist, then you believe in randomness.
> >
> > no, I am just a better Taoist than Lao Tzu
> >
>
> That is probably the the single most asinine thing I've every heard.
> It also proves you are no Taoist.

Everything he's ever said proves he's no Taoist. And I don't know if this
is *the* most asinine thing he's ever said, because everything he's ever
said has been pretty close. But this certainly deserves a Chez watt I
think.

[raven1]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:11:48 +0000 (UTC), "Comrade"
<avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote:

>I am not an evolutionist, I believe Tao creates, I believe a full
>determistic universe, full creation, and no randomness, but no deity.

I believe that you've taken way too much acid, and most likely, have
read a lot of tripe from authors like Robert Anton Wilson who
mistakenly think that they understand QM, and proceed to misapply it
to areas where it isn't a useful model, which typically results in the
general incoherence one finds in your posts.

[Teresita]

In article <bf2bik$9tq59$1...@ID-193580.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Aron-Ra" says...

>Of all the world's religions, I have the most respect for Taoism and
>Buddhism respectively.

Respect for Taoism and Buddhism respectively. Heh.

[Teresita]

In article <pan.2003.07.15....@mysolution.ws>, "Comrade" says...
>

>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:38:18 +0000, Aron-Ra wrote:
>
>> "Nature acts without intent,
>> so cannot be described
>> as acting with benevolence,
>> nor malevolence to any thing."
>> --Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching
>>
>> If you're a Taoist, then you believe in randomness.
>
>no, I am just a better Taoist than Lao Tzu

..said the man on tiptoes.

[Teresita]

In article <bf2017$a41fr$1...@ID-193580.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Aron-Ra" says...
>

>"Nature acts without intent,
>so cannot be described
>as acting with benevolence,
>nor malevolence to any thing."
>--Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching
>
>If you're a Taoist, then you believe in randomness.
>

Rather, if you're a Taoist, then you believe nature acts the way it acts, as a
brute empirical fact, without regarding man's benefit or harm.

[Comrade]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:25:14 +0000, Christopher Denney wrote:

> That is probably the the single most asinine thing I've every heard.
> It also proves you are no Taoist.

so you are a professor of of deity? Lao Tzu's peity with reagrds to this
philosophy ?

[Aron-Ra]

Teresita <tere...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<bf2it...@drn.newsguy.com>...

> In article <bf2017$a41fr$1...@ID-193580.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Aron-Ra" says...
> >
>
> >"Nature acts without intent,
> >so cannot be described
> >as acting with benevolence,
> >nor malevolence to any thing."
> >--Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching
> >
> >If you're a Taoist, then you believe in randomness.
> >
> Rather, if you're a Taoist, then you believe nature acts the way it acts, as a
> brute empirical fact, without regarding man's benefit or harm.

Don't forget "Without intent", which rather disputes what our Average
Joe is trying to assert. "Wu Wei" means "without purpose". How does
that fit in with Joe's whole "first cause" argument?

[Moonshadao]

HE IS A FUCKING TROLL DUDE.
He is also a fucking moron.
figure it out.

[Aron-Ra]

"Teresita" <tere...@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:bf2ie...@drn.newsguy.com...

> In article <bf2bik$9tq59$1...@ID-193580.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Aron-Ra"
says...
>
> >Of all the world's religions, I have the most respect for Taoism and
> >Buddhism respectively.
>
> Respect for Taoism and Buddhism respectively. Heh.

Welcome to the Department of Redundancy Dept.

[Teresita]

In article <244130aa.03071...@posting.google.com>, ilc...@hotmail.com
says...

>Don't forget "Without intent", which rather disputes what our Average
>Joe is trying to assert. "Wu Wei" means "without purpose". How does
>that fit in with Joe's whole "first cause" argument?
>

Every square peg of Joe's is being pounded into a Taoist round hole.

[Teresita]

In article <pan.2003.07.15....@mysolution.ws>, "Comrade" says...

>Yang is the rule, is
>science and communism, and science applied to every facet, and communism
>is just the best science, for the rule.

Give any woman a choice between an emasculated Euro-weenie touchy-feely
communist and a virile, competitive capitalist go-getter, and anyone can
see the long-term evolutionary outlook for the mealy-mouthed Nanny-Staters
is not good.

[Lenny Flank]

"Comrade" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.07.15....@mysolution.ws...

> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:11:48 +0000, Comrade wrote:
>
> > I believe Tao creates
>
>
> BUT, there is nothing to say, that does not have senses, but not
> conscious. So it could indeed by an ultimate entity, eminating pure
> empathy, and experiencing pure empathy in return. And such is omnipotent,
> omnipresent, and omniscient, but it is an entity, not a being. It does not
> know the pleasure it exudes or experiences. But, we can apsire to be like
> it, AND, have the experience of complete empathy.
>
>
>

Dude, you ned to lay off the weed for a while. It's destroying your brain.

[Moonshadao]

Lenny Flank wrote:
>
> "Comrade" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote in message

deleted bullshit...

> >
> >
> >
>
> Dude, you ned to lay off the weed for a while. It's destroying your brain.

They say that every time you get fucked up you lose some of the
convolutions in your brain.
His must be smooth as a bowling ball by now.

[Christopher Denney]

"Comrade" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote in
news:pan.2003.07.16....@mysolution.ws:

> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:25:14 +0000, Christopher Denney wrote:
>
>> That is probably the the single most asinine thing I've every heard.
>> It also proves you are no Taoist.
>
> so you are a professor of of deity? Lao Tzu's peity with reagrds to this
> philosophy ?
>
>

Huh? Nicht sprechen Sie Englisch, Gecken?

--
-- Cd -- Christopher Denney
--

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly
stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I
was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years. -Mark
Twain

[Lenny Flank]

raven1 <psyched...@flashmail.com> wrote in message news:<qph9hvc5202qjh260...@4ax.com>...

Well, I think he's just an asshole. With some serious mental problems.

===============================================
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Creation "Science" Debunked Website:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
"DebunkCreation" email list at Yahoogroups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/join