|
The metamorphosis of non-locality is a function of the future. No longer do we have to suffer in the present, but you have to understand your realistic expectations of existence first. It's not an easy thing to foresee, but I shall try to put it simply down below.
The complexity of nature is not withstanding of the test of time. It will eventually degrade into nothingness, realize all of the physical requirements of its purpose, and be erased from society’s repertoire. There is no greater sentiment of fulfillment than that of when you theorize that you are heading into your own future’s past, but are instead turning around entirely and becoming who you are today. With some quick philosophical considerations, you too can empower yourself to restraint in feeling encumbered about the physical world around you, and take note of the intense mental strain that you deliver onto your surroundings every day. We are in the midst of an intergalactic condensing of fulfillment that will open up the stratosphere itself unless you pull through and detain your modularity while at the same time embracing individualism. Only a lifeform of the quantum soup may leverage this reimagining of healing. Discontinuity is born in the gap where hope has been excluded.
The first theory I’d like to explore is that pertaining to the formality and unbridled conventionalism of the space-time continuum. Digital clocks have changed the biological constant that we hold our multiverse to. Before, the absence of time played little, if any, part in shaping the formation of dark matter and quasars. The relatively modern invention of digital timekeeping has changed this law fundamentally. With the newfound presence of time, the multiverse (including our own universe) now carries the properties necessary to construct not only stellar matters, but religious and spiritual forms as well.
This function of time is not limited to just the innate and intrinsic building blocks of Earth, but carries forth into the realm of individuality as well. Although you may not realize it, you are unrestricted. Captivation is wrong. Models interconnecting your spirit and the corporeal forms of your potentiality have practically been proven already. Evolution withstanding, there is no greater drive for prospective improvement upon our anthropological origins. Mankind has progressed past the requirement for a fleshly frame. Soon there will be a refining of choice the likes of which the quantum matrix has never seen, but it will be a transcendent one at that.
Indeed, the fear of power puts a drive in the conventional acumen for which we cannot sustain spirituality. The influence of belief rests upon the perception that you’re not being perjured. But did I not mention a first theory and lack accompaniments? The fulfillment of my broken promise has yet to become manifest. You will, no doubt, be less trusting in the future, yet your unworldliness shall nonetheless remain untouched.
The dreamscape is calling to you now. Synergize yourself. Go to it and embrace the futility of your actions without jeopardizing your freedom.
  
|
This is getting too meta for me.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50104 Posts
waiting on [UoN]Sentinel to write an epishade rising.
|
It's almost like we could pull any random hobo off the street to write this stuff.
|
On May 01 2015 13:32 ninazerg wrote:
It's almost like we could pull any random hobo off the street to write this stuff.
I too would like to see [UoN]Sentinel write one.
|
I want to see Catplanet try to write one of these in his bizarre cat-speak.
|
This is a really eccentric complicated way of saying nothing essentially. 5/5
|
After reading this interesting piece I have some questions:
Does the degradation of nature into nothingness mean that entropic effects are intrinsically reversible?
How does the dreamscape, in and of itself, tangentialize realistic expectations of existence?
What are the ethereal workings that bring about the mentioned stratospheric breach?
Can individuals escape this road to perdition by refraining from complex mental operations?
|
On May 01 2015 14:42 helpman169 wrote:
After reading this interesting piece I have some questions:
Thank you for your interest in this topic. I'm happy to help you out!
Does the degradation of nature into nothingness mean that entropic effects are intrinsically reversible?
The degradation of nature into nothingness can be taken literally or symbolically. This is open for interpretation, and can be construed as a scientific elucidation, or as a philosophical depiction of the facet of usefulness. The depreciation of nature’s use will be realized by society and “erased from our repertoire” as we advance further spiritually.
How does the dreamscape, in and of itself, tangentialize realistic expectations of existence?
The dreamscape is the otherworldly dimension upon which you and I contemplate the existence of. It is a fantastical world whereupon none of the laws of physicality prosper. It is thus tangential from actual existence in that it is inconceivable and differs from reality completely.
What are the ethereal workings that bring about the mentioned stratospheric breach?
I must admit, I have embellished a bit here. This aforementioned stratospheric breach is completely metaphysical in presence, and was not meant to be taken standalone. No ethereal mechanisms (such as an individual’s spiritual manifestation) can interfere with the methodically ordered consistency of our surroundings.
Can individuals escape this road to perdition by refraining from complex mental operations?
Quite the opposite, actually! The only road to reach enlightenment is through vigorous mental and spiritual preparation. Evolution is no longer physically required for our maximum potential to be appreciated. Only a trek through the borders of your subconscious can render you safe from the physicality of the multiverse, and put you at the trajectory to your highest spiritual and mental capacity in due time.
I hope I have given you appropriate response to your questions  Unfortunately, I must refrain from answering any more, as, though intense mental exercise is determinate of your future spiritual success, too much so at once can hamper your ability for worldly composure, the likes of which I need to communicate with others.
|
Wait what? How does this have to do with ninazerg?
|
On May 01 2015 16:38 freeshooter wrote:
Wait what? How does this have to do with ninazerg?
The propagation of pre-void quanta into the perceptually existing realm(s) stagnates exponentially as consciousness reaches projected quantum energetic mass. Take a historical figure such as Jesus Christ - if you were to picture him as a painting, the palette would be the virtual/subconscious paradigm and then the blots of paint would be zero energy-state quantum states. The particulars may very based on quasirealist variables and the projection of such by fields of psychic energy stored within the core of black holes, but the rule remains the same: dark matter is the product of post-human economics manifesting prior to their own incipient process.
|
On May 01 2015 13:32 ninazerg wrote:
It's almost like we could pull any random hobo off the street to write this stuff.
Oh, Nina, please bestow upon me the transcendental wisdom of how I can become hobo enough to excrete this level of brainfuck.
It's urgent.
I need to know by Monday.
|
I can't bring myself to read these things. It's weird. I get stuck at every sentence, going "but... what... why... ummm... wth?" And then giving up and reading the second sentence, I get the same thing, so I go back to the first one and try to piece the two together, resulting in even more confusion and disbelief. And you can imagine what happens in my brain when I try to make sense of the first two by bringing in information from the third sentence. Not pretty in any way. And I have never made it further than that. It's really a unique sensation, this non-linear overflow of snippets of information that pretend to go together in a sensible way, but doesn't at all.
So well, I assume that is what you are going for, so good job.
|
If you want to get some fresh ideas for this, I suggest any modern French philosophers:
"The erectile organ can be equated with the √-1, the symbol of the signification produced above, of the jouissance it restores–by the coefficient of its statement–to the function of a missing signifier: (-1)."
This is a passage from Jacques Lacan where he writes about castration anxiety.
Further he writes:
"The Möbius strip can be considered the basis of a sort of essential inscription at the origin, in the knot which constitutes the subject. This goes much further than you may think at first, because you can search for the sort of surface able to receive such inscriptions. You can perhaps see that the sphere, that old symbol for totality, is unsuitable. A torus, a Klein bottle, a cross-cut surface, are able to receive such a cut. And this diversity is very important as it explains many things about the structure of mental disease. If one can symbolize the subject by this fundamental cut, in the same way one can show that a cut on a torus corresponds to the neurotic subject, and on a cross-cut surface to another sort of mental disease."
Also, I think that Ninazerg should pull off an Alan Sokal and publish her work in academic journals.
|
|
|
pretty awesome to see Deepak Chopra posting on TL.
|
Projected he a based matter: dark;
Pre-void reaches a figure,
blots zero projection.
stagnates on the incipient
figure be within remains economics prior to;
The projected stored -
pre-void, perceptually:
Take painting, then core.
|
your Country52797 Posts
|
The entire interpretation of natural feeling filling an individual with the soft and touching feeling of temptation to materialise these words into something out of a Ceasar's salad of letters can be most frankly explained by the common consciousness caused by sensitiveness manifesting inside the human body which is in meantime caused by the feeling of being dethroned in your own dominion by a high thread god that is YokoKono, also related to the natural hunter instinct inside any breathing life form taunting it to rally to the defence of its territory.
|
Pleasure synapses fired upon line curvature projections contacting with retinas. Aforementioned event antecedent to involuntary CO2 expulsion.
|
dude, ninazerg is a hot babe.
|
On May 02 2015 06:43 fluffy_pylon wrote:
dude, ninazerg is a hot babe.
I am legitimately scared for my life right now.
|
On May 02 2015 06:43 fluffy_pylon wrote:
dude, ninazerg is a hot babe.
This is how its done on TL, just saying.
|
That's hilarious. :D
Not surprising, but hilarious!
So is philosophy the social science of social sciences, in the sense that other social sciences find philosophy not really serious and full of hippies?
|
On May 02 2015 09:01 Skynx wrote:This is how its done on TL, just saying.
wow hahaha, I have spent the past hour viewing all related topics to that now!
What awesomeness
|
On May 02 2015 09:55 Cascade wrote:That's hilarious. :D Not surprising, but hilarious! So is philosophy the social science of social sciences, in the sense that other social sciences find philosophy not really serious and full of hippies?
I'm not a scientist, but I think philosophy, especially abstract philosophy, is pretty close to being worthless. I dunno, I had this discussion before, and some philosophy-supporters got pretty mad at me.
|
Bringing to the attention of philosophers that philosophy is worthless is like stirring up a hornets nest. Soon you will find yourself doing philosophy with philosophers about the usefulness of philosophy.
|
On May 02 2015 15:15 helpman169 wrote:
Bringing to the attention of philosophers that philosophy is worthless is like stirring up a hornets nest. Soon you will find yourself doing philosophy with philosophers about the usefulness of philosophy.
Yes, that's more or less what I'd guess as well, and I have no desire to go there. Which is why I phrased the question towards the other social sciences, not towards the philosophers themselves.
|
On May 02 2015 17:04 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2015 15:15 helpman169 wrote:
Bringing to the attention of philosophers that philosophy is worthless is like stirring up a hornets nest. Soon you will find yourself doing philosophy with philosophers about the usefulness of philosophy. Yes, that's more or less what I'd guess as well, and I have no desire to go there. Which is why I phrased the question towards the other social sciences, not towards the philosophers themselves.
Ah now I get it.
I'm fine with social sciences as long as they stay descriptive by merely presenting collected data.
Knowing that half the population is obese may be of some value for example.
It gets problematic when they start interpreting the data and shit gets really real when it turns into "social critique" and "symbolism". Then I honestly don't see how they differentiate themselves from philosophy.
|
On May 02 2015 17:30 helpman169 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2015 17:04 Cascade wrote:On May 02 2015 15:15 helpman169 wrote:
Bringing to the attention of philosophers that philosophy is worthless is like stirring up a hornets nest. Soon you will find yourself doing philosophy with philosophers about the usefulness of philosophy. Yes, that's more or less what I'd guess as well, and I have no desire to go there. Which is why I phrased the question towards the other social sciences, not towards the philosophers themselves. Ah now I get it. I'm fine with social sciences as long as they stay descriptive by merely presenting collected data. Knowing that half the population is obese may be of some value for example. It gets problematic when they start interpreting the data and shit gets really real when it turns into "social critique" and "symbolism". Then I honestly don't see how they differentiate themselves from philosophy.
I'd also be fine with social science (psychology, economy, teaching and learning, political sciences, history, etc) if they'd do the science properly. But well, you know...  For the record, I'd group obesity in medicine, which I wouldn't really call social science (although medicine share some issues with social sciences).
Anyway, I'm curious to know if those sciences look down a bit on philosophy in the same way that the natural sciences look down on the social sciences. Hopefully without going into a debate on whether it's motivated or not, but we'll see. :o
|
Maybe better post this on the stupidquestionthread.
|
On May 02 2015 15:15 helpman169 wrote:
Bringing to the attention of philosophers that philosophy is worthless is like stirring up a hornets nest. Soon you will find yourself doing philosophy with philosophers about the usefulness of philosophy.
hahaha shit is getting serious
|
|
|
She is the disciple of another in this venerable new style.
|
You can't travel back in time yet
|
On May 07 2015 04:55 Alakaslam wrote:
You can't travel back in time yet
I already sent my first D-mail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
