The enteric coating of assumption. PART ONE-----MINDFUCKINGLY LONG POST
Apparently the worst brings out the worst in me, But I did get the "psychological discovery" merit badge at some point this week. As the penny few of you know this has been a trying week, Which is to say that they all are, but this one had a definitive ring of truth in it.
******************************************************
THE SHORT: the epiphany.
(un conscience question)Do I love?
******************************************************
THE LONG: the rational.
I am irreparably damaged emotionally. The defining moment of onset is unclear at the moment. I do have my notions however. The downward spiral henceforth is/has been been completely self-perpetuated to the point of absurdity. How we traverse the road to get here is as important as the statement of such and hopefully I won't get lost on the way to explanation.
I don't feel love, and haven't in a very LONG time (for sake of hypocrisy, we'll come back to this statement). Lets just say it aloud once to see if it fits. Love. Kick it around for a bit & apply it to our lives.
This is an age old word that has been deliberated upon for far too long. We have our assumptions though as well as our misgivings about such. An existence of over abundance and overuse deludes the inherent meaning of such, In which the definition itself holds no measure of clairvoyance to it in itself.
Love n
1: a strong positive emotion of regard and affection; "his love
for his work"; "children need a lot of love" [ant: hate]
2: any object of warm affection or devotion; "the theater was
her first love" or "he has a passion for cock fighting"
[syn: passion]
3: a beloved person; used as terms of endearment [syn: beloved,
dear, dearest, loved one, honey]
4: a deep feeling of sexual desire and attraction; "their love
left them indifferent to their surroundings"; "she was his
first love"
5: a score of zero in tennis or squash; "it was 40 love"
6: sexual activities (often including sexual intercourse)
between two people; "his lovemaking disgusted her"; "he
hadn't had any love in months"; "he has a very complicated
love life" [syn: sexual love, lovemaking, making love,
love life]
v 1: have a great affection or liking for; "I love French food";
"She loves her boss and works hard for him" [ant: hate]
2: get pleasure from; "I love cooking" [syn: enjoy]
3: be enamored or in love with; "She loves her husband deeply"
4: have sexual intercourse with; "This student sleeps with
everyone in her dorm"; "Adam knew Eve" (know is archaic);
"Were you ever intimate with this man?" [syn: make out,
make love, sleep with, get laid, have sex, know,
do it, be intimate, have intercourse, have it away,
have it off, screw, fuck, jazz, eff, hump, lie
with, bed, have a go at it, bang, get it on, bonk]
The levels of attachment to an individual/object/idea is much akin to pinches of salt to that of a recipe for quiche. Can this statement be agreed upon?
The conditions (defined as;To render fit for work or use.) of attachment to an individual/object/idea are a constant effect. Can this statement be agreed upon?
The limitations of the lingua de factua, or the language of choice is always the same, for the greater of the truths the "description of the indescribable & the highest attachment conceivable." The quotation we will call Z for here on. L,X,& Y are merely placeholders for an undisclosed individual/object/idea.
So what levels are required to say "Hey I Z, X?" In a realist sense without convoluting the idea.
I could make the statement L Z,X.
Does this statement of Z have any bearing/relevance to any previous notions of Z?
Does this statement of Z supersede any previous notions of Z?
Is this previous notion of Z superfluous?
We could say that there is a level of attachment between L & X that is numerically valued at 47.
This value fluctuates and finally the statement of Z diminishes.
Then L Z,Y. The conditions of attachment are perchance to be different, but the levels are inherently the same.
Both situations are dissolved completely, and were never made parallel chronologically.
Is it the situation of the current conditions that bears relevance, of is it the time( A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. )of reference?
Assumption; The statement does not supersede previous statements. The conditions perhaps bear relevance to the onset of the situation of the statement, but do not define such statement.
The time not the conditions are relevant. The conditions are situational & are transient, & henceforth is superfluous.
Assumption; Every decision is correct at the space in time the the decision is made. (see Nietzsche)
It then appears that it must be the numerological value that has more relivance to that of time or condition. But how much of Z is required in order to perpetuate the furthering of time.
The value of Z appears to recycle & perpetuate time as long as the continuing conditions themselves are not altered.
Assumption; If the conditions are altered and change IS NOT ALLOWED FOR & ACCEPTED( problem with the human condition), the statement of Z is dissolved. Thus allowing for the potential restatement of Z for L or X or Y....
(next chapter changing the human condition, and discrimination against potential employees)
***********************************************************
Now what about the value of attachment in relation the the statement of Z. This breeds the overuse and misuse of such statement.
Owning firearms carries with it all the sober responsibility of knowing absolutely how to handle them safely, and knowing when to shoot and when not to shoot in a lethal encounter. It is the same amount of responsibility as needed when handling matches, poisons, explosives, etc. Used properly, firearms - like any other tool - pose no threat to innocent, law abiding people. The owner should know how to safely use the gun, including how to load and unload it safely without even looking at it, and to shoot it well enough that it becomes an extension of his hand and brain when he aims it at a target.
If you live in a state where you can legally carry a firearm for self-defense, and intend to do so, you need to practice with your firearm. You need to practice carrying it discreetly, drawing it from a secure holster smoothly, quickly and efficiently. Only after practice will drawing your gun become part of your "muscle memory" and so that when a threat presents itself, you can draw smoothly and efficiently without even thinking about it. This way your attention can be focused 100% on the problem at hand, not a problem in your hand as you are "trying" to draw.
**********************Now substitute love.******************
Owning love carries with it all the sober responsibility of knowing absolutely how to handle it safely, and knowing when to shoot and when not to shoot in a lethal encounter. It is the same amount of responsibility as needed when handling nukes, knives, sharp sticks, etc. Used properly, love- like any other tool - pose no threat to innocent, law abiding people. The owner should know how to safely use the love, including how to load and unload it safely without even looking at it, and to shoot it well enough that it becomes an extension of his hand and brain when he aims it at a target.
If you live in a state where you can legally carry love for self-defense, and intend to do so, you need to practice with your love. You need to practice carrying it discreetly, drawing it from a secure holster smoothly, quickly and efficiently. Only after practice will drawing your love become part of your "muscle memory" and so that when a threat presents itself, you can draw smoothly and efficiently without even thinking about it. This way your attention can be focused 100% on the problem at hand, not a problem in your hand as you are "trying" to draw.
Assumption; L is not an intergalactic baddass.
*****attempting to have a rational conclusion I seem to considerably lose focus********
Words differ per paragraph but they exist to show that the value once again is more important than expected.
So when is the value of attachment sufficient to use Z?
Your moment of zen. If Z fell on you in the woods would you think/utter Z prior to being crushed?
Is there a relation between L's attachment to X, & that of some level of safety/security/station of being/win-loss ratio/charisma/personality arch type/fear/hope/happiness/insert benign adjective here...
Assumption; There is no rational value of attachment to apply the "proper" use of Z between L & X or Y.
Henceforth. Lead the target. Fire two shots to stop. One more to make sure, reload and call 911.
6 hours and too many re-edits. later continued.................
******************************************************
THE SHORT: the epiphany.
(un conscience question)Do I love?
******************************************************
THE LONG: the rational.
I am irreparably damaged emotionally. The defining moment of onset is unclear at the moment. I do have my notions however. The downward spiral henceforth is/has been been completely self-perpetuated to the point of absurdity. How we traverse the road to get here is as important as the statement of such and hopefully I won't get lost on the way to explanation.
I don't feel love, and haven't in a very LONG time (for sake of hypocrisy, we'll come back to this statement). Lets just say it aloud once to see if it fits. Love. Kick it around for a bit & apply it to our lives.
This is an age old word that has been deliberated upon for far too long. We have our assumptions though as well as our misgivings about such. An existence of over abundance and overuse deludes the inherent meaning of such, In which the definition itself holds no measure of clairvoyance to it in itself.
Love n
1: a strong positive emotion of regard and affection; "his love
for his work"; "children need a lot of love" [ant: hate]
2: any object of warm affection or devotion; "the theater was
her first love" or "he has a passion for cock fighting"
[syn: passion]
3: a beloved person; used as terms of endearment [syn: beloved,
dear, dearest, loved one, honey]
4: a deep feeling of sexual desire and attraction; "their love
left them indifferent to their surroundings"; "she was his
first love"
5: a score of zero in tennis or squash; "it was 40 love"
6: sexual activities (often including sexual intercourse)
between two people; "his lovemaking disgusted her"; "he
hadn't had any love in months"; "he has a very complicated
love life" [syn: sexual love, lovemaking, making love,
love life]
v 1: have a great affection or liking for; "I love French food";
"She loves her boss and works hard for him" [ant: hate]
2: get pleasure from; "I love cooking" [syn: enjoy]
3: be enamored or in love with; "She loves her husband deeply"
4: have sexual intercourse with; "This student sleeps with
everyone in her dorm"; "Adam knew Eve" (know is archaic);
"Were you ever intimate with this man?" [syn: make out,
make love, sleep with, get laid, have sex, know,
do it, be intimate, have intercourse, have it away,
have it off, screw, fuck, jazz, eff, hump, lie
with, bed, have a go at it, bang, get it on, bonk]
The levels of attachment to an individual/object/idea is much akin to pinches of salt to that of a recipe for quiche. Can this statement be agreed upon?
The conditions (defined as;To render fit for work or use.) of attachment to an individual/object/idea are a constant effect. Can this statement be agreed upon?
The limitations of the lingua de factua, or the language of choice is always the same, for the greater of the truths the "description of the indescribable & the highest attachment conceivable." The quotation we will call Z for here on. L,X,& Y are merely placeholders for an undisclosed individual/object/idea.
So what levels are required to say "Hey I Z, X?" In a realist sense without convoluting the idea.
I could make the statement L Z,X.
Does this statement of Z have any bearing/relevance to any previous notions of Z?
Does this statement of Z supersede any previous notions of Z?
Is this previous notion of Z superfluous?
We could say that there is a level of attachment between L & X that is numerically valued at 47.
This value fluctuates and finally the statement of Z diminishes.
Then L Z,Y. The conditions of attachment are perchance to be different, but the levels are inherently the same.
Both situations are dissolved completely, and were never made parallel chronologically.
Is it the situation of the current conditions that bears relevance, of is it the time( A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. )of reference?
Assumption; The statement does not supersede previous statements. The conditions perhaps bear relevance to the onset of the situation of the statement, but do not define such statement.
The time not the conditions are relevant. The conditions are situational & are transient, & henceforth is superfluous.
Assumption; Every decision is correct at the space in time the the decision is made. (see Nietzsche)
It then appears that it must be the numerological value that has more relivance to that of time or condition. But how much of Z is required in order to perpetuate the furthering of time.
The value of Z appears to recycle & perpetuate time as long as the continuing conditions themselves are not altered.
Assumption; If the conditions are altered and change IS NOT ALLOWED FOR & ACCEPTED( problem with the human condition), the statement of Z is dissolved. Thus allowing for the potential restatement of Z for L or X or Y....
(next chapter changing the human condition, and discrimination against potential employees)
***********************************************************
Now what about the value of attachment in relation the the statement of Z. This breeds the overuse and misuse of such statement.
Owning firearms carries with it all the sober responsibility of knowing absolutely how to handle them safely, and knowing when to shoot and when not to shoot in a lethal encounter. It is the same amount of responsibility as needed when handling matches, poisons, explosives, etc. Used properly, firearms - like any other tool - pose no threat to innocent, law abiding people. The owner should know how to safely use the gun, including how to load and unload it safely without even looking at it, and to shoot it well enough that it becomes an extension of his hand and brain when he aims it at a target.
If you live in a state where you can legally carry a firearm for self-defense, and intend to do so, you need to practice with your firearm. You need to practice carrying it discreetly, drawing it from a secure holster smoothly, quickly and efficiently. Only after practice will drawing your gun become part of your "muscle memory" and so that when a threat presents itself, you can draw smoothly and efficiently without even thinking about it. This way your attention can be focused 100% on the problem at hand, not a problem in your hand as you are "trying" to draw.
**********************Now substitute love.******************
Owning love carries with it all the sober responsibility of knowing absolutely how to handle it safely, and knowing when to shoot and when not to shoot in a lethal encounter. It is the same amount of responsibility as needed when handling nukes, knives, sharp sticks, etc. Used properly, love- like any other tool - pose no threat to innocent, law abiding people. The owner should know how to safely use the love, including how to load and unload it safely without even looking at it, and to shoot it well enough that it becomes an extension of his hand and brain when he aims it at a target.
If you live in a state where you can legally carry love for self-defense, and intend to do so, you need to practice with your love. You need to practice carrying it discreetly, drawing it from a secure holster smoothly, quickly and efficiently. Only after practice will drawing your love become part of your "muscle memory" and so that when a threat presents itself, you can draw smoothly and efficiently without even thinking about it. This way your attention can be focused 100% on the problem at hand, not a problem in your hand as you are "trying" to draw.
Assumption; L is not an intergalactic baddass.
*****attempting to have a rational conclusion I seem to considerably lose focus********
Words differ per paragraph but they exist to show that the value once again is more important than expected.
So when is the value of attachment sufficient to use Z?
Your moment of zen. If Z fell on you in the woods would you think/utter Z prior to being crushed?
Is there a relation between L's attachment to X, & that of some level of safety/security/station of being/win-loss ratio/charisma/personality arch type/fear/hope/happiness/insert benign adjective here...
Assumption; There is no rational value of attachment to apply the "proper" use of Z between L & X or Y.
Henceforth. Lead the target. Fire two shots to stop. One more to make sure, reload and call 911.
6 hours and too many re-edits. later continued.................