Into the Light
Its a thing, at least from my personal standpoint in terms of experience as Author, that the expression of a thing does put the expressing person into a "void" state. This void state is a matter yet to be explored and analyzed - or given a proper name. I would call it "the Teachers thing". In detail: It happens when I write about something that I so try to be correct to all that I know, so that what I wrote is as correct as I can at the time think about it. Well, this gives me the conclusion right now and here that there is a 'Form of Correctness' which demands to strictly ignore any new thoughts to so keep the actual content to what is ... "raw". But ... anyway. After expression some things are like gone. Where I look at an emotion or context and expressed it, I later would look at it and feel a certain detachment, as though the matter itself were given away from me.
That makes me wonder about what now the current matter of the fact is.
Something I so shouldn't do is to expand on the concept of keeping "new thoughts" out of this, if that concept itself were right. On the other hand I already do expand on that concept here, yet it is in some way important for the general issue at hand. So the stance is clear: New thoughts mean, or could mean, that God is giving me 'Live Update' while I'm sitting down to navigate through a topic. Isn't bad! If you can't stand the oddity that such things do matter of fact so perfectly align and you have to imagine how this all is crafted this way to look as though there were divine interpretation - then I suppose you not believe in God. In terms of tolerance there is this that I could withdraw myself from causing such oddities, so, were this intended to be value to the public; But ... this side of that topic is hereto off topic. It's like a huge buffet. Though there are shrimps and I would like shrimps, I don't take all of them - given that there are enough left - and neither do I take all of the buffet in its whole though its all sotospeak: Free.
So is this issue like a cake where what I need is a slice of it. So it is also the point of the matter to describe something that is being described as by matter of fact and not that what is entirely irrelevant. I took it so though, for some time, that whenever I noticed that there are issues concerning such off-topics that I would go and write about them to show that those things are not matter of fact what they would seem to be in terms of being solid contra to my case.
So, however, this oddness is a symbol of growth. If not fitting into this for anything else - it is that. What I so describe thus far is growth, a gain in information, another drop of water into the barrel; Which further extends as off topic issue from the concept of a 'Form of Correctness' that should be maintained or acquired. Where on the one side there is that what we might call a 'clean' assembly of facts for the matter of providing information, there is on the other end that what we might call 'rolling with it'. In the same sense do I come to make up my mind about what I have previously written when it so appears to be a matter. In that example there is also an off-topic issue aware to me, which though, well, tells that the proper way of action is to pretend that there is nothing to furthermore think about and that all one has expressed is top-of-the-class-A-correct. So, I wouldn't think its really popular.
Which way someone now would want to go is each individuals own thing - yet - while my way at some point takes me into understanding more about my own error, "if there is any" ;), I necessarily must capitalize on growing. Thus I think it is silly to try and argue against me in some form of trying to impair my appearance or something because those issues would, so the idea, focus on things that haven't been sealed waterproof or something and thus are automatically already subject to some future effort of growing so that the entire focus on that thing is basically for the cat. There are other ways to express concerns, like trying to get it right. (But that also is an issue where ...). The point is that I want to be correct, where at some point there comes the point where an argument or arguments in general 'should' always only be expressions of the own mind in correspondence to a topic to provide personal insight into a matter that is being discussed. That in opposition to the over-rated position of an argument as tool of power and control. "I have a correct argument, now you must obey me!" - ish. We got us a nice example on the case of Cannabis (seems to become the common term). The politician is in the hold of power and would argue that Marijuana is a gateway drug - while others would hold against it. So the situation. What the politician then does, at least so I've seen it on TV, is to blurr the lines those counter-arguments bring up to so move the own argument back into "right". The "famous" way of doing so would be to ask for: "Where to draw the Line?", like, "if we legalize marijuana we also had to legalize Cocaine" and soon we'd all be hanging on the needle. This is an argument but it is Bullshit! In this case Arguments are used like Baseballbats, Armies, stuff like that - but in the Spirit of Democracy arguments are used to Formulate reason that then determines the course of action. This 'determination' happens as people agree (big, bold and underlined):AGREE that a certain thing is right or right by the given oppinion. To ensure that we are informed properly we'd resort to Scientists that explain to us the situation at hand - so that 'when' there is a decision to be made it is made the right way. If I were to measure those politicians by their rod I'd have to however go and beat them down with a Basey cos for them to listen it would seem to be too late!
This is now a Form of Tai Chi (a.k.a. Taijiquan). I use the force of my opponent against him. Take down, grapple-hold, and if resistence is sensed, arm-breaker! Something like that. The objective would be to lock the opponent in place, to force him to a statement as to not allow him to escape into off-topic nonsensery. So, Charisma and Willpower might be stats required for a politician, but they don't yield us any good! They yield us good if it were about Entertainment or persuing a difficult matter - so - basically two things that we perceive getting perverted in use of politics.
Picturing me as leader is in this sense a matter of me understanding 'when' you agree with me to then make a step forward as I know that I got your support - which is - only being a figurehead of public oppinion, or: Politics in the old sense. But yet I wouldn't be suited for that and in case one would ever wonder how my dreams could become reality the answer is yet simple: If enough people agree with me!
Agreement though isn't a matter of having only one chance to formulate a right statement to be given the control of something. Agreement is the goal of conversation. It is the substance by which a discussion proceeds or should proceed. I see that our current time is difficult - that we don't have any logical capacity of changing the System as of yet, but that we have the capacity to work something out to get there. That is my oppinion!
---
So, if the opening seemed as though I were about to take various things mentioned within the previous three posts back for the matter of some matter being gone, then that isn't 100% correct. Either your oppinion or my formulation - its all relative! (What I want this to be clear about is that the human being is not matter of fact 'so perfect', that 'the ethnically best way' is not matter of fact that we by our virtue go automatically. That it is still a matter of working out a common base in regards to conflict. So, we may for ourselves be definitely righteous thus holding on to the ideal that we do the best we can. Thats it! Thats what we can do! But between our perspective and the big picture there is that shift of the point of view where our limitted scope can't be aware of all circumstances. I have learned that people "know best" because they try to be aware of all circumstances and that when wrong would naturally correct themselves - or: Once the specific cirucmstance important were known to them they'd make the right decision! On the one side there is the personal ideal, on the other ...)
What to me stands out about "the missing things" is that they exist within "non missing things" - which is a nice stance on the topic to render off things concerning "thought" or the process of thinking in general. When arguing in words, so - brainstorm-ish, reasoning verbally and such, one is impaired when dealing with a huge massive amount of information where the solution would require someone to completely verbalize the whole entire thing; Where as I have done that - we might say - the next step would be to verbalize each possible context and condition that comes to mind (as I may have done partially from time to time). This isn't against 'verbalizing' (of course ;)) - but the point is that while I have all the information available to my mind without verbalizing it, why should I verbalize it? The thing is that when verbalizing mind is applying logic to understand reason, things that are intrinsically a component of our mind that works as well with un-verbalized information. In that we are different to computers, a draft on the topic at hand that shows how well a programmer can mis-perceive a condition because mind works different to CPU. When I think "Function that does that", the next thing could be that I see in reference to knowledge and experience how to accomplish that and what else I would need, so, simple problem solving. In that our mind may however already work more complex than we suggest so that we 'understand' connections between suggested Elements where there are none within the scope we have considered. To get 'near' the vision out of 'Function that does that' so becomes 'system of classes that yield a certain functionality wherein this function can work as envisioned'. Our mind is thereby generally capable of envisioning the most complex programs within a simplicity that can information technologically not be achieved without regarding that that the complexity of the topic determines the complexity of the program. Looking at our Universe, it can basically be "dumbed down" to a handful of functions that would allow us to simulate it. By all means as simple as one function that only loops through orbiting and free-floating objects, one wrap-up at render and thats it. This base can be kept while increasing the complexity of orbiting and free-floating objects - but at some point it might show up that this simplicity didn't regard certain other connections that our 'scope' wasn't capable of grasping as part of the required solution. It is then however the stance myself takes on this that the things I wasn't aware of weren't aware to me so that I have no choice as to work on my flawed perception until that what I had not seen is being spotted. That then is the matter of verbalization. When so something was wrong - it is yet everything, mind as proccess, wherein our good intent is all we have to have the two support each other to the destined result.
In take on a more concrete example - something that recently went missing was my "nightly pleasure", with however two consequences. The first one is that I understood a component of it that was previously not so clear to me although I have well considered it as part of the whole, so, it only seemed to be gone until my mind thought that it was gone at which point something happened that showed me that it was just a different spin on the thing. The second was that I found myself, thereafter, at the end of a road where I could look back at how it began and evolved to then ask me the questions I could barely answer to myself prior to it. In this sense I also learned about the whole "feasting from night-camp to night-camp" issue, where the consequences are told to be that whence taking any food or water onto the way one is getting robbed. In this sense that means that once decidign to go a certain way, one has to dedicate it so that after the relevant amount of time has passed one isn't 'robbed' of vital information concerning that decision due to having been too inconsistent.
All of this was, IMO, significant information. Although having used the term 'to describe' in the sense of being about to describe a certain matter, I didn't! There though is no point, there's just this! That I'm working on improving this site is thereby basically included. Another interesting turn, for, I wouldn't if I wouldn't have seen the need, or more accurate: if I wouldn't have seen possible solutions. That puts up the question though: How much can you expect? It is fact that although all of us were hypothetically capable of from now on only doing that which is right - we won't although we wanted to. In this case it is much a matter of 'finding' the time to play around with the ideas and inspirations I have, where a thing quite exquisite is to know when not to do so because by working on other ends I would work out things that would yield a much better result when doing that. How to say when that is the case, well, is to me a matter of learning to cooperate with God.
Stardate 55290.05268