I mean - there is one, so, within this cause and effect nonsense about why I do this, why I did (have to) go "this"/that far, why here, there and so on and so forth.
Everything!...
So, one tries to convey a certain thing, something new, so that one tries to give it some appearances. What is it? New? Amazing? Disgusting? What? Anyway - these colors seem to be somewhat a code for sexual items. So, one would click back unless he or she wanted to know more about such things ... and although this wasn't my "main proclamation" for here - there are reasons why someone would read these things, not all relate to Sex, but while the "Entry Level" is odd, he or she may find out that it isn't - thus a course may be set; But as the entry thereto was odd or respectively told: Slow, that is in about a proper Metaphor for how things go!
Speeding things up ... well ... what to do? Are these things relevant? Not actually! Not quite!
But there is so one thing; It is called: A life next to that which is ... [condensed].
What happens if someone arbitrarily clicked around to gain an oversight and arrived here? Well, he or she would have done so within the previous part and eventually ended out arriving at the color list and thus realized that it is about something not primarily sexual.
So he then sais this, so she sais that and while everybody sais something I do here too ... but that again makes them say so and those say that where then ... finally we can resort to things that are right. Like - smoking Marijuana is dumbing people down YET and that is basically plausible once regarding the TRUTH that reefing makes one conceive STUPID IDEAS.
Which of course means: If I never had mentioned anything that would support another idea, there would be "nothing", hypothetically, that would contradict to me being right. Anything that does contradict to me being right, does contradict to the idea that the other things that I present are right, while if we say that those are things that cannot be easily verified ... uhm!
I stopped to throw in a commentary: So, this previously presented TRUTH regarding STUPID IDEAS can be verified easily - we might say!
So, those things cannot be easily verified - whether they are now there to verify certain things to begin with or not (???) - thus by looking at the things that are obviously there to allow insight into how concise those things can be we might understand how concise they are! I used to give such reason a Name, I once called it [Waba Wooga]. I mean, be honest: If I continued to reason this way you would soon agree with me - if not doing so already - on these terms where I have made you believe that you cannot easily verify the authenticity of the remaining content!
So, what can I do? I can say: STUPID IDEAS are relative, as far as I have come to learn. I had ideas, ideas one might call STUPID, yet I also had others that were harder to verify as STUPID. So, what allows me to verify an idea as STUPID all along? Naturally, that once I present the idea to an Audience, the Audience doesn't accept it very well! That means, that when I have an idea that depends on community interaction and none of that interaction happens, the idea was stupid! Maybe not the idea in and of itself, but it certainly wasn't compatible to the community! Otherwise, if I have an idea that I can work on alone, there is no 'communal odd' and hence: When is the idea STUPID?
So we get to the 'advanced' point of saying: Before you can 'easily verify' an idea to be 'STUPID' you have to make the classification of an idea functionally objective. But, functionally objective within terms of C++ might be just like:
-
bool ORACLE::return_random_statement(COMPLEX_STRUCTURE*__struct) {
-
return false;
Thus I change the "Matrix" sotospeak - where everything you encounter as Wrong or Possibly Flawed will be agreed to by me (which is anyway what I do and did - that is - in real life | although here in written word I tend to be different as I have the opportunity to express myself without being interrupted) - where all I have left to add are thoughts that should be used to look at the function and not at the result; So that generally speaking there is no 'Waba Wooga' logic possible anymore! That is the intended goal nontheless - thus if you have to 'Waba Wooga' then Waba Wooga about this!
But, we wouldn't expect that I get away that easily! So, next Level are Stupid Ideas I cannot easily say: "OK, I was wrong", or "OK, you are right (in being totally opposed to my idea)". So, I might thus get into Crystals, the 'High' idea, and we thereto might take a look at some very old code where I wrote something like a Text-pad but like 80% of the code at all was just overly complicated nonsense that didn't really have a purpose. But I have another idea:
-
Sober Idea: Write a 'clear memory' function that clears all memory of a given size, but after being done doing so it writes the size of the field to the first int [4 bytes], or if we see the flaw therein, to the first 'long' [8 bytes on a 64bit CPU].
High Idea: Write a 'close datafield' function that takes a memory field of a given size, creates a struct at the end of that field [Datajet = MEM{start/offset,position,size,free/available}], sets up the values - subtracting its own size from the total size - and returning the pointer to itself.
The way I see it, both ideas have one thing in common: They are an advanced form of a simple thing. For the sober one, there is the general presence of memory that depending on Architecture and Version may, in regards to a certain struct, may be variable in size. Thus setting the standard that the size of a field is always noted at first (Windows classic) would allow us to finally form a 'clear' function that doesn't even need a size parameter. The high idea expands the applicable scope of the 'Datajet' (as the small brother of 'Dataframe' while 'Dataframe' is there to also regard Memory segmentation) by providing a way to transform Memory into a Datajet without being required to have a "static" Datajet somewhere. Finally both can be combined. The question at the sober idea is: Which datafields need to be 'tagged' that way and which ones shouldn't; the question at the high idea is: When can Memory be treated this way and when is it important to keep a memory field 'clean'? A REALLY stupid idea however were to assume that the High Idea is to 'replace' the Sober one!
The sober idea can be expanded on - like - it can be treated as Datajet whereby its size is being used to find the end of the field, a required amount will be subtracted from the end to get a new memory field and the size is finally also subtracted from the volume number. Neat, where either it isn't required to ever reset that number or if the full-size is available elsewhere. So we can also write a Sober/High hybrid, sotospeak, or just expand the sober idea into a Datajet where we only need the pointer to the memory and its full size. Thus from 4 elements we reduced the requirement to 2. If we are on 64bit machines we can even reduce it to 1 if we say 4 GB of addressable space are enough - but would somehow have to say 1 1/2 yet as we somewhere need a proper offset.
After all however - thinking of the general complexity of a memory-field - the High idea is the better, more perfect one, because it may work without any external requirements perfectly; Whether there now is a pragmatic application therefore or not. It works more perfectly than the sober one because within the sober one the memory field cannot be easily accessed at [0]. Struggling back and forth, the sober one may however begin to dominate because 2 32bit values can be used to describe its volume in both ways, thus being down to 1 element/long plus the given pointer to the field, while using the Datajet solution we're down to 2 elements since we also have a pointer to the beginning of the field. What the Datajet however still allows us to do is to take memory from the beginning as from the end simultaneously - while what it will always be there for is to have a general memory 'dock' that describes available Memory. The Dataframe is the final 'big piece' where the last remaining questions are being solved in; So basically both ideas are equally SMART as STUPID - while the High one does tie into a greater Logic that is concentric; The Sober one ties into a greater Logic that can however not be really/entirely disregarded. From a technical standpoint however the solidity of the System I build is to be carried by fixed structures that do only change in size and layout when compiling for a different Architecture (16/32/64 bit). If there are any variables in size, so the idea, the Structures/Classes are handled via Pointers that conform to a standard while the variable/"unknown" bit is only cared about by that which provides it. So:
-
STRUCTURE:
-
*
member1-pointer * ->[PUBLIC HEADER| - variable size =====]
member2-pointer * ->[PUBLIC HEADER| - variable size ==]
member3-pointer * ->[PUBLIC HEADER| - variable size ========]
member4-pointer * ->[PUBLIC HEADER| - variable size ===]
- <- fixed size
.
.
.
- <- variable size
How? Well - being serious - we don't know! One point of a 'random field size' security mechanism however is to not, well, ... . But that might well just be another STUPID IDEA. Maybe thats why "we" (the Stupid Guys) enjoyed calling ourselves that way, so, having the "obvious" stuff cleared right away. But ... seriously ... I didn't have this 'sober' idea previously - logically - as stated - thus, all I can practically tell about it is now up to me to figure. Ironically I didn't really think a lot more than that about the High idea either ... while any conclusion I leave this article with is 'mine', whether you share that oppinion or not. Its a silly thing! I might leave this article, saying to myself that the High idea is superior, which then might be subjected to some Waba Wooga.
The reason I didn't have the sober idea is maybe that I focussed on this strange security mechanism and hence am reasonably incompatible to it. Much more significant however is that I don't really have anything in my "backpack" where this would help me out. Granted, same goes for the high idea too! So my conclusion is that its both equally pointless! The High idea is simply some dot on the i of something that is already quite sophisticated ... and I share the belief that this is why I've had it to begin with, so, as expansion onto a sophisticated idea that the High mind doesn't really object unto. Before it thereby became a STUPID idea, it first would need to be used that way. Same goes for the other.
Simply put: Because now I did lay a foundation to realize that not everything conceived when High is Automatically STUPID in a way that isn't Waboogable, there needs to be some other Woogabadoo ... while I have to say that earlier mentioned code with 80% nonsense in, isn't flagged as either Sober or High. Continuing on same logic somehow we might think that everything stupid in this world is the product of a Marijuana influenced mind. But, before we take into the complicated we might take it into the simple!
[Life, Wanting, Thought][Mercy,Perception,Level-Headedness,Understanding][12 Aeons] - as picture:
Doesn't look easy or solid or such at all - I might support! I mean - if I asked a sober-minded person to come up with terms that prosperously reflect the fundamentals of spiritual existence I would expect something along the lines of [Ego - Environment]. At least to me this seems like a non-objectable statement. It does - ... I would add something but I'm sure that whatever I said would be "sounding" like I object to it. It's like you clammering to that little bit you do understand for sure and me comming in to take it away from you. But well, why are we here? Why do you care to read about what I understand?
I can break 'Ego' and 'Environment' down to more Fundamental Terms while sorting the 'Ego-Environment' scheme itself into an alternate, somehow expanded and more wholesome one. Well, what is 'Ego'? Is it the 'word' 'I' or is it the 'whole' through which I perceive? The whole through which I perceive in my oppinion is Spirit and through Spirit I am capable of producing the 'thought' or 'word' (the Mercy) called 'I as the core of me that perceives reality'. If that is my 'Ego' then my Mind is Environment as well. If my Ego however were the whole wherein I perceive my 'I'/'eye' (!) - then the Environment is that what surrounds it, whereby that which surrounds it is primarily only perceived through my body that provides "appearances" (Mercy) to my Eye.
To gain 'Knowledge' about either and any scheme available, the individual is though yet required to reflect about it! He/She would go, look at it, try to sort its definition into the own head to ponder and agree with. It needs or should need to agree with them in order to comprehend their individual logic - whether it is agreed to in the greater scheme or not. Thereto try to "memorize" the 12 Aeons only, each 'tripplet' in the order 'Wanting, Life and Thought', starting with Mercy and proceed counter-clockwise. By doing so, one will have to automatically understand the 4 Lights and 3 Principles as well, thus being also capable of recreating the 12 Aeons from the 3x4/4x3.
'To gain knowledge' also means to 'fill each vessel with information' (Truth), in regards to which he/she will rely on the Perception to apply Love whereby 'Level-Headedness' and 'Understanding' work together as what I came to recognize to be called 'Pistis-Sophia'. Sometimes translated as 'Faith-Hope' it is more accurately translated as 'Faith-Knowledge' where each part is somehow mixed into the two Lights. Faith may be primarily Love, but also involves 'Perfection' (the "initials" of wanting sotospeak) and 'Understanding' with 'Image'. At some point I might create a page dedicated to this, that and those things - but this kind of knowledge thereof is flawed. What I wrote here is to only provide a context for how these terms are to be understood.
These terms can make up confines for someone to think within. Thus when getting high and someone has an idea regarding this scheme that doesn't expand beyond the contents of the scheme - the quality of that idea cannot be right away regarded STUPID. Once however also being provided with a Sober sample we might begin to wonder; Where in the end everything else than 'All is One' can be called nonsense.
Thus I agree with you 'Ego-Environment' yea yea - sotospeak - so I can also agree with you that the 3-4-12 is nonsense somehow - it takes a very specific angle to say so, but OK; But still I understand the 3-4-12 as 'most fundamental/essential/wholesome/etc...' way of looking at 'it' and if you wanted to discuss with me about 'that specific point' taking me by the word where I acknowledged that it is nonsense - well - then making a giantific hiatus about it - that is the primary reason why I am motivated to write some anti-wabagadgoo booblees. The point is the following:
-
If you tried to explain something unto me and I had to object to it - how should I do it? If I told you that you were wrong then you still had your points in regards to which you were right. If I told you that you were right then I would acknowledge your perception where while I still generally objected I would basically say that your point of view doesn't correspond to mine. Thus we should first communicate a common point of view which also implies a perspective, a direction sotospeak ... but -
I can still agree though, that 'if' there were any Truth about the Testimony, I have to be on the right way for once. I can then, as independent way of reason, also agree that when I'm on the right way, I also need to "have things" (whatever having and things turned out to be) that "are good", like written in the Bible that we will recognize a Tree by its Fruits. The latter however builds on the former - thus - if the way is like only for mountain-bikes, how can I expect it to conform to me wanting to use a Jeep or Mini-Van? Or - how can a Tree be regarded by its fruits if the definition of 'good' vs. 'bad' were a matter of preferences?
I cannot change the true effect of Marijuana - neither can I change the fact regarding its addictiveness. We can say - as Metaphor - that explosions are a bad thing. Still we use explosions, essentially, to propell rockets into outer space - and on a less scientifically advanced showcase we can still argue that we use it for a variety of useful things. So, if my failure is in formulating a preference from within the facts known to me - then naturally your right were in either agreeing or disagreeing with them; While if smoking weed thereby came to be like rocket-science although you wouldn't like that - well, what can I do other than making things up to you and hope that it'll not end in a huge catastrophy? Nothing! Kindof.