An interesting thought, but related to many things.

[RandomThoughts]

If you let someone tell you what you are, or what group you can be in, you give them authority to decide.

Although if they agree that you always were, and that does not change what you have always been that is different.

That is why people that have inclusive memberships really is not the way things work. It is not people saying someone can be in their group, it is people realizing they always were.

If you let someone decide you can be in something, you also let them decide you can be put out of something.


So really groups and associations with groups is a personal choice not a reward or allowed by some other group, but decided by the person themselves.

:shrug:


To allow someone else to decide where or what you chose to be, is a way of giving them authority over you, why would anyone do that.

[LeftyFingerPop]

1. .

:thumbsup:

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. word

[Call Me Wesley]

3. I don't know why anyone would do that.

But I do wake up sometimes in the middle of the night, look out and see the stars and think about it. Laws, like the law of causation, etc., treat of the personal choice and not what the authority describes.

But that can clearly not be said: it groups itself. In the determinant terminology of 'Zeitgeist' we might say: Only individual connections are thinkable, given the fact that the personae out-groups itself from authoritarian processes.

In other words: We cannot compare any process with the "grouping of ourselves beings, or, simpler, Daseins" -- there is no such thing -- but only with another process (say, with the movement of the metronome that goes da-di-da-da-dum-di-dum).

Hence the description of the temporal authoritative of events is only possible if we, as individual Daseins-forms support ourselves on another group process, like an imperative group of comparative theremin players.

It is exactly analogous for space and star trek. When, for example, we say that neither of two events (which mutually exclude one another, being an preparative member of a theremin group or in Hegelian opposition of it) can occur, because there is no cause why the one should occur rather than the other, it is really a matter of our being unable to describe one of the two events unless there is some sort of asymmetry. And if there is such an asymmetry, we can regard this as the cause of the occurrence of the one and of the non-occurrence of the other and go back to sleep, because it's soon time to get up.

At least, that's what I think.

[RandomThoughts]

4. Many events I have noticed are outside of cause and effect.

That is why I do nothing while doing nothing. Because causation and correlation are detached in many things. although with the bridge formed that delusion is defeated.

So as you say, I note the correlations, but know I, nor anyone else, is the causation.

And further go off of what Sam Carter said in a SG1 episode. Cause and effect are actually reversed. Their is not a cause, then an effect, and effect happens, then we try to find the cause.

Hence all the interpretation is a fact of pattern matching, then looking for a cause. It assumes there is a cause, well except for getting one of those fuckers to mail me the check I am owed, or to be more honest, to give me justification after fair warning to obliterate them. But I degrees. And that is not best form, so am hoping someone figures it out.

You might be saying to exist, something has to be able to be seen to give a perspective of your own existence. If there was not some other thing, you could not know of your own existence, since it is comparing it to some reality that gives a context to your own existence.

When you make the assurance that any two outcomes are the same, you make the assertion of no morality, or nothing being better. I agree anything not acceptable is the same as anything else not acceptable, but also know I will reach the acceptable, so influence on what is occurring is necessary. In other words, I think in terms of there being free will, and with free will is the implication of creation of an outcome.

The asymmetry you speak about is some thought on right and wrong, or best and worst, or acceptable and not acceptable, giving a way to see how paths are different, without something like a way to see what is what, a form of choice of values plus best evaluation, then every action would be the same, even if different because there would be no way to measure why they were different without something in the middle showing them different.

Or if there are two choices, and nothing separates which one to make, or what is better, then either choice is actually the same, and being the same there is no choice, and there is no difference even though the outcomes are different, that is part of the no morality trap leading to no free will. And if nothing matters, then you sleep, so wake up.