No One Thing Is True
By Jack Don McLovin - Multidiscplinarian -- Jack Has Been writing pages a day for the past 10 years under varying anonymous accounts, always drifting from place to place trying to gain popularity in a group, and start again, and repeat.
No One Thing Is True:
Wait, doesn't this invalidate itself?
Let's try again but not assume we are creative enough to think of a wholly different statement that would allow us to truly express ourselves in the way that we feel would be the most impactful.
Impactful in the way that I feel is impactful in the way that I feel with or without impact in the way that I feel regardless of how others feel in the way that I feel no matter what in the way that I feel I see success in the way that I feel that is corrective of the past in the way that I feel that is best for society in the way that I feel that is best for me.
And lets not assume we are creative enough to think of an ordered-series of steps to get us to our goals or an ordered-series of options to look at what to think and where to go next or an ordered-series of sequences to step us through all the possible options.
Instead lets just play dumb, and go from the first thing to the second thing. I'm going to play God, the superchief, or the hierarchically heighest of all hidden wealth and power and subhierarchies. And just do the next step. And then we'll see where that takes us.
`No Two Things Are True.`
```
But to assume if we must in order to reason,
then anything other than the least number of assumptions would be treason,
but I bet I could persuade you otherwise to:
so in assuming all of this is true: No Two Things Are True
```
And all it's analogs are effectively equivalent statements and are considered the \"type of thing\" that denotes \"the smallest possible thing\" or \"the atomisationable language\"\* or \"the atomic theory of truth\" or \"the point-particle presentness reference\" or \"a numerical theory of the smallest possible set of knowns\" or \"the religious notion of what is believed by mind-at-large\" or \"the spiritual notion of collective consciousness\" or \"the panpsychists notion of group-mind\"\*
When asking \"is this true\" in reference to a statement talking about \"so in assuming all of this is true\" truth isn't a property of that statement. It could be authentic, or it could be fiction, or it could fantasy, or it could be indicative of hidden intents, or it could be characteristic of who I am, or it could reveal a problem with my mind or my behaviour or by an inference of a permanent prison of an unending relationship between them, or it could be sarcastic or ironic or sarconic, or sardonic...
...or double sarcasm (being sarcastic about people being sarcastic, ie. if someone says something, then someone else will be sarcastic and epitomise what they would say but to show it is stupid to say, then or before someone else will be double sarcastic by epitomising what a sarcastic person would say but to show it is stupid to say), or double irony (you have situational, dramatic, and verbal ironies, and usually it's when one thing is said and another thing is meant...
...and a double irony is when one thing is said another thing is meant and another thing is misinterpreted ie. if something is ironic then the act itself is a curse to it's own act: you state something that you don't mean and so degrade your own language by adopting a foreing one, and by knowing that these are ironies and refering to them as ironies.
Or doing them often further degrades their value by over-repetition and hedonic adaptation, and they are called ironies because they stand the test of time, but as it is always firstly about \"when one thing is said and another is meant\" what *I* mean by that is, to me, a double-irony, because it means something different to me than what people use it as, and they mean something different every time they say it...
...and everything that can be meant is meant to be communicated but you can't convince everyone all the time, so no matter what it is going to be misinterpretated as well as being ironic.) But then I would this to a Triple Irony (the misinterpretations are themselves meant - ie. bringing the people that *can* come toward you toward you, and moving the people that *only* move away from you away)
\"the atomisationable language\"\* - as shown language when atomised can be re-written equivalently larger, and so it cannot be ultimately atomised, however we must if we are to encode it into memory, or to not be able to see the difference between given units of text in font, but then there are infinite languages, fonts, units, media.
Right? So the memory is what matters. `We remember the simple. We cannot remember the complex.` That is the point of simplicity. It is not that it is more true, or because it's easier (sometimes it's not), or because it's better, or more effective, or more accurate, or more significant, or more precise, or any amount of combinations of any of these and their permutations. Also,
`the more complex the memory the higher the risk it is lost`.
\"even if it's RAID distributed decentralised immutable on cloud in every form of the highest achievable complexities\"
\"the panpsychists notion of group-mind\"\* - I think any novel set and order of `minds` generate a novel effect, but as effect, set, and order are `mind` then \"grouping two `minds` together\"\* creates an excess of `mind` and `mind` in it's own right.
\"grouping two `minds` together\"\* - includes all subcategorisables, so physically grouping, or abstractly grouping, or mentally grouping, or written grouping, or grouping in writing, etc etc. So if I mentally, and abstractly group everyone to gether, or write the group down, then the grouping in writing would be denoting who is in the group or some categories of the group, and the first category of anything in a panpsychists notion is that it is mind.
So effect is mind, set is mind, order is mind. So it would make sense to me that grouping each is mind, and so `mind is: the combinatorials of the permutations of mind`. And when we define it this way, primarily, we can also say `a characteristic of mind is that it contains all of combinatorials of the permutations of itself` and that these combinatorials and permutations can be shifted on top of each other forever.
How to resolve the problem of the hierarchy. Recognise it is an idea and cannot die until it is defeated. A hierarchy is a type of diagrammatic structure of which we get many other types of diagrammatic structures that come from each of it's type (not a redundant phrase, I'm saying all the types of hierarchical diagrams also produce many other types of diagrams that all ultimately refer back to the grouping of all of hierarchies, so while the others may not be a hierarchy, they rely on a hierarchy existing in order for them to persist) and combinations of each hierarchy, type of diagram, and each subtype of diagram.
`Each new thing is the addition of a new rule.` or
`Each new thing exists on the premise of a new rule leading to it's existentce.`
So `to resolve the problem of the hierarchy` we must instead challenge the rules that lead to it. And `it is not white supremacy`, or fascism, or dictatorships, or racism, or phobias, gender-specific.
It is a nature of mind in the existence of two things: a line, and a loop. Loop around me, line to the line connecting the loop around my mum and the loop around my dad as a pairing. Nothing more nothing less. Anything else extra is detail. The line doesn't have to be straight. And the loop doesn't have to be a circle.
So prove to yourself that those do not exist, and you will not even see such a thing as a hierarchy, and once others do not see it, it will cease to exist, and will have been defeated.
Because persistent ideas become egregores when we believe in them: they create effects that lead to actions meaning they have actions as an entity in their own right. And once the persistent idea is no longer seen, it becomes no longer heard from, and it no longer exists. So any problem there was, is gone.
What this means for you
This means that when you speak and open your mouth, realise two separate events are occurring and neither of them are adequate descriptions to contain the other, and so to speak and speak clearly we must conjoin truths from separate angles, otherwise we can always break apart any single truth from being a falsity when conjoined with another. For example, saying you put your shoes on, and you tied your shoes up, both of them together clarify the truth of the action. But when you say you put your shoes on, and you went for a walk, we could get a hardnosed logician to say you either did one or the other because of some inherent fallacy. This is the difference between interpretation on behalf of the speaker, or on behalf of someone else. When we interpret something to be true, that is the basis of future reasoning that incorporates that thing as truth. So the question becomes, if no one thing is true, then who or what are we reasoning on behalf of. Be careful what you reason for, because you may well start an argument where there need not be one, or you may see a difference where others see sameness.
