Lies told in the Name of Freedom

[Phil8659]

The argument I am going to lay down is first demonstrated in the metaphors of the Bible, and in the Dialogs of Plato. Now both of these sources use metaphor which requires a more sophisticated mind to comprehend. Even when one is brighter than the average bear, they take long studies to comprehend them. However, both of these sources are aimed at the modification of human behavior, and as Plato explains in Phaedrus, a good writer writes by combining two techniques which reach both the simpler minded and the advanced minded. It is this technique, as we see by both works, which helps insures their survival in history. Now, these two techniques are simply the two laws of identity available to mankind, each one based on an element in the definition of a thing. Arithmetic identity and Geometric identity, i.e. often called Literal and metaphorical. One is arithmetic and the other actually algebraic.
But I do not have that art, or actually, I do not cultivate it in my work. Essentially, I am not as bright as either sources. I am going to explain a word which is horrendously misused around the world: Freedom and I am going to start at ground zero.
We are the product of a living brain called mind. A mind, when functional, is the most powerful life support system possible. As such a mind has a well-defined biologically determined job to perform and well-defined physically determined means of doing its job. The mind, as the Bible informs the reader, as Plato states, as your own experience states, is to predict behavior before we commit to in which tremendously increases our chances of survival. A mind reads the information presented by perception, processes that information, and writes it back as behavior of the body. A mind is a symbolic information processor based on memory. Memory is recursively used.
Now here is one biological fact almost universally ignored, but which Plato did cover. No life support system can possibly change its function, its job, and no life support system can possibly do the work of another.
Now, as a mind processes the memory of things, therefore one has to know what a thing is. As the Bible informs us in metaphor, Plato put into the literal, and Aristotle explained it several times. We can only name the two parts of a thing, even though these two parts cannot exist by itself. The ability to parse a thing into its two parts which can be named involves a certain level of intelligence. A thing is composed of material difference and the limits on the material difference, shape and the material in that shape. These are called the intelligible elements of a thing, a relative and correlative, a noun and verb, 0 and 1, point and line, etc. Being the only two parts of a thing which can be named, a thing is a binary construct.
These two parts of a thing, are called a thing's elements, and a thing's First Principles, for first principle parts. Your own computer demonstrates the idea, Plato called it dialectic, grammar in accordance with the two elements which can be named of a thing. A computer does everything by binary recursion. Every possible grammar, every mathematics, every perceptible and intelligible thing, is achieved by binary recursion. It is a physical fact and a grammatical fact.
When one can name the two elements of a grammar system, they have to name those two elements in accordance with A, its symbol set which is absolute, and B the method by which those symbols are manipulated to produce statements in that grammar. Thus, one should realize that two squared produces exactly four categories of grammar which we can use traditional names for: Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry. This means that a functional mind uses a Grammar Matrix, and since they are all forms of binary recursion, and binary recursion cannot do any thing but produce a binary result, and since binary recursion cannot contradict itself, none of them can contradict the other. It is the attempt to use them is where the fault in reasoning lay.
Therefore, the result of reasoning is not a choice, it is indicative of one's level of literacy. Every result of grammar derives from physical fact as virtualized in grammar systems.
Freedom is not anything you can pull out of the depths of your illiteracy, freedom and any other word, must comply with the principles of grammar, as derived from both physical and biological fact, it is not the choice of a cat, a dog, a moron, but judgment. I.e. literacy has several names, judgment, prophecy, predictive behavior, or predicted behavior. The standard for judgment is not a doctrine, not a theory, and not the whims of an idiot.

So, the Bible, Plato, Confucius, and your own biology, and grammar itself, state, You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.
Truth is the state of being true. Two or more things, when compared by some system of measurement, are true when no difference is found between them. I.e. truth is absolute, not relative. And what makes it absolute, is when the intelligible is in the image of the perceptible.
In Biblical metaphor, as the only power there is, is the universe itself, it is when the intelligible is the image of the perceptible, based on the two elements of a thing.

Biblical metaphor tells you this, if you can read metaphor, Plato tells you this, Aristotle explained it, even though he failed to formalize it, and your own body, as a life support system has been telling you this all your life, and now you have the computer telling you exactly the same thing.

However, it is a biological fact, that an inferior mind, cannot do the job of a life support system, and talk all you want, as words, in of themselves have no meaning, you cannot implant intelligence in a fool.

A mind, by biological fact, is evolving for the modification of human behavior to insure survival. A unit, a thing, as a relative contained by correlatives can also be called a standard of behavior for standard is to the correlative as behavior is to the relative. By biological fact, by the concept of survival of the most fit, it is accomplished by not doing as you please, as Plato and the Bible point out, but will. Will is biologically defined by standards of human behavior, binary recursion.

These principles were known by the real philosophers in history, they are undeniable and factual. Those who cannot comprehend them, may use the word, but by grammatical fact, they think and speak, gibberish.

So, here is a Biblical metaphor: with stammering lips and another tongue, i.e. recursion. The Bible is even written recursively, the same idea is told and retold in many different ways. By fact, a mind, by using this "two-edged sword" is used recursively unless a mind is not up to the job of judgment, of supporting and maintaining life, for their own and the salvation of this planet. Survival of the most fit, is also called salvation.

[Age]

The argument I am going to lay down is first demonstrated in the metaphors of the Bible, and in the Dialogs of Plato. Now both of these sources use metaphor which requires a more sophisticated mind to comprehend. Even when one is brighter than the average bear, they take long studies to comprehend them. However, both of these sources are aimed at the modification of human behavior, and as Plato explains in Phaedrus, a good writer writes by combining two techniques which reach both the simpler minded and the advanced minded. It is this technique, as we see by both works, which helps insures their survival in history. Now, these two techniques are simply the two laws of identity available to mankind, each one based on an element in the definition of a thing. Arithmetic identity and Geometric identity, i.e. often called Literal and metaphorical. One is arithmetic and the other actually algebraic.
But I do not have that art, or actually, I do not cultivate it in my work. Essentially, I am not as bright as either sources. I am going to explain a word which is horrendously misused around the world: Freedom and I am going to start at ground zero.
We are the product of a living brain called mind.

The very first sentence of 'your argument' here starts with a False premise.

WHO, EXACTLY, calls the 'brain', 'mind'?

That would be like calling the 'heart', 'soul', or the 'gut', 'spirit'. This is just False and Wrong because they are DIFFERENT words, with DIFFERENT definitions and meanings.

Also, who and/or what does the 'we' word mean or refer to here, EXACTLY?

Obviously, the rest of the human body, besides the brain, is NOT a product of the 'brain'. As it is the 'brain', which forms AFTER some of the other parts of the human body.

A mind, when functional, is the most powerful life support system possible.

Some might argue that the 'heart' and the 'blood' are more powerful life support system/s. Or maybe it is the lungs that are a more powerful life support system. In fact some might even argue that the parts of the human body that were existing BEFORE the 'brain' came into being might be more powerful a life support system. In fact the 'placenta' might be far more powerful a life support system than just a 'brain' is. And, considering the Fact that a human body keeps living and existing when one is in a complete coma, for MANY years, sometimes, it might be argued that the 'brain' is NOT that powerful a life support system AT ALL. Considering the Fact that trees do NOT have 'brains', and they KEEP LIVING, then their most powerful life support system is CERTIANLY NOT the 'brain'. Also, it is trees, themselves, and their system, which supports life sustaining substances for human beings to KEEP LIVING and SURVIVING, so it might be argued that they are a more powerful life support system for the human body, which supports the 'brain'.

As such a mind has a well-defined biologically determined job to perform and well-defined physically determined means of doing its job.

But absolutely EVERY biological thing in the Universe has a so-called, and weirdly worded, "well-defined biologically determined job to perform". For example, the human head is a 'well-defined biological instrument' with a 'well-defined determined job to perform', of which is to SUPPORT the 'brain'.

The mind, as the Bible informs the reader, as Plato states, as your own experience states, is to predict behavior before we commit to in which tremendously increases our chances of survival.

I would have thought that just CHOOSING 'a behavior', BEFORE we commit to one, increased, tremendously, our chances of survival.

I SEE 'to predict behavior', as some thing ELSE. See, 'to predict behavior' is DONE more so like when one 'predicts' 'the behavior' of "another", and NOT for "one's" OWN 'self'. I think it will be FOUND that if 'one' spend some time 'predicting' what 'behavior' they MIGHT or might NOT do, then the saber tooth tiger would have ALREADY eaten that one.

A mind reads the information presented by perception, processes that information, and writes it back as behavior of the body. A mind is a symbolic information processor based on memory. Memory is recursively used.

Was there ANY REAL NEED to change the word 'brain', to the 'mind' word, and then just write and explain what it is that the 'brain' ACTUALLY DOES?

Now here is one biological fact almost universally ignored, but which Plato did cover. No life support system can possibly change its function, its job, and no life support system can possibly do the work of another.

I thought that this WAS ALREADY COMMON KNOWLEDGE. Or, did you ACTUALLY think or BELIEVE that 'a tree' could do the word of, let us say, 'a brain', or vice versa? O,r say the 'biosphere system of earth' would CHANGE and oh lets say do the work of 'gastric system' of a human body? Or, that the 'lung system' of a zebra would JUST CHANGE and start doing the work of the 'digestive system' of a whale, for example?

Also, WHY do 'you' CLAIM that the OBVIOUS Fact that NO system AT ALL, including ALL life supporting systems, can NOT CHANGE, their job, NOR that they could do the job of ANOTHER 'system', is being almost UNIVERSALLY IGNORED?

What could or would possibly CHANGE, if this Fact was CONTINUALLY REPEATED and BEING REMINDED to people?

Now, as a mind processes the memory of things, therefore one has to know what a thing is.

So what?

Also, memories of things are being processed within that head, and 'you' do NOT YET appear to KNOW what some 'things' ARE, EXACTLY. Or, maybe more correctly, 'you' appear to have VERY DISTORTED and TWISTED 'knowledge' of what some things ARE.

Oh, and by the way, what IS a 'thing', to you, EXACTLY?

As the Bible informs us in metaphor, Plato put into the literal, and Aristotle explained it several times. We can only name the two parts of a thing, even though these two parts cannot exist by itself.

So, to you, the bible, "plato", and "aristotle" SAY and CLAIM that 'you' can ONLY name the two parts of a 'thing', but REALLY those parts can NOT even exist, by themselves, ANYWAY.

The ability to parse a thing into its two parts which can be named involves a certain level of intelligence.

I will suggest that WHEN those two NONEXISTING parts are KNOWN, then it would NOT take much 'intelligence' AT ALL, REALLY, to then just be ABLE TO name them. After all they are have ALREADY BECOME KNOWN.

A thing is composed of material difference and the limits on the material difference, shape and the material in that shape. These are called the intelligible elements of a thing, a relative and correlative, a noun and verb, 0 and 1, point and line, etc. Being the only two parts of a thing which can be named, a thing is a binary construct.

But ANY and EVERY 'thing', (besides 'matter' and 'space' OF COURSE), is just made up of two parts, that is namely; 'space' and 'matter'. 'matter' obviously being the visible, or experential, part, and 'space' obviously being the invisible part. The difference between ALL 'things', besides 'matter' and 'space' of course, is just the amount of 'matter' within it, and the amount of 'density' of that 'thing/object'. The size and shape of ALL 'things' is determined by the amount of 'matter' and 'space' within it.

The most basic and fundamental parts of the Universe, Itself, is just 'matter' and 'space', and that absolutely EVERY thing, besides 'matter' and 'space' of course, comes into Existence because at least two prior 'things' had come-together, forming the 'new thing'. Even the Universe, Itself, is only in Exsitence because of 'matter' and 'space' coming-together. But, because 'matter' and 'space' have ALWAYS BEEN in Existence, then so to HAS the Universe, Itself.

These two parts of a thing, are called a thing's elements, and a thing's First Principles, for first principle parts.

Okay, if you say so.

Your own computer demonstrates the idea, Plato called it dialectic, grammar in accordance with the two elements which can be named of a thing. A computer does everything by binary recursion. Every possible grammar, every mathematics, every perceptible and intelligible thing, is achieved by binary recursion. It is a physical fact and a grammatical fact.

Okay, but what has 'a computer' got to do with absolutely EVERY thing ELSE?

When one can name the two elements of a grammar system, they have to name those two elements in accordance with A, its symbol set which is absolute, and B the method by which those symbols are manipulated to produce statements in that grammar. Thus, one should realize that two squared produces exactly four categories of grammar which we can use traditional names for: Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry. This means that a functional mind uses a Grammar Matrix,

But IF 'you' are GOING TO REPLACE the 'brain' word with the 'mind' word, then 'you' HAVE TO ALSO ACCEPT and AGREE that some functional 'brains', or 'minds', do NOT use a so-called 'grammar matrix' AT ALL. Like, for example, in young children.

and since they are all forms of binary recursion, and binary recursion cannot do any thing but produce a binary result, and since binary recursion cannot contradict itself, none of them can contradict the other. It is the attempt to use them is where the fault in reasoning lay.

Okay, if you say so, BUT are 'you' YET ABLE TO name the 'two elements' of a 'grammar system'?

if yes, then what is the name that 'you' use for BOTH of those 'two elements'?

Therefore, the result of reasoning is not a choice, it is indicative of one's level of literacy.

But I have heard MANY A TIME a very young child REASON OUT, FAR MORE, than adults could, and those children had, relatively and comparably, NO 'level of literacy'.

Every result of grammar derives from physical fact as virtualized in grammar systems.

They were the 'premises', now let us SEE what the 'conclusion' is for the CLAIM that 'you' are going to EXPLAIN the word 'freedom', (whatever that means), which is supposedly horrendously used around the world (whatever that means).

Freedom is not anything you can pull out of the depths of your illiteracy,

Is "your illiteracy" even an ACTUAL 'thing'?

Also, one does NOT even have to be able to read 'things' to KNOW 'things'.

freedom and any other word, must comply with the principles of grammar, as derived from both physical and biological fact, it is not the choice of a cat, a dog, a moron, but judgment. I.e. literacy has several names, judgment, prophecy, predictive behavior, or predicted behavior.

Since WHEN has the 'literacy' word had several names?

Also, what does the word 'literacy' even more or refer to, to you?

The standard for judgment is not a doctrine, not a theory, and not the whims of an idiot.

If they are NOT what the so-called 'standard for judgment' IS, then what IS the 'standard for judgment', EXACTLY?

So, the Bible, Plato, Confucius, and your own biology, and grammar itself, state, You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.
Truth is the state of being true. Two or more things, when compared by some system of measurement, are true when no difference is found between them. I.e. truth is absolute, not relative.

Well how then do 'you' differentiate between 'truth' that IS 'relative', from 'truth' that is 'absolute' or supposedly NOT 'relative'?

For example, if 'you' say, 'vanila ice cream is the best', and 'i' say, 'chocolate ice cream is the best', then they can NOT be 'absolute truths' as they BOTH contradict, or conflict with, each other. Yet they are 'relative truths'.

So, how does this WORK WITH your OWN definition here that 'truth IS absolute, NOT relative?

By the way, HOW to make this WORK, PERFECTLY, is REALLY VERY SIMPLE and EASY, INDEED.

And what makes it absolute, is when the intelligible is in the image of the perceptible.

What does 'the intelligible is in the image of the perceptible' even mean or refer to, EXACTLY?

1. Could there be 'an image' of the NON perceptible? If yes, then HOW, EXACTLY?

2. Will you provide an example of an 'image of the percetible' so that I can then SEE if I am ABLE TO understand, or comprehend, that 'image', of what is, after all, just perceptible, anyway.

3. What happens if what I am ABLE TO SEE, UNDERSTAND, and/or COMPREHEND in 'that image' is DIFFERENT from what 'you' were ABLE TO SEE, UNDERSTAND, and/or COMPREHEND? WHO then has or is holding the 'absolute truth'?

In Biblical metaphor, as the only power there is, is the universe itself, it is when the intelligible is the image of the perceptible, based on the two elements of a thing.

Biblical metaphor tells you this, if you can read metaphor, Plato tells you this, Aristotle explained it, even though he failed to formalize it, and your own body, as a life support system has been telling you this all your life, and now you have the computer telling you exactly the same thing.

When you SAY and USE the 'this' word, in this sentence, what is 'it' referring to, EXACTLY?

This sentence did NOT seem to follow from the preceding sentence, well NOT for me anyway.

Also, you said and wrote here, "when the intelligible is THE image of the perceptible", where as in the quote above this one you said and wrote there, "when the intelligible is IN the image of the perceptible". These mean two VERY DIFFERENT things. Did you mean to say and write them in these VERY DIFFERENT WAYS?

If yes, then which one is true and right and which one is NOT?

Oh and by the way did you end up TELLING US what the two elements of a 'thing' ARE, EXACTLY?

However, it is a biological fact, that an inferior mind, cannot do the job of a life support system, and talk all you want, as words, in of themselves have no meaning, you cannot implant intelligence in a fool.

How did we END UP here, from what was written BEFORE it?

I thought you were GOING TO EXPLAIN to 'us' the word 'freedom', (whatever that means?)

What you appear to be doing now is just leading to the "fact" that there are inferior minds, which would NEVER be ABLE TO SEE 'things' as CLEARLY as your OWN MUCH MORE superior mind CAN.

A mind, by biological fact, is evolving for the modification of human behavior to insure survival. A unit, a thing, as a relative contained by correlatives can also be called a standard of behavior for standard is to the correlative as behavior is to the relative. By biological fact, by the concept of survival of the most fit, it is accomplished by not doing as you please, as Plato and the Bible point out, but will.

When you say and write, "as "plato" and the bible point out", WHERE, EXACTLY, did "plato" and/or the bible, supposedly, POINT OUT, whatever 'it' is that you are 'trying to' say and claim here?

Will is biologically defined by standards of human behavior, binary recursion.

Under WHOSE diagnosis?

These principles were known by the real philosophers in history, they are undeniable and factual.

Are 'you', "phil8659", a REAL 'philosopher'?

If yes, then what makes 'you' SO?

But if no, then how would 'you' KNOW what so-called "real philosophers" KNOW?

Those who cannot comprehend them, may use the word, but by grammatical fact, they think and speak, gibberish.

What IS 'the word', which those who can NOT comprehend 'them', (whoever 'them' is?), MAY USE?

Also, is 'that word' ANY thing like 'the word' 'of God', for example?

If 'the word' is 'freedom', then it was such a long time ago that you used that word, how is a reader meant to relate the words 'the word' back to 'the 'freedom' word'?

So, here is a Biblical metaphor: with stammering lips and another tongue, i.e. recursion. The Bible is even written recursively, the same idea is told and retold in many different ways. By fact, a mind, by using this "two-edged sword" is used recursively unless a mind is not up to the job of judgment, of supporting and maintaining life, for their own and the salvation of this planet. Survival of the most fit, is also called salvation.

Okay, BUT WHEN, EXACTLY, are 'you' going to EXPLAIN the word 'freedom' to 'us'?