The Philosophy of Jell-O

[Phil8659]

Today, we start a new television series called, The Philosophy of Jell-O.
We have six or seven interviews to tape, each one a dedicated camera, microphone, and interviewer.
The idea is just let the tape role, while watching the Jello, trying to answer the important questions of our times.

Six months Later.

We have edited each of our speakers for content, sadly, nothing was left after the editing, except perhaps some dirty dishes.

Therefore, we have let this space go, to an exciting new program called Daisy and the Frisby. The dog Daisy, however, has a very limited vocabulary.

[Phil8659]

By what do we ask and answer questions about any and every thing?
Grammar systems. Grammar systems are that which we virtualize, and examine our environment with.
Grammar is composed of specific elements.
The first is the definition of a thing. As our job is to manage the things in our environment, each system of grammar has to define, make plain, how it grammatically encodes a thing. Every thing is some material difference within limits. i.e., a binary construct. For Common Grammar, Plato specified the two names as Noun and Verb. In arithmetic, it is 0 and 1. The relative is nameless, but 25 can be said to be 25 cats, 25 lbs. 25 nanoseconds. There is no such thing as a signed number in Arithmetic, Arithmetic is all about the noun, the verb can be added after computation. \

Common Grammar, is unordered, optimized for presorted data.
Algebra combines Common Grammar and Arithmetic.
Geometry defines a unit a thing as a simple line segment.
Binary being what it is, binary, is independent of each of these naming convention, however, as binary can only produce a binary result, by adhering to each convention of names, one still acquires a binary result.
So, we have a well defined means of naming the parts of a thing.
A naming convention, unordered, ordered, which produces three relative grammars, Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra.
And we have a grammar that puts a one-to-one correspondence with the elements of a thing, and thus can be paired with each of the relative grammar systems forming a Grammar Matrix, by which, as Plato noted, every line of reasoning will produce a perceptible paradigm which can demonstrate the truth as to the compliance of that reasoning with the definition of the unit, the thing, in itself.

As as Plato further demonstrated, the result is independent of any god or man. Only an idiot throws away a perfect concept of grammar, and beg some illiterate ass to tell them a story.

[Phil8659]

Late Breaking News. Daisy has been caught, on film, eating the Jell-O, therefore, the air time has been given over to Infomercials, pending the outcome of Daisy's trial.

[Atla]

Has it never occurred to you to start a topic where you actually demonstrate what your alleged philosophy is good for, via an example? Your abstract musings only give the impression that you're just hallucinating all this binary crap. Give us an actual example with an actual result.

[Phil8659]

Has it never occurred to you to start a topic where you actually demonstrate what your alleged philosophy is good for, via an example? Your abstract musings only give the impression that you're just hallucinating all this binary crap. Give us an actual example with an actual result.

Not everyone is so stupid as to ignore the fact that an encyclopedic work demonstrating everything has been not only posted but available for world wide download. And has been for years. Not every one is too stupid to know their way around the internet or a forum. So, I do not believe you speak for anyone but yourself.

Even simply search for my screen name will get even the most stupid onto the Internet Archive.

[Atla]

Has it never occurred to you to start a topic where you actually demonstrate what your alleged philosophy is good for, via an example? Your abstract musings only give the impression that you're just hallucinating all this binary crap. Give us an actual example with an actual result.

Not everyone is so stupid as to ignore the fact that an encyclopedic work demonstrating everything has been not only posted but available for world wide download. And has been for years. Not every one is too stupid to know their way around the internet or a forum. So, I do not believe you speak for anyone but yourself.

I found some nonsensical diagrams and then stopped looking. Others won't even do that much. So I probably speak for most people. Again: can you or can't you give us an actual example?

[Phil8659]

Has it never occurred to you to start a topic where you actually demonstrate what your alleged philosophy is good for, via an example? Your abstract musings only give the impression that you're just hallucinating all this binary crap. Give us an actual example with an actual result.

Not everyone is so stupid as to ignore the fact that an encyclopedic work demonstrating everything has been not only posted but available for world wide download. And has been for years. Not every one is too stupid to know their way around the internet or a forum. So, I do not believe you speak for anyone but yourself.

I found some nonsensical diagrams and then stopped looking. Others won't even do that much. So I probably speak for most people. Again: can you or can't you give us an actual example?

Fine example, you cannot even read a geometric figure. And of course, it is everyone else's fault, just like every dumbass claims.

[Atla]

Not everyone is so stupid as to ignore the fact that an encyclopedic work demonstrating everything has been not only posted but available for world wide download. And has been for years. Not every one is too stupid to know their way around the internet or a forum. So, I do not believe you speak for anyone but yourself.

I found some nonsensical diagrams and then stopped looking. Others won't even do that much. So I probably speak for most people. Again: can you or can't you give us an actual example?

Fine example, you cannot even read a geometric figure. And of course, it is everyone else's fault, just like every dumbass claims.

So you can't give us an example how one of your geometric figures should be read.

[Phil8659]

I found some nonsensical diagrams and then stopped looking. Others won't even do that much. So I probably speak for most people. Again: can you or can't you give us an actual example?

Fine example, you cannot even read a geometric figure. And of course, it is everyone else's fault, just like every dumbass claims.

So you can't give us an example how one of your geometric figures should be read.

Really? And the work is not free of mine where on the internet Archive, you illiterate moron.

[Atla]

Fine example, you cannot even read a geometric figure. And of course, it is everyone else's fault, just like every dumbass claims.

So you can't give us an example how one of your geometric figures should be read.

Really? And the work is not free of mine where on the internet Archive, you illiterate moron.

Sounds like your geometric figures don't actually mean anything, as expected. You just invented some stupid rules on how you want to make geometric figures out of English sentences, and think that your work means something.

[Phil8659]

So you can't give us an example how one of your geometric figures should be read.

Really? And the work is not free of mine where on the internet Archive, you illiterate moron.

Sounds like your geometric figures don't actually mean anything, as expected. You just invented some stupid rules on how you want to make geometric figures out of English sentences, and think that your work means something.

Millions of people download books from the Internet Archive every day. Do you think anyone on this forum is so stupid as to fall for your pathetic lying bull shit? You are just another sick sociopath.
Megalomania.

[Atla]

Really? And the work is not free of mine where on the internet Archive, you illiterate moron.

Sounds like your geometric figures don't actually mean anything, as expected. You just invented some stupid rules on how you want to make geometric figures out of English sentences, and think that your work means something.

Millions of people download books from the Internet Archive every day. Do you think anyone on this forum is so stupid as to fall for your pathetic lying bull shit? You are just another sick sociopath.
Megalomania.

Yes they download many books, they just don't read yours. You can't even give an example why your books are indeed groundbreaking and important, instead of being the ramblings of a madman who had some psychotic break in childhood.

[Phil8659]

Typical sociopath, simply cannot stop lying.

Is there any sane person that claims, because they cannot read something, it means that what is written, cannot be proven, without assuming that they are the standard by which everyone reads? How stupid does someone have to be to believe that fallacy?

[Atla]

Hey - your diagrams could still have aesthetic value. Maybe they would make pretty screensavers.

[Phil8659]

Hey - your diagrams could still have aesthetic value. Maybe they would make pretty screensavers.

Now you are making sense. For lame brains like yourself, you could use them as pretty pictures. Thank God for Mr. Rodgers. I bet the only time you get a joke is when the network plays canned laughter.