video and pdf
https://archive.org/details/socrates-an ... -dimension
Video
https://youtu.be/tfCHJ_BQBOo
Socrates and the First Dimension.docx Statistics:
Words - 748
Characters - 3.412
Paragraphs - 15
Sentences - 37
Sentences per Paragraph - 2.6
Words per Sentence - 20.1
Characters per Word - 4.3
Flesch Reading Ease - 62.2
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level - 9.5
Passive Sentences - 16.09
Socrates and the First Dimension
Re: Socrates and the First Dimension
Socrates and the First Dimension!
Draw the following figure:
_____________________
Now, you can draw it on paper, on wax paper, wax tablet, in sand or dirt, on a wall, etc., You can even draw it in air and virtualize it in memory, even draw it using the technology of a computer.
You can even describe it such as, given one, and only one, thing, name its parts, which is also called the forensic mode of description. The forensic mode of description is the foundation used by many mystics, who claim that the motion of your hand preexisted in some unseen realm, or alternate dimension, even alternate reality.
You can also say, that it is the recorded memory of a single motion of your own hand, or autobiography.
When we say name the parts of that thing, what we mean is name the state of your hand during the construction of that record.
go
stop ------------------------------------ stop
Which means we have embellished our record naming the state of the hand during the construction of that simple thing. The left stop is where we placed our hand and not in motion, Go, is where our hand was in motion, and Stop again, were our hand came to rest. Notice that in embellishing the record of the motion of our hand, the embellishment did not, in any way, change the record. Notice also, we have named two, and only two states of the hand, is not in motion, is in motion, and is not in motion. We have asserted no motion, we asserted motion, and we asserted a second time, no motion. In common grammar, this is called a relative within correlatives, it is also called material within limits. It is also called dialectic, speaking by two, it is also called binary, the two parts of speech, it is also called dimension, mentionable by two. In common grammar, Noun and verb.
Therefore with that record, we can embellish it with other systems of grammar. Yes, I said, the above is a written record of the behavior of our own hand, which makes it the most basic grammar possible, or again, our Meta-Grammar.
We can embellish this written record of our own hand with Common Grammar, with Arithmetic, and with their combination called Algebra. These four systems of Grammar is called a Grammar Matrix. Thus, our Grammar Matrix consists of Common Grammar, Arithmetic, their sum, Algebra and our Meta-Grammar, Geometry.
We embellish this record of the motion of our hand in Common Grammar using a single letter, with words, sentences, paragraphs, essays, even books. The same is true with Arithmetic and Algebra.
This is the foundation of Grammar, as a record of our own behavior. So, if you claim that there are more parts of speech than just two, you have contradicted yourself, and thus, you cannot agree with yourself or with any one, or anything else.
Dimension also means that the whole of grammar is based on the Art of Names, Logos, or Logic. The foundation of logic, in arithmetic is 0 and 1, denial and assertion. Our Meta-Grammar is useful in proofing all systems of grammar. Both the Bible and Plato intimated this, and you can, examine it for yourself. There are those who can see the simplicity and truth of this, and there are the mentally lame which will always spiral off into the banano-sphere of gibberish. Plato actually wrote a number of whole dialogs, examining this fact in detail, challenging a number of delusional results, which always brings one back to the simple truth. We can either give and keep our word, our own testimony, or we cannot.
Think about this, how is it something so simple can be so confusing to people? Is it because our mind is functional or is it in fact, dysfunctional? Mankind has yet to achieve human unity, because they cannot even agree with their own hand. That is a fact, and a fact which should terrify you.
So, if you use the word Dimension, as is used by some of the claimed most highly literate people in the world, and you understand that your own hand has taught you that they are speaking gibberish, you just might have at least a temporary mental breakdown.
But consider what I wrote, does it not mean that the autobiography of mankind is written as if by one hand? And, if this is not so, there is no mankind yet, but man is becoming even though Socrates has left the building.
Draw the following figure:
_____________________
Now, you can draw it on paper, on wax paper, wax tablet, in sand or dirt, on a wall, etc., You can even draw it in air and virtualize it in memory, even draw it using the technology of a computer.
You can even describe it such as, given one, and only one, thing, name its parts, which is also called the forensic mode of description. The forensic mode of description is the foundation used by many mystics, who claim that the motion of your hand preexisted in some unseen realm, or alternate dimension, even alternate reality.
You can also say, that it is the recorded memory of a single motion of your own hand, or autobiography.
When we say name the parts of that thing, what we mean is name the state of your hand during the construction of that record.
go
stop ------------------------------------ stop
Which means we have embellished our record naming the state of the hand during the construction of that simple thing. The left stop is where we placed our hand and not in motion, Go, is where our hand was in motion, and Stop again, were our hand came to rest. Notice that in embellishing the record of the motion of our hand, the embellishment did not, in any way, change the record. Notice also, we have named two, and only two states of the hand, is not in motion, is in motion, and is not in motion. We have asserted no motion, we asserted motion, and we asserted a second time, no motion. In common grammar, this is called a relative within correlatives, it is also called material within limits. It is also called dialectic, speaking by two, it is also called binary, the two parts of speech, it is also called dimension, mentionable by two. In common grammar, Noun and verb.
Therefore with that record, we can embellish it with other systems of grammar. Yes, I said, the above is a written record of the behavior of our own hand, which makes it the most basic grammar possible, or again, our Meta-Grammar.
We can embellish this written record of our own hand with Common Grammar, with Arithmetic, and with their combination called Algebra. These four systems of Grammar is called a Grammar Matrix. Thus, our Grammar Matrix consists of Common Grammar, Arithmetic, their sum, Algebra and our Meta-Grammar, Geometry.
We embellish this record of the motion of our hand in Common Grammar using a single letter, with words, sentences, paragraphs, essays, even books. The same is true with Arithmetic and Algebra.
This is the foundation of Grammar, as a record of our own behavior. So, if you claim that there are more parts of speech than just two, you have contradicted yourself, and thus, you cannot agree with yourself or with any one, or anything else.
Dimension also means that the whole of grammar is based on the Art of Names, Logos, or Logic. The foundation of logic, in arithmetic is 0 and 1, denial and assertion. Our Meta-Grammar is useful in proofing all systems of grammar. Both the Bible and Plato intimated this, and you can, examine it for yourself. There are those who can see the simplicity and truth of this, and there are the mentally lame which will always spiral off into the banano-sphere of gibberish. Plato actually wrote a number of whole dialogs, examining this fact in detail, challenging a number of delusional results, which always brings one back to the simple truth. We can either give and keep our word, our own testimony, or we cannot.
Think about this, how is it something so simple can be so confusing to people? Is it because our mind is functional or is it in fact, dysfunctional? Mankind has yet to achieve human unity, because they cannot even agree with their own hand. That is a fact, and a fact which should terrify you.
So, if you use the word Dimension, as is used by some of the claimed most highly literate people in the world, and you understand that your own hand has taught you that they are speaking gibberish, you just might have at least a temporary mental breakdown.
But consider what I wrote, does it not mean that the autobiography of mankind is written as if by one hand? And, if this is not so, there is no mankind yet, but man is becoming even though Socrates has left the building.