(click picture to show the video)
A Perspective Everyone Should Ponder
Look up now… what you miss…
Latest
Look up!
Free Energy Live in Action
(click picture to show the article)
Published on Apr 28, 2014
This is a short clip of the QEG reaching resonance for the first time in the One People Community Aouchtam workshop. The bulbs represent 500 watts of power. This is not a how to video.
This is a short clip of the QEG reaching resonance for the first time in the One People Community Aouchtam workshop. The bulbs represent 500 watts of power. This is not a how to video.
How the QEG works:
First we use a starting power source, such as an outlet or a crank to power the 1 horsepower motor. This motor spins the rotor in the generator core. The unique oscillator circuitry configuration in the generator core causes resonance to occur. Once the core achieves this resonance it can produce up to 10KW of power, which can then be run through an inverter to power the motor that spins the rotor. You can then unplug the motor from the original power source and the generator will power itself. This is STILL IN PROCESS, and yet to be achieved by this QEG in Aouchtam.
Read more here:
Status of QEG Build Morocco: Build Day 3 – Initial Resonance Achieved!
http://sitsshow.blogspot.com/2014/04/...
Earth Day – Causes In Question
Religion has its grievous deficits, but this damage to our earth has different causes.
We are being sold that we are like a virus, but we are not!
Most of humanity just wants to get by and be happy. It’s the corporations and the bankers behind them that are responsible, because they are who leads these kinds of efforts.
I’m aware that humans form corporations and bankers are human, but I see this more as an illness or a blight on humanity that goes even deeper.
Even cells get this kind of illness (cancer). Natural means hasn’t yet managed to intervene quick enough to prevent such devastation being worked upon itself.
For me, it is more about the hegemonic properties of any distribution in nature containing members who can choose and how the remainder of same cannot or will not do something about those choices when they lead to these kinds of consequences.
So you see, even ‘viruses’ have rules to obey. Especially those who can choose!
Intro to Common Law
(click picture to show the video)
The Language Every Philosopher, Legal Professional and Linguist Should Know
1) Slang (learned before school)
2) Formal English (learned in school… hopefully)
3) Legal English (not learned in school and with varying proficiencies in law itself!)
Did you know that Civics was transitioned out of the curriculum of the school system during the years 1850 to 1950? It was replaced by ‘American Government’ (or something similar). Why is that important for philosophers, legal professionals and linguists?
That is what this thread is about. I will be adding to this thread over time as my understanding of this language grows.
Benefits of Meditation
This is my first choice (I start with something I’m good at!) I do it even for a few seconds at a time (waiting for IT jobs to finish).
It is vital to be able to slip into a state of calm on a moments notice.
I’ve been practicing this since 2007 so it’s pretty well a ‘part of me’ (internalized).
Please comment, if you have stories to tell or insights to share on this topic. (Example insight: breathing in through the nose and out through the mouth can enhance…)
It is vital to be able to slip into a state of calm on a moments notice.
I’ve been practicing this since 2007 so it’s pretty well a ‘part of me’ (internalized).
Please comment, if you have stories to tell or insights to share on this topic. (Example insight: breathing in through the nose and out through the mouth can enhance…)
“Freedom of Speech is a Privilege Intended for Educated Professionals”
“Freedom of Speech is a Privilege Intended for Educated Professionals”
“It should be illegal… if he cannot verify his statements…”
This is what happens when ‘Authority’ has been perverted to cancel an inherent right of humanity!
Are these ramifications being considered in Google Search?
Google is making what I feel are really big mistakes right now basing its technology upon the work of people who promulgate fear-control based paradigms and archetypes. Google is creating a beast that will devour even itself! See this, for an example: https://plus.google.com/104704674433954659866/posts/Mw9BR6WZNSQ
Behind the desire to stop gaming of Search from the outside, they do not provide us with a guarantee that Search will not be gamed from the inside!
What if you are deemed unpopular or dangerous to the ruling power monopoly?
Will they still let you have a voice or will they call you ‘non-authoritive’ or claim you’re not part of the search results because of a programming error!
It’s also about trust:
I’ve programmed SaaS applications (basically, cloud applications) and learned the basics of that technology from a well-known university which I won’t name here.
I was often in dispute with the professor and his proverbial ‘disciples’ (until they began to ignore me 😉 ) about the failing code of ethics and guarantee of privacy in the SaaS paradigm. Now, more than a year later, they ‘magically’ have made small progress in that vein.
I still wouldn’t trust them with my data and you shouldn’t either!
The terms and framing they have chosen will not save them from the coming ‘disruptive’ (using their term – I would use the term ‘reharmonizing’ instead) technologies that are coming down the pike which are going to change things drastically for everyone in a constructive(!) way! Google’s framing now, in comparison with these technologies as they arrive, will become a ‘straightjacket’ for itself.
There are those who are aware of this coming time (it’s all approaching a critical threshold very soon) and are preparing for it now, by creating free and open source technology with regard to Search and based upon a completely different paradigm of trust, openness and distributed control by putting that control in the hands of the user themselves.
http://mathesis-universalis.com
http://yacy.net/en/
(for just two of them)
This technology will be coming of age in the next 2 years – provided our controllers don’t take what’s left of the playing field away – which they have done before.
“Everything Is Miscellaneous” – David Weinberger
(click picture to show the Video)
Is that statement true? How does it sound to you?
Below is about how it sounds to me.
I can’t help but notice how most of the terminology (authority, sematic web, …) and thinking (ontologically based) seems to have been incorporated into Google Search!
I wrote this review 8 months ago as of this date.
I’m including it here again so that it appears on my time line correctly.
For those who have read my review before, please scan this one for possible changes or enhancements, because I will also be writing a review of David’s book in the near future.
This video confuses knowledge with information (among many other problems). I was as brief as I could be. Congrats to those who take the time to read this.
@01:35– 10,000 years? Hmmm… hasn’t mankind been at organizing physical objects, ideas and knowledge longer than that?
@04:10– We can have more than one field in one spot at the same time. We can also superimpose objects, ideas and knowledge…
@04:35– Some things must NOT go someplace physically although they are physical: hunger, thirst, …
@13:13– Slicing among attributes is not useful unless an underlying context associates them. That is one of the reasons why you see miscellany.
@13:39-“Every attribute is a joint…”: only if you cannot associate these attributes with a surrounding context to place them in. Otherwise we have only data… miscellany.
@25:39-“There is no single way of organizing the world”: yet the ‘world’ does it quite nicely. We only run into trouble when we cannot or will not see the underlying structure in the organization. This structure cannot be separated from its form and function and still make sense.
@34:47– Post-modernism has been very successful in the deconstruction of the accumulated wisdom and culture of our ancestors. It replaces that wisdom with an artificial and contingent [one] which finally leads to nihilism. Our society is learning, fortunately, to grow beyond this movement and the hidden dangers it presents to our freedom, liberty, and sovereignty (personal and as a group) that we see eroding around us.
@34:59– You say post-modernists are correct in saying that the intent of an author isn’t as important as the reader’s decision about what their work is about! If we take this view seriously, then we subordinate the judgment of the creator of the work to that of a particular readership which, in effect, turns the whole relationship between them on its head! The readership can ‘measure’ the work according to any criterion it chooses, but the intention of the author is decisive for true meaning.
@35:17– You question the validity of believing the world is organized in one way. The general view is, however, that the world is organized according to its relationships to other parts of itself – whether recognizable to the observer or not. The choice of how that organization is interpreted depends entirely upon the one doing the observation. Nevertheless the inherent relationships do exist and are viable regardless of how we choose to look at them.
@43:55– You say the “world’s greatest expert” has become irrelevant. You pay tribute to the fact that [correct] knowledge is arrived at through refinement processes. The creator of an idea is never irrelevant; not even functionally! No matter how that idea is refined, the progenitor of the idea is just as important as any other ‘participant’ in that refinement process!
@44:11-“bugs get driven out of ideas through discussion…
@44:13-“through the public negotiation of conversation… That’s where knowledge is.” Knowledge however does not confine itself to being negotiated or even being correct and/or useful! Knowledge also encompasses much more than validity claims can confine. It is necessary to remember that knowledge and meaning are partners in the relationship they have with each other which may or may not involve truth value.
@44:23– A mailing list is used as a form of knowledge
@44:31-“I find out what the news is…” (information)
@44:33-“I see people who know way more than I do…” (authority)
@44:37-“…arguing amongst themselves…” (negotiation)(?)
@44:39-“…These are experts in conversation…” (authority)
@44:43-“…It’s very clear that the mailing list knows more than any of the experts on it do…” (non sequitur)
@44:45-“…and this is a really, really good thing…” (judgment)
@44:47-“…really good thing – this public negotiation of knowledge through conversation…” (judgment)
The elements in your talk at this point seem to indicate that knowledge depends upon authority, judgment, negotiation and ‘group-think’. Is knowledge not more than these perspectives and interpretations? The use of language “the mailing list knows more…” suffers greatly. It is clear that you mean the members of the group know more as a whole than any single member (which is a truism).
The idea that knowledge is negotiable disturbs me. Do you not mean that the meaning of knowledge is negotiable? Your talk seems more to be describing information than it describes knowledge.
@44:51– The John F. Kennedy assassination page of Wikipedia is offered as a specimen of knowledge and is used a precursor to what you @44:53 claim is a missing element of knowledge: Infallibility! This is an attempt to redefine knowledge, yet knowledge cannot be thusly defined as it can contain error too!
@44:33-“We know that Wikipedia is on our side.” Informed researchers are aware that Wikipedia contains, among its many strengths, many deficits. Not the least of those deficits is the bias found in much of its biographical information.
@45:41– The relationship of credibility to authority is also confusing. There are many cases where authority is wrong and incredible. Why do you not allow ALL knowledge to be ‘saved/captured’ as you allow with information? Should we not treat both equally?
@49:47-“Oh God! I hate myself.” That utterance, while most certainly meant as humor on your part, is inappropriate for anyone to say – even in jest. I thought you should know.
·
Does a Nobel Prize Automatically Make You Correct?
My attention has been recently brought again to the book: Thinking, Fast and Slow.
There is so much ‘work’ out there to comment on that it would take many lifetimes to cover it all, but this one hits me right in the gut: it’s about heuristics.
Of course there are many insightful aspects to the book and I hope this post induces people to buy and read the book! It is definitely worth that effort!
There is much truth in the book and useful considerations regarding the psychology of thought (at least for me).
There is a universal constant in our universe that I call the ‘Near and Far Contraposition’. This constant is responsible for the effect we experience when we look at things close up verses far away.
It ‘makes it’s appearance’ when we say things like; “He can’t see the forest for the trees.”
I will describe this constant more below as time permits me to do so.
This post will delve into the misconceptions in the book regarding a heuristic and heuristics in general with respect to mind, thought and, most importantly, knowledge and its representation.
Your thoughts are welcome too, but allow me to do this piecemeal. We all are impacted by this artificial environment created for us that causes stress and economy in our lives. It is possible to an extent to ‘divorce’ ourselves from these frenetic states, but when our customers do not ‘cooperate’ (due to different priorities, perspectives and needs) with our efforts, then it does present challenges for us.
When Does The ‘Coming Out’ Of Destruction Want To Seem To Be Normal?
The source article is a deception (Source: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists)
The globalist parasites that feed on us and have built this culture/environment we are ‘living’ in want us to believe the destruction they are bringing down upon humanity is a normal cycle.
If we believe them, then we deserve our fate!
Yet a natural process is taking place!
Outliers who occupy an upper ‘elite’ section of a distribution have always led the rest of the population it belongs to. What is decisively important is what attributes that small group shares and projects onto the rest.
This natural process can act as a sort of illness/enslavement or a healing/empowerment upon the rest of the population. This ‘constant form’ finds expression in practically every living system and upon multiple levels.
The need for illness and enslavement of the remaining population is a sign where this ‘elite class’ is based upon fear and control which is malevolent in nature. This leads to a severance of membership to the rest of the population and its own destruction and, quite possibly, the remaining population.
The need for healing and empowerment of the remaining population is a sign where this ‘elite class’ is based upon love and trust which is benevolent in nature. This leads to a binding of membership to the rest of the population and its own survival and, quite possibly, the remaining population.
We are being ruled by a malevolent elite class which has gone rogue and, like a cancer, wrapped its metastases in, through and around the rest of us. They do this by eliciting the aid of those who are asleep or unaware among us or by those who are awake/aware, but are unwilling or unable to resist them.
The ‘natural’ cycles mentioned in the article need not be! It is up to us to decide here and now what side of history we want to be on.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is quoted to have said: “We are not human beings having a spiritual experience, we are spiritual beings having a human experience.”
If that statement is true, then we are here for many reasons:
To discover who we are.
To create who we are.
To decide who we are.
To witness others.
…
To be of aid or be of service to others.
Who will you be, witness,… serve?
The Myth of Paving the Way for New By Means of Destruction
The Prometheus fans (both the Movie and the Myth) have bought into the falsehood that “in order to create we sometimes must destroy” meme. (This meme makes its appearance in the new Avengers film!)
This false-paradigm was created by people who will profit from it most – those who want or need the destruction of personal and collective sovereignty, because it stands in their way.
We must learn to recognize their ‘handywork’. Behind that meme lurks an even more malevolent lie: The Ends Justify Their Means.
The ends DO NOT justify their means, rather the ends are defined by their means!
Modernism and Post-Modernism have been busily redefining all ‘organic’ ideas into artificial replacements. John Dewey was particularly active in this regard, but the ‘tradition’ was carried on after him to the present by the neo-liberals and progressives.
http://voices.yahoo.com/how-john-dewey-progressives-redefined-the-356855.html?cat=37
