Solid State up to Bat

1) Big Bang theory assumes some point in the past there was no time.

2) Using Existential Graphs we can reason about #1: by postulating 1) that the Sheet of Assertion represents space, and 2) that the Line of Identity represents time.

3) To interpret #1 and make it clear refer to the geometric theorem of the Pythagorean theorem that the smallest distance between two points is a straight line.

4) If there were no time a point would not become a line, assuming that a point is an abstract representation of a spatial location without size.

5) This is analogous to Big Bang theory, however the problem is not the physical science, but the formal science.

6) If time were not necessary, the second axiom of Existential Graphs would not be necessary. So, the second axiom is necessary to express some fact about the first axiom.

7) Therefore, Big Bang theory has an inconsistency, but not in physical theory, rather in formal theory.

2 Axioms

A1- D.O. - F(s): Space: Sheet of Assertion

A2 - I.O. - F(t): Time: Line of Identity

Grued

 I can take the semantic content of July16, 2024:

“Hegel is the sine qua non of relevant history to our problem. To interpret the most difficult to the easiest semantics would take you through Godel’s theorems. However this is not our subject. The proper object to be observed is (I.O.)“its familiar determinations.”

and change the (I.O.) to (D.O.) and still derive the same conclusion.

I see Kant’s use of Dasein as existence, which has a Spatial quality to it. But exist is not a real predicate for him, foreshadowing the failure of the transcendental deduction. Hegel’s Dasein as the indefinite immediate is likewise problematic in applying an index to it due to the former spatial constraint and now a temporal one. My former signification of it as a I.O. was a hurried attempt to express it, and is meritoriously criticized.  However, the debate over Subject and Object in grammar is mediated by Peirce’s development of the D.O. and I.O., respectively. In fact, he has transitional rules for translating the I.O. to an D.O., and vice versa, which to my knowledge has not been published yet.

To the point: “The hard-ness of a diamond carries its semantics into future instantiations that are met with in experience” does not entail confusing Dasein, or the sign in this case, as an existent. Mediums with less physically verifiable semantics are just as path-worthy when wearing the boots of dynamic object. The sign is still determined by its object, and thereby determines an interpretant, which is why Peirce proclaimed that a Diamond never met with in experience is just as hard as one that is, because this is what we mean when we use language consistently, minus the Grue and fancy poetry.

This last point is what is entailed in placing the three branches of government into an Existential Graph. This is what the language of the law would mean when used consistently.

N.B.: we should not think of human being in terms of a sign. Rather Peirce was fond of saying Man is a Symbol. Perhaps future man will be a symbol minus particular psychologistic notions as time goes on.

Note on the Plan

 Guénon, René, and Marco Pallis. Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines. Luzac & Co., London, 1945, p.81.

“This very brief survey will make it plain why in the East there cannot exist anything comparable with the Western nations; the reason is that the appearance of nations within a civilization is undoubtedly the sign of a partial dissolution due to the loss of the element which constitutes its basic unity.”

Interpretation:

Hindu religion is not a top down structure like nationalism. It is a lived experience shared by individuals who are able to reflect the essence of their experience in their lives. If I were to interpret anything into Leo Strauss’ last publication, Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, it would be this dichotomy between philosophy and religion, on the one hand, and politics and morality, on the other, interpreted Semeiotically.

Solution to Movement in Virtual Reality Environments

This is a mere essay toward the development of a useful, and fun technology. The solution is robotics. I can’t say how many types of robotic configurations I have seen, however it became apparent when I witnessed a room of small dog like rovers “exercising” all in sequence: push-ups, arm and leg extensions, down, up, backward forward … 

I thought, what if you turned that think over and put a foot hold on one of their limbs? That’s it. Problem, or at least conception, solved. To keep you from breaking your legs, some sort of sensor or guard could be implemented. And, perhaps a harness, suspended from above, to keep you from falling over.

Some may decry combinatorics. Indeed, there is a way.

Objectivity?

There is no subject in the economic rationality of Marxism; there is in Marxist revolution, but the ‘founding fathers’ have left us no thoughts about it while the academic Marxologists of today can hardly wait to get rid both of meaning and of the subject in the name of some ‘objective’ process …

Julia Kristeva, The System and the Speaking Subject

Baubo speaks: Olive Juice I.O.

Revised Interpretive Frame for O.L.M.

 

Revised Theory of Proposition

 

Antahkarana: Nietzsche's Eternal Return

While working out details of Kashmir Shaivism, generally into a Peircian Type/Token form, the representation of a wheel, or circular process, where the elements chita, ahamkara, manas, and buddhi, respectively, which work to function as an apperception or transcendental function, became problematic. Firstly due to the hyperlink of ‘manas’ to a western notion that takes it out of a native context and into western notions ramped with psychologistic mechanisms, such as the Turing Test. Secondly is the suspect notion of a peculiar interpretation of Eternal Return as this wheel like function (Google antahkarana for iconic material). Thirdly, the related idea of Indra and the competitive history between Zarathustrian and Hindi traditions, which evidently became hostile to each other.

What is at stake here is the Peircian notion of (biological) instinct, or more formally “… it must have a second triadic relation in which the Representamen, or rather the relation thereof to its Object, shall be its own (the Third’s) Object, and must be capable of determining a Third to this relation. EP2: 273.

Generally speaking there is a Peircean outline to these elements.

Theory of the Order of the Soul

Justice, as theory of the order of the soul, has two choices: A) the self is symbolic (genuine triadic relation), or B) the self is nihilistic. It appears a choice is forced. There is precedent for the view that justice is an order of the soul.

Non-Dualism

 

Evolution

Tantric in Buddhism and Hindi systems are not the same. Ask yourself why there are untouchables. This is not an economic argument, but one of preference.

Genuine Triadic Relation

  “The Third must, indeed, stand in such a relation, and thus must be capable of determining a Third of its own; but besides that, it must have a second triadic relation in which the Representamen, or rather the relation thereof to its Object, shall be its own (the Third’s) Object, and must be capable of determining a Third to this relation.” EP2: 273.

In short, the third of an inference must be able to produce a symbol, and not a mere symbol, but one that is constrained to some final interpretant that would be decidedly answered or produce another third.

In lou of this, I can put my mind at rest about Nietzsche and the Jungian critique that his psychosis was related to his inability to produce a symbol. I’m leaning toward the Puer theory, and Jung’s critique of homosexual behavior as that of a child who refuses to grow up. It appears, to me at least, that Nietzsche’s molestation is something that in the end his resentment was too great and either constrained the new symbol intentionally as an act of revenge, or because his molestation was truly not in accord with his deepest desires and his unconscious resentment constrained the development of the third. (i.e. he didn't have the willpower to overcome it.) Hence, the revaluation of all values directed against Plato.

Nietzsche's body had responded to the gratification that had been induced (rape by the pederast Ernst Ortlepp) and could not accord it to his true self.

Abhinavagupta explains in his commentary that he undertook this work because he felt that his predecessors when commenting on the Bahagavad Gita had not understood its secret or esoteric meanings. With the main purpose to explain these esoteric meanings, Abhinavagupta elaborates the secret doctrine of the purification of the sense organs through the alternation of enjoyment of worldly objects and deep meditation. He claims that the continuous exchange of two contradictory experiences, i.e. gratification of the senses which brings satisfaction and samadhi in which sense organs are reduced to one’s own atman, quickly brings the highest good.

Abhinavagupta’s Commentary on the Bhagavad Gita : Gītārtha-Saṃgraha : Translated from Sanskrit with Introduction and Notes. 2nd ed., Indica Books, 2004.

I received the 3rd. ed., which does not seem to be in WorldCat.

Utpaladeva

The essential nature of light is reflective awareness; otherwise light, though ‘colored’ by objects, would be similar to an insentient reality, such as the crystal and so on. - I.V.11 Wiki

The context of this PPN is that the D.O. is language and the genuine triadic structure (AgBC/weathervane) is the crystal.

Cupid and Psyche at the fountain of eternal youth

Frank O. Salisbury. (British, 1874-1962)

How can that which is not blue by nature be made blue?

 Abhinavagupta, Abhinavagupta, and Boris Marjanovic. Abhinavagupta’s Commentary on the Bhagavad Gītā : Gītārtha-Saṁgraha. Rudra Press, 2004, p. 50.

Shiva linga

 I hate to do this, but just in case I can’t finish working this out.

Philo’s angel of the Lord?

Pathmark Abducted

“Thereupon I thought it high time to give my method a less distinguished designation; and I rechristened it pragmaticism.” C.S. Peirce

This essay’s intent is to distinguish the issue of psychologism from Pragmaticism by contrasting it with two other modes of reasoning; deduction and induction.

Logic is the most difficult science in that it has to do not with intuitions - and not even with abstract sensory representations as in geometry - but with pure abstractions. It requires a certain strength and versatility to retreat into pure thought, to hold on to it steadfastly and to move about in it. On the other hand, logic could be considered the easiest science, because its content is nothing but one’s own thinking and its familiar determinations, and these are at once the simplest and the elementary sort of determinations. (1)

Hegel is the sine qua non of relevant history to our problem. To interpret the most difficult to the easiest semantics would take you through Godel’s theorems. However this is not our subject. The proper object to be observed is (I.O.)“its familiar determinations.”

Nietzsche no doubt saw past the limits of deductive reasoning, with the help of Schopenhauer, and was inspired to go beyond it to create, intentionally or not, psychologistic thought. He understood the resentment built up in formal reasoning and how it defeated its author, and thought how this could be used to turn against those without the will to “steadfastly” (past) and resolutely (future) “move about in it.”

Heidegger took a step further into the body politic with Dasein. By this time inductive methods were distinguishing their-self from the Tick-Tock of Hegelianism. Now the “familiar determinations” could be directed toward resolute and “authentic” conditioning (induction) with Care.

Which brings us to our problem. To reiterate Peirce’s quote about distinguishing the less-ness of Pragmaticism requires us to understand the Would-be interpretant. The hard-ness of a diamond carries its semantics into future instantiations that are met with in experience. This type of semantic content is future oriented and has no Grue about it. It is abductive and distinguishes itself from the psychologistic forms of thought Peirce was reacting to when he formulated a term that would-be safe from kidnappers.

Peirce’s abduction takes us deeper into the ontological priority of being. Heidegger may have pointed out a way, but surly got lost in fashionable “poetic” forms of thought that could be directed with Nietzschean intent to zap insects: deconstruction as a form of self undoing. No singular value to hold onto as you sail the abyss of Advaita? Good luck swimming: Nietzsche and Heidegger will throw you a life preserver. Oh the perverse irony! Or, at least a peculiar interpretation of them.

Abduction is the path to Antahkarana, the affinity of phenomena: fundamental ontology that shedd’s psychologism.

Perhaps a neologism is needed “shedd” =df. future abducted semantic content.

Pragmaticism, then, is a theory of logical analysis, or true definition; and its merits are greatest in its application to the highest metaphysical conceptions. At the same time, these merits can only be appreciated as the result of long training. C.S.P.

N.B. High and Low, less and more are not intended to spin this essay. It is still to be worked out in a more apt theory.

1) Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, et al. Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Basic Outline. Part 1, Science of Logic. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Preliminary Interpretation of Kashmir Shaivism (sexy formalism)

 

Fork Tongue

In the Philosophy of Mathematics there is a foundation problem roughly described as a choice between: Formalism (psychologism/illusion) and Intuitionism (sign/non-dualism). However, to make it clear what we are up against Leo Strauss should be brought to memory, in that he suggested that a value is to be held to in the choices we make, and when we don’t make a choice, there are consequences.

Intuitionism:

“… is an approach where mathematics is considered to be purely the result of the constructive mental activity of humans rather than the discovery of fundamental principles claimed to exist in an objective reality.” Wiki

C.S. Peirce suggested that Mathematical notions evolved under the constraint of evolution on the mind. Given that he wrote “Most of us are in the habit of thinking that consciousness and psychic life are the same thing and otherwise greatly to overrate the functions of consciousness" what does he mean by “psychic life”? One could say that this was his insight in developing semiotics and the definition of sign, and a case for an interpretation of this is in The One Law of Mind.

However I can’t help but think that the lack of choice in this area contributes more than a little on the development of opinions through the functions of consciousness. This would equate to psychologism. There is an alternative to psychologism and this has implications on human evolution which I can’t help but personally feel that are timely. If we are to live in a human world, then human choices are to be made. Perhaps we can leave psychologism, and return home.

CymaScope

I’m in the process of purchasing and using CymaScope. It is reputed to be able to acquire a DNA level ID of the voice. I’m purchasing it to hum, chant, sing and whatever else it will show me about my cognitive state. This note is a marker so If, and when, the pep's get it, hopefully this can mediate some of their BS.

Hypothesis

Hypothesis: that the writing styles of  Laurence Lampert and Costin Alamariu, only in Selective Breeding and the birth of Philosophy, are significantly similar if not the same. On June 13 I queried ChatGPT on this and it stated that it did not have access to the Alamariu text. The very next day “OpenAI has appointed Paul M. Nakasone, retired US Army general and former NSA head, to its board of directors.” I don’t know what to think, except the past is prologue.

N.B. I have had ChatGPT apologize for less than accurate Philosophical interpretations in the past and ceased to be interested in it as a viable source of analysis.

Odysseus’ Winnowing Rod: Amritabindu Upanishad

17 Knowledge is twofold, lower (Formalism: psychologism/illusion) and higher (Intuitionism: sign/chaitanya). 

        Realize the Self; for all else is lower. 

18 Realization is rice; all else is chafe.

Easwaran, Eknath, and Michael N. Nagler. 1996. The Upanishads. Petaluma, CA: Nilgiri Press.

Nietzsche in one aphorism

Kill your God:

kill your winnowing rod.

 

the Abyss

I pose no threat to the esoteric school of thought, due to the fact that I don’t care to apply my understanding to the subject. I have other thoughts I wish to pursue, though making my case was needed because people have drug me into the context, which is the intent of Hegelian “styled” politic.

But make no mistake, by the wisdom of the Gita, I will sing.

CNC (AgUM)

 

Syllogistic Interpretation

If Dasein is mere psychologism manipulated by induction then the question of a corrupt phenomenal experience is almost a given for political philosophers such as Laurence Lampert (pervert/queer). Virtue as a form of belief, and I use Alexander Bain’s notion of belief, can be cultivated. And, there is a need to cultivate them due to the fact that our habits become deluded by induction to an “authentic” form of care (dripping sarcasm). However it seems fairly clear, given the classic notion of “Good” as that which is for its own sake. This token good does not need to mean self-existent, but in the sense that a future instantiation of the experience of a diamond would be hard, virtuous of its own sake.

A non-psychologistic form of political constraint needs to be developed to bring the world into harmonic unity.

Syllogistic

 

LoI: purple

2: green

1: blue

3: yellow

A History of Indian Philosophy - 5 Volumes (Surendranath Dasgupta) 1922. No citations available in WorldCat.

Advaita Vedanta, the Shaking-spear: Taijasa (Syllogistic)

Major: “Alas, poor Formalism! I knew her, Intuitionist: a maiden of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: she hath borne me on her back infinite times; and now, how prajna in my imagination it is! my gorge rims at  it.” 

Minor: One is the constraint of being in time.

“The nondualism of Advaita Vedānta is often regarded as an idealist monism. According to King, Advaita Vedānta developed "to its ultimate extreme" the monistic ideas already present in the Upanishads. In contrast, states Milne, it is misleading to call Advaita Vedānta "monistic," since this confuses the "negation of difference"(Formalism) with "conflation into one"(Intuitionism). Advaita is a negative term (a-dvaita), states Milne, which denotes the "negation of a difference," between subject and object, or between perceiver and perceived.”

Wikipedia. I used to be concerned about Wiki, and still am, however it is a facilitating tool sometimes. I added the notes on Formalism and Intuitionism to bring it into a western paradigm. Ironically, this also suggests why Hegelian philosophy will never get there. I would choose the "conflation into one," and rework the system: abduction.

William James 

“Our only intelligible notion of an object in itself is that it should be an object for itself, and this lands us in panpsychism and a belief that our physical perceptions are effects on us of 'psychical' realities.” Wiki

Essay: the Vedas

Sign (abduction)

Da-sein (induction)

Indeterminate Immediate (deduction)

Provisional hypothesis that Heidegger’s philosophy is reducible to a form of psychologism

He states that the ecstases of time reduced to place is an inauthentic or vulgar understanding of time. However it is precisely the place of space that allows a sign to indicate temporal meaning. The meaning of  the “hardness” of a diamond is in its future would-be instantiation of hardness met with in experience. Heidegger’s Da-sein is Grue (new riddle of induction). Temporality and meaning are abductive, not inductive, thus Da-sein is psychologistic.

A clue to Laurence Lampert’s Esotericism

Thus Spoke Zarathustra: 

        “My left hand represents your anus, and my right hand represents …”

Why don't we always say "carrot" when someone asks us a question?

The received view of the "Carrot Test" is incorrect, I believe. The way to settle it would be: can you question/induce someone to say “carrot” without reference to number? If you cannot, then the question becomes why does a person say “carrot” after thinking about numbers? And the answer is not because it is the most obvious answer. Below is a link to a video discussing the problem. 

https://www.yourtango.com/self/psychological-game-reveals-how-your-brain-works

An answer to this question may be important to Democracy. After making a provisional Existential Graph and then following suit on the model of Declination it became apparent that mediation is a process that happens to the Line of Identity. The Line of Identity as declination is merely the constraint of the Sign to corporeal experience. Declination is obvious in relation to 1st-ness, Grid North. However, using the unity of analogy, is there a Type of relation of Grid North to True North, 3rd-ness? This may be the seat of a Peircian rendition of “Fundamental Ontology,” and perhaps a lens to look at Cartesian Dysphoria.

The Mandukya Upanishad (AgBC)

Easwaran, Eknath, and Michael N. Nagler. 1996. The Upanishads. Petaluma, CA: Nilgiri Press.

Da-sein declinated

 

Heidegger was focused on Psychologism in his dissertation. I cannot evaluate his commitment to anti-psychologism at this time, however I can say that Peirce was anti-psychologistic as well as anti-Cartesian and the perspective used here is from the One Law of Mind.

Disjunctive Heidegger: on the Necessity of the Question?

B^T 1 [2,1]: “ And when Hegel finally defines "being" as the "indeterminate immediate," and makes this definition the foundation of all the further categorial explications of his Logic, he remains within the perspective of ancient ontology-except that he gives up the problem, raised early on by Aristotle, of the unity of being in contrast to the manifold of "categories" with material content.”

Peirce had been dead for 13 years by the time Being and Time was published, however if you read “On a New List of Categories” the material is virtually identical, minus the Hegelian schism. Hegel disjuncts; Peirce conjuncts.

The disjunct is particularly apt to the problems of the subject at hand. The Cogito is open to outside influence, Leibniz’ criticism, in allowing unconscious perceptions into judgement. As noted by Jung, word associations disclose complexes and an unconscious complex can take over the persona. This is generally an outline for Jung’s description of Nietzsche’s mental breakdown.

A thought provoked by the Leo Strauss Foundation on X

Dasein is constrained to the corporality of its experience while looking out the door of ontology. Dasein cares, the Heideggerian Cogito, stretched out to the complexity of second order predication. The “thinking” subject, “I”, is to the self what a point is to geometric space. The “I” is like a shadow on the wall of its own corporeal experience: a particular point with spatial potential. The pragmatic question is how to mobilize the object of experience toward the potential of futurity.

Heidegger and Strauss

 Transcendent truth is not necessarily falsehood (bivalence), it is mere experience yet to be had, understood and determined true or false. But, this shows what Heidegger is getting at with the notion of Dasein, that its being is not the being of things at hand, but is the being of the indeterminate immediate, a notion with continuity of meaning between Hegel, Peirce and Heidegger. 

C. S. Peirce had an example in the form of the question “What is the color of paint at the point where two different colors of paint meet?” The answer is, both colors. The intent of the question is to keep the mode of inquiry open until the question can be suitably demonstrated. The being of Dasein, unlike some questions of pragmaticism, has no end to be suitably demonstrated, but nevertheless becomes constrained in time by death.

Since there is no such thing as a private language, then language is a public medium. The end of freedom of speech is in the saying, not the constraint of language to keep speech from being said. The fact that language is a medium is important for freedom of speech in at least two regards. 1) for the maintenance of freedom of speech. 

2) “For being that is mediated, we shall reserve the expression Existenz” Hegel, Philosophy of Spirit. Existenz is also referred to as Dasein, with the qualification that all Dasien is determinate being, but not all determinate being is Dasien (Hegel, Science of Logic, di Giovanni translation.) The issue here is mediation.

Language is mediated in the public sphere, hence it is a form of determinate being. Dasein is also determinate being and one mechanism seems evident, language. This much can be derived from Hegel and Heidegger. How the mechanism works is not clear in these philosophers, so C.S. Peirce’s notion of mediation from his Semeiotics will be adopted. The sign always mediates between the object and the interpretant.

To clarify: insofar as we move from object to interpretant, it is determinate being {Kant: understanding}; insofar as we move from interpretant to object, it is indeterminate {Kant: reason}. 

It was Descartes’ hypothesis that has brought us to a conundrum in need of clarification. Note that the sole criterion for the validity of a hypothesis is whether or not it posses a heuristic value, whether it has explanatory power or not. What is that hypothesis? The Cogito, which bases an infallible inference on doubt. The Cogito is based on Cartesian doubt, yet concludes with the infallibility of a clear idea, which Kant “dogmatically adopted”. 

“Such was the distinction of Descartes, and ones sees that it was precisely on the level of his philosophy. It was somewhat developed by Leibnitz*. This great and singular genius was as remarkable for what he failed to see as for what he saw. That a piece of mechanism could not do work perpetually without being fed power in some form, was a thing perfectly apparent to him; yet he did not understand that the machinery of the mind can only transform knowledge (ens increatum), but never originate it, unless it be fed with facts of observation (ens creatum). He thus missed the most essential point of the Cartesian philosophy, which is, that to accept propositions which seem perfectly evident to us is a thing which, whether it be logical or illogical, we cannot hep doing.” (EP1: 126.)

I added the parenthetical content to contrast that Heidegger understood this about Descartes, and set out to destructure ontology.

I will here conjecture that it is Heidegger’s ultimate contribution to political philosophy that he distinguishes 1st order ontic beings from 2nd order ontological being, with out the semeiotic foresight that both token and type are determinate and to different degrees. They are both subject to mediation as is demonstrated in The One Law of Mind. Heidegger’s latter notion of Dasein as historical attempts to look at time, but Peirce’s notion of Abduction proposes a clearer forward view (weathervane), perhaps one of the “boundaries” mentioned by Heidegger in section 6.

The notion of Heidegger’s Being and Time as political philosophy is taken from the cue in Strauss’ essay “What is Political Philosophy,” where he mentions that the proper form of Political Philosophy is presented as a treatise: “explicitly” the ontological priority in the business of philosophers. And it is my previsionary hypothesis that Strauss means treatise in a similar sense that Heidegger means historical. 

*Leibniz used the term ‘apperception’ to criticize Descartes’ Cogito for allowing unconscious perception into judgment; unconscious perception: Jung's complex.

Glass: Splitt

I was looking at ’16 Personalities’ and came upon a conundrum. The SJ category is described as “Sentinels,” however their ‘Judging’ type has suffixed itself as those whose function it is to keep watch. Anyone who understands the grand division in metaphysics, between prescriptive and descriptive, will have their cackle’s burst forth with absurd proclamation.  16 is woke, or whatever it is these parasites take form as.

The pendulum of the mind

“The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong.”

― Carl Gustav Jung 

Thanks to the new guide to the collected works of C.G. Jung, by Yeoman and Lu, this representation is closer to the spirit of Peirce’s Existential Graphs. In my mind what is consistent with E.G. is the thick black line of identity and the color blue. T:f(x) is Jung's Transcendent Function.

A and C retain their a priori function, expressed in Peirce’s notion of the function of a weathervane: i.e. space and time, respectively. This may be a clue to a proper interpretation of the problems Heidegger struggled with, or at least a clear indication of the problem minus the poetics of destructive metaphysics.

Parasitic Castration

 From Wikipedia:

“Critical Disability Theory is a comprehensive term that is used to observe, discuss and question how people marginalized due to a difference in their social context ... are treated in society.”

Let me ad a hidden perspective to this view: that heterosexuals growing up in a queer political order will be socially “disabled,” hence a version of Parasitic Castration. The hidden unconscious nature of this movement seems to have an analogous form in the political realm to that of Jung’s Complex, Shadow and Projection functions. N.B. that the Shadow is personal, but has an Archetypal function also. 

This comment has nothing to do with the naturally occurring demos, but is directed against the induced tyrants (10061941-20042024).

Big Picture

I’ve been outlining a potential Youtube series on explaining The One Law of Mind and came across this perspective. For some, this may contrast too much with former representations of E.G. However, what would-be the pursuit of life in a “religious” and formal sense?