Monthly Archives: October 2016

“TO BE” or “NOT TO BE” – “TO NEGATE”, or “NOT TO NEGATE” – “TO CHOOSE GOODNESS” or “TO NOT CHOOSE GOODNESS” ~ That is the REAL Question with a very real ANSWER

“TO BE” is the leading, most prominent verb in any and every language – and verbs are the most leading and important part of speech in a sentence in any language, and as such, there are “no” substitutes for a verb (whereas there are substitutes for nouns, adjectives and adverbs).
“To be” also reflects the most important and most fundamental question in life – – translated in Shakespearean terms as “to be or not to be”, or in plain laymen’s terms as “what is the meaning of our existence / what is the purpose of life” ???
Normally I write entirely without the negations “no, not, don’t, can’t and shouldn’t”. Today for this specific blog I have chosen to make an exception. WHY? Partly to highlight the the human brain, especially very young brains do “not” process negations (and since I write about young human brain development it would “be” most hypocritical to write with negations while emphatically describing how and why parents and teachers must use non-negated verbs when guiding and teaching young children).
On the other end of the spectrum, very old brains have already been over-processed and over-programmed by negations, subjecting the elderly to ever more confusion (and revealing the core element of cognitive degeneration, which Neuroscientists are all too comfortably happy to ignore).
The in-between stages of our cognitive life, that is the stages in between “being” very young and then very old, we spend every day commonly processing negations. It is so common and familiar to us, we just “don’t” give it any thought, we do “not” question it or believe that it has anything at all to do with the real raw full potential of the human brain. We handle negated verb processes on a daily basis and we have to use our brains for EVERYTHING we do, so it seems a perfect defense to assume that our brains do indeed process negations. Again, the brain is “not” designed to process negations, it is designed to process the raw verbal syntax of a verb that contains the most information in any given sentence, in any given language. So how are we managing this negated-verb process.
What we are really doing, that is, what our brains are helping us to do is perform the fundamentals of cognition or the fundamental mathematical principles of an equation. In order to process a negated verb, we hypothesize the inverted meaning of a negated verb, so “not to be” becomes “to be”.
Today’s exception to use negations is to highlight a couple of specific points with the hope of pointing out the fundamentals of real human brain development and how real human brain potential is generated and programmed. Computers are given the right and respect to be programmed without negations, but when it comes to properly programming young brains, we completely neglect this same principle, resulting in a downgraded version of our brains’ true potential and leaving us languishing in the perpetually purposeless question of “what is our purpose in life”. The first answer to that question is – the first purpose in our lives is to fully develop the full potential of our human brains — so that we may eventually understand the purpose of our lives in this universe when it finally slaps us upside the head with its full force of knowledge, lol.
When we are trying our best “to be” wise and philosophical and intelligent, the proposition that is most applied is the imposition that we must “make choices” in life, and the dominant theme behind “making choices” is choosing between good decisions and bad decisions, or plainly just choosing between “good” and “evil”. This is human history’s leading narrative defining the majority of philosophies and belief systems. If choosing between “good” and “evil” really defined the purpose of our existence, then there would be “no” reason to continue proposing the question of “what is the meaning of life”, or “what is the purpose of my existence”. If choosing between “good” and “evil” was the answer, then we’d have nailed it – question answered. So why are we still perpetually possessed with answering this elusive question?
The answer is unfortunately, or fortunately too simple! Either choosing between “good” and “evil” is “not” the right question, or we are “not” using our brains, which we need to do everything, in order to answer this question, or find out what the real question is.
So the final question is “TO ASK” or “TO NOT ASK” the right question, AND THEN GET THE RIGHT ANSWER. To “not” ask is to never get an answer, so we need to ask the question as to whether choosing between good and evil defines the meaning and purpose of life — and of course, we need to use our brains to ask and answer the question, which means we need to know how the brain really works.
If our first purpose in life is to fulfill the full potential use of our brains, then we need to ask if the human brain is designed to equally process good and evil – making us therefore fulfilled in exercising our purpose to choose between good and evil, or good decisions and bad decisions.
The simple rudimentary TRUTH is that our human brains are “NOT” equally hard-wired for GOOD and/or EVIL, but it is the prevailing school of thought that we make choices everyday to choose between good and bad, right and wrong, goodness and evilness. The human brain is “NOT”, I repeat “NOT” equally hard-wired for good and evil, so the good-evil choice philosophy is completely false and yet it is still driving the everyday belief systems of people everywhere in virtually everything they do.
The human brain is FULLY, and ONLY FULLY hard-wired for COMPASSION and OPTIMISM — Essentially meaning that if we continue to believe that the brain is partitioned to choose between good and evil, we can hardly expect to ever fully use our brains. In order for us to fully use our brains, we have to intentionally CHOOSE TO DELETE AND MAKE OBSOLETE the idea that human life’s grandest purpose rests on the idea of “choosing between good and evil”. To choose between good and evil is to choose the downgraded version of life and our truly authentic potential.
So what is the real answer, what is the real purpose and meaning behind MAKING CHOICES — because “making choices” is something we can never make obsolete.
The choice in life is CHOOSING between the knowledge we already have and sticking to it without question or reservation – – – OR – – – CHOOSING the option of inquiring, accessing, obtaining, exploring and acquiring new knowledge and information that makes our decisions more informative and intelligent, in other words, putting to use the full potential of our brains, which is to always seek new knowledge, to practice unlimited knowledge potential, thereby exercising the greater, grander and fuller potential of our brains, and finally moving toward understanding the purpose and meaning of our lives.
Remember – or “don’t” forget – the foremost purpose and potential of our human brains is the ability to make choices and decisions, and the real choice, consistent with the mechanics of our human brain “isn’t” to choose between good and evil, because our brains are only hard-wired for goodness. The CHOICE in life is to choose between sticking with what we already know or choosing to know more than what we already know. THAT IS THE ANSWER TO THE GRANDEST OF ALL QUESTIONS – “TO BE” or “NOT TO BE”.

What Is The Definition of a Definition?

The definition of a definition can be most easily described as (1) the origin and meaning of a word, and (2) an unwritten or written agreement about the various meanings and applications of a word, including the changes that a word or definition may incur, as well as other cultural influences that transform meanings, words and definitions between one era and/or culture and another.
Words can be flexible, and they should be. However, whenever we create the definitions of a word, the question is, are we using the same criteria for creating a definition? This may seem like an imposition on the creative aspect of constructing words, but the definition for definitions ought to be tethered in the definitive properties of the roots of knowledge and information. Why should this detail be significant? Do we really need to create another forum, or add another ridiculous category to the world of philosophical debates in which some minute detail is just endlessly discussed ad nauseam and ad infinitum? Does it change anything, or add any constructive rhetoric to the core issues of humanity?
The answer is that every issue adds constructive rhetoric to the core issues of humanity if it’s constructed in accordance with real brain potential. So how does the definition of a definition affect us?
We use words to construct sentences representing the languages we speak. We use language to develop relationships and share knowledge. Like language and culture that are interchangeable, relationships and sharing knowledge are also interchangeable – which is why we bond best and most with others who share our own ideas and feelings. Nevertheless, we must consider that all knowledge and information has an origin. Everything whether artificial or natural, visible or invisible, microscopically tiny or grandly gigantic, are all forms of knowledge and information that originate from the energy, matter and properties of the universe. The human brain itself is a concentrated microcosmic rendition of the universe, and therefore, since our brain relies on language for its cognitive and intuitive development – – particularly because we learn language intuitively and language is necessary for cognitive development, meaning that “cognition” and “intuition” are also interchangeable) – – then it is important to consider that the origin for definitions of words, which in turn formulate language properties, must also be in alignment with the fundamental properties and definitions of knowledge-information-energy-matter. These properties should then be consistent with the constructive properties of how we use language to formulate the full intuitive-cognitive development of our brains.
Let’s apply an actual example to this seemingly insignificant detail. “Consciousness” is a widely discussed topic. It crosses cultural boundaries and spans centuries of human progress and development. In more modern times, such as the one we are now living in, the idea of “consciousness” has also been adopted by various fields of Science, and yet even within the scientific community, there is little agreement on an actual definition for consciousness, and it is rarely, if ever, discussed in the same conversation as “intuition”. What’s even weirder is that “consciousness” is added to so many discussions, issues and topics of human endeavor, even while Scientists themselves understand that intuition is superior to consciousness. Einstein himself after all has stated on several occasions that “intuition is everything”. He never said ‘consciousness is everything’. What’s weirder and more curious is that Scientists rarely speak of ‘consciousness’ and ‘intuition’ under the same heading or category, nor do the two words seem to arise in the same discussion.
The point is that Scientist who understand that the universe is interconnected, and that everything is a form of knowledge and information down to the smallest particle of energy and matter, the question is, where is the connecting fundamental property between the “definitions” of ‘consciousness’ and ‘intuition’. If fundamental universal knowledge is the criteria for creating sincerely authentic definitions for words and meanings, then what is the problem with scientists coming up with a properly definitive definition for consciousness?
By the same rhetoric that consciousness is undefinable even by scientific standards, it is often connected to the emerging scientific narrative of parallel universes. They go together because they are equally vague — and inconsistent with the properties of universal knowledge that are openly accessible to anyone who wants to access it all. Keep in mind that Intuition is the Universe’s Naturally free Internet Service and we all ought to be connected to it so that we can access universal knowledge. While Science and Philosophy propose – at least the minimum property of consciousness as a feature of awareness, and preferably, ethical conscientious awareness – then why is there supposed to be a barrier between becoming aware but being barred from any conscious knowledge of parallel universe’s, in which there are other versions of you and me ???
Obviously, consciousness has its limits, but the universe is filled with unlimited knowledge, and the brain is naturally designed for unlimited knowledge processing — so it makes sense that rhetoric and conventional definition for ‘consciousness’ remains undefinable, because it is so out of sync with the definitive properties of universal knowledge.
If there are other parallel universes, and if we are supposed to become more intelligent by becoming more consciously aware and/or conscientious, then information and knowledge about the other versions of you and me should be accessible. Either we need to become more intuitive to have access to these parallel selves in parallel universes, or we have reached the limits of consciousness, which is clearly limited. Intuition would at least allow us to access these other parallel and differing versions of ourselves and our particular world – or we’d find that multiple dimensions of our selves are reflections of multi-dimensional information that can be exchanged between our parallel selves, so as to improve our lives, or be more connected to the multiple interconnected dimensions of the universe that we should be connected to. Consciousness is a closed system of information – that’s why it is undefinable. It’s best definition is that it is a temporary and auxiliary holding system substituting our eventual emergence into a full spectrum of intuitive intelligence capabilities. As Einstein said, “intuition is everything” and yet we should intuitively realize that everything is interconnected, especially since “intuition” is fundamentally the connection between all forms of knowledge and information. “Consciousness” has never offered that feature to us – and to our brains that require unlimited, open-ended information processing. Yes, the definition of a definition must be consistent with the fundamental properties and mechanics of intuition – the connecting feature of all knowledge and information – – and when a definition is inconsistent with the brain’s full rendition of intelligence potential, i.e., “intuition”, then it ought to be changed to suit the full development of the brain, which is a mini-microcosm of the universe, meaning that we ought to have full access to the universe’s knowledge rather than being limited or otherwise, redefining our human brains as the antithesis of a mini-microcosmic instrument capable of processing unlimited knowledge and information.