STILL NEEDS A LOOOOOOOOOT CLEANING AND REWORK
CONSIDER "TAKEAWAY" segments at each step to publish before u fill in all the details
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT No. 1
In this thought experiment, the aim is to accurately define some concepts (ABSTRACT OBJECTS if you are reading this after completing the course on MODELING) using some familiar terminology often used associated with these concepts. If you are only just beginning your pilgrimage, then MODELING refers to the process and methodology of representing anything we can possibly conceive of. But this will also be the final step in your journey. Once you’ve gone through all the stages, you will end up back here to verify whether what we established in the start remains consistent with everything else established along the journey.
In addition to many other benefits, the main reason to adhere to the rules set forth by MODELING comes from the fact that I can prove that it is a viable path to ABSOLUTE TRUTH. MODELING can help us differentiate the relatively true as well as the false from the absolutely true. For the moment, you can think of MODELING as what we will be doing in this experiment which is using a geometric representation to define a new idea based on pre-established ideas and labeling them.
I will be omitting some crucial components of MODELING like construction of BACKGROUNDS and tracking the development of REACTION models. But even with the incomplete approach that we will follow here, I believe most of you will find the MODELS to be a fitting description (definitions) of the ideas. The most important thing to remember is that the TERMS we are defining, are only the WORDS (written/auditory vehicles for communication) I used to LABEL the MODELS behind each of them. So, that when you hear or read one of these terms, the MODEL is what you should be thinking of in your head.
I understand many may not be accustomed to this approach, but you will adapt to it quickly because it is far more natural/intuitive than the everyday approach of throwing words around very loosely never knowing if the intended meaning is being conveyed correctly. But if this starts to feel a bit overwhelming in its specificity, just remember that it will be all worth it at the end. And there will be a compilation of all the TERMS we defined in addition to a summary of the takeaway points at the end of the page that you can skip to and reference back to later if you need to. That means you don’t really need to remember the exact terms as you read through this, your job should be checking the consistency of what you are presented with. And by consistency, I mean the presence of no EXCEPTIONS to what is presented to be TRUE. Or a MODEL/OBJECT that doesn’t fit an ESTABLISHED MODEL when we know that it should.
DEFINITIONS IN RING FORM:
CONSISTENT: A required attribute for a MODEL in order to be CLASSIFIED as TRUE
TRUTH: Refers to any MODEL to which 0 EXCEPTIONS exist.
EXCEPTIONS: An OBJECT or MODEL that contradicts a PRESTABLISHED MODEL.
CLASSIFICATION: refers to the TRUE or FALSE designation of a MODEL
FALSE: A Model CLASSIFIED as not TRUE
Part 1: TIMELESSNESS
Imagine waking up tomorrow to a world devoid of the concept of time as you have come to know it. It may sound tricky at first, but picture yourself in a world where clocks and watches were nowhere near as pervasive as they are today. Afterall, we live in a world where TIME is being “communicated” to us from every direction. I sometimes play a game to see how long I can go without being forced or tricked into learning what the time was. I never last long. Even if I manage to avoid looking at my car’s dash and radio displays, and remember to turn off NPR and keep my phone facing down, something like the stove or microwave often gets me as soon as I get into the house. Even when I’m driving a long distance as I usually am when I decide to play the game, there are way too many plaza or gas station displays that are equipped to tell me the time. But time wasn’t always so near to omnipresence in its prevalence as it is now. But I’m not interested in a discussion of how the world would be different without time, I proposed the hypothetical timeless world of tomorrow to help us define alternative ways to described the “sensation” of being alive if the phrase “by sensing the passing of time” was rendered meaningless, as it would be to those living in that TIMELESS world who has never learned what time or even clocks are.
One way we can go about it is to say that being alive means being an observer of the ever-present change that we can perceive with our 5 senses.
You can argue that methods exist to subject a person to undergo a form of sensory depravation but that wouldn’t make them not feel alive. But these methods don’t actually prevent our sensory capabilities but rather deprive the person from what they would consider a stimuli. That is to say a dark room doesn’t take away our ability to see but it dulls our sense of vision by limiting or preventing any change in our environment.
So imagine being suspended in mid air in complete darkness and silence inside a zero gravity room. In such a scenario, there is no change in my surrounding environment to sense but you would still know you are alive for the simple fact that you would still be able to cause change and sense it thereafter. In other words, you can still act, as in performing an action, like moving your arms around or blinking. Therefore, the safer way the “experience of being alive” can be described is the experience of a person exercising their ability to create change rather than sense change.
Part 2: THE ACTIONLINE
One way we could sum up a person’s life today would be the sum of all the Seconds that he lived. I’m sure you are all acquainted with the idea of putting someone’s year of birth and year of their death on their tombstone. But for the purpose of our discussion, I would like us to stick to using “Seconds” rather than “years”. And we can define a person’s TIMELINE as the geometric representation of the sequence of Seconds that makes up their entire LIFETIME. Lifetime being the “time period” between a person’s time of death and their time of birth.
But in our experimental timeless world, our ability to create change was the essence in our definition of living. By defining ACTING (taking an action, not the profession!) as the most fundamental means by which a person creates change, then we can define ACTIONLINE as the geometric representation of a person’s actions that they performed during their LIFETIME. So we can think of every point on the ACTIONLINE as the act that was taking place during that point or second on the TIMELINE. Obviously, the ACTIONLINE model is a superior to the TIMELINE model as it contains valuable information about the person by accounting for all their actions. I’m hoping it’s apparent how little to no information is contained in the TIMELINE model about the person whose life it represents.
Part 3: The DECISIONLINE
The Actionline as we derived and defined above is a great model to represent someone’s life, but it remains incomplete. Because actions alone don’t paint the complete picture of what is going on in a person’s head. We need to find a model that accounts for the types of “actions” that are carried out in the person’s mind.
To help us stay organized, let’s introduce the MATERIAL REALM since it is the REALM (virtual space) where the ACTIONLINES of every human being who has ever and will ever live are placed. And the reason that ACTIONLINES are assigned to the Material Realm is because it is defined as the virtual space housing all the things that are SENSORY. SENSORY being the adjective describing anything that can be perceived by our 5 senses. Alternatively, the MENTAL REALM is the virtual space containing all the things that are EXTRASENSORY. As you may have guessed, EXTRASENSORY is the adjective for the things that we cannot perceive with our senses.
It's worth noting that the Material Realm has the things perceived by our brains while the Mental Realm are the things perceived through our minds. Our focus will be on working in the Mental Realm as we move forward since the Action Line is the only thing modeled in the Material Realm in this thought experiment.
This brings us to the next major definition, DECISIONS. Sticking with our linear geometric model, The DECISIONLINE should be thought of as the parallel reflection of the ACTIONLINE into the Mental Realm. The reason why the decision line was described as a parallel reflection to the action line was because there is no difference between your decision to do something and doing it, or attempting to do it, in accordance with our definition at least.
For example, someone diving in a pool of water is a point on the Actionline corresponding to the decision of jumping in a pool of water which is a point on the Decisionline. In other words, performing an action and deciding to take an action refer to the same “event” and occur simultaneously. It’s important that you understand that there is no “causal” relationship between deciding something and doing it as far as these definitions are concerned. So it isn’t that a decision to do something is made and then the person carries it out. My definition of decisions instead is another way of modeling the Actionline in a way that allows it to be represented in the MENTAL REALM. If it helps, think of Action points and Decision points as two sides of the same coin. Each side belonging or facing the REALM that fits with its definitions.
But when we began defining the Decisionline, we were seeking a model with the added advantage over the Actionline of incorporating “actions” that don’t have any material aspects to them. “Actions” such as:
Deciding to imagine things.
Deciding to contemplate or think about a topic or an idea.
Deciding to try and remember things.
Deciding to plot for or design a mental plan.
All these decisions are actions omitted from the Actionline on account that they fall beyond the purview of our sensory capabilities. Afterall, someone can be doing all the examples I listed while they are laying down with their eyes closed. So, as it stands, my definition of the Decisionline doesn’t provide any added information regarding the extrasensory Actions like the examples. Given that my definition asserts that decision points and action points are practically different forms describing the same act.
I want to introduce another term to better distinguish the two different types of “actions” we’ve been talking about. I will continue to use “actions” to describe the sensory things taking place in the Material Realm (the points on the Actionline) but to prevent confusion, I will start using “THOUGHTS” to refer to actions exclusive to the Mental Realm. This makes the THOUGHTLINE a geometric representation of the extrasensory Actions (that I will be calling THOUGHTS now) that take place in tandem with each point on the Actionline.
With that in mind, pun intended, the complete definition of the DECISIONLINE becomes the sequence of points reflecting the points of a person’s Actionline in addition to the points from the Thoughtline. This means that the same, “noncausal” relationship I emphasized in the earlier definition also applies to the newly introduced Thoughline component of the definition. Technically, the addition of the Thoughtline points would add another dimension to our Decisionline making the Decisionplane model more geometrically accurate. However, we are only interested in how basic parameters of our models relatively measure up. As long as the line we use is the same length as the Actionline and Thoughtline (which are also the same length) then we can continue with our thought experiment without the need to expand our models.
To recap, the Actionline is better than a Timeline, but falls short compared to a Decisionline. The Decisionline isn’t only more inclusive than the Actionline, but it also offers us the means to go deeper into defining higher concepts and their roles in the decision-making process. And since decision making is considered to be a process, then I can finally introduce the Decision Making Function into our model.
I am using FUNCTION to model our decision-making process because functions are good mathematical models to represent a process that takes in data and outputs data based on what it took in. Think of every decision one makes as the Y Outputs of the Decision-Making Function or DMF for short. And we can define the X inputs as the conditions describing a person’s Present State. PRESENT STATE being the internal and external states a person when the decision is being calculated (not made!). Remember, making the decision is the same as the action taking place. So, the “making” part in the DMF refers to the calculation that produces the DECISION point from the X inputs values. Granted, according to our models and definitions, the “production” of the decision is simultaneously resulting in the person making it as well as acting it out. So, basically everything in our model occurs instantaneously. Any real-world deviation from that can be accounted for by biological factors like latency in our sensing abilities and delays in our nerve transmittance. Even in real world the difference is pretty much negligible.
A simple example to illustrate the DMF at work can be a situation where you see a tiger approaching the area you are standing. The tiger’s approach makes your external condition of your PRESENT STATE dangerous, and the internal condition would be the fear and anxiety you would be feeling. The danger and fear serve as the X inputs that led the DMF to output the Y decision to flee.
We can now use our understanding of DMF to justify an alternate definition of the DECISIONLINE as the sequence of all the Y decision points outputted by a person’s DMF. Keep in mind, this new definition doesn’t conflict our earlier version. The Decisionline is still a sequence of decision points and regardless of which definition we use, the decision points would come out to be identical. The difference arises due to a change in persepecive when defining the Decisionline. Phrases like My Mother and My Daughter can be used to describe the same person depending on who’s point of view is being considered. Similarly, we defined the Decisionline from the P.O.V. of the Actionline and Thoughtline, then we defined it in context with the DMF procedure. And the reason I wanted to change perspectives is to help us close in on a vital factor affecting the way we formulate our decisions which we can only get to by delving deeper into the inner working of the DMF and other higher functions that make up the mechanism of the inner workings of our minds.
Part 4: The Intended States
To recap, we deemed the Decisionline to be more informative than the Actionline since it accounted for the thoughts plus the actions of a person. Then we described every decision someone makes as reaction to their current circumstance or their Present State. Present State being the combined assessment of a person’s internal feelings as well as the conditions of the external world around them.
Now, I want to delve a little deeper into the DMF by introducing the term INTENDED STATE as the State a person was trying to realize when they are producing a decision. A simple example would be you entering your kitchen feeling hungry, finding a sandwich sitting there on the counter and proceeding to eat it. The decision function took in the internal and external conditions of your Present State (internally: feeling hungry, externally: there was food within your reach) and produced the decision to eat the sandwich to move you from a hungry Present State to the Intended State in which you are not hungry anymore. Since every decision can be thought of as a decision corresponding to the Present States and Intended States that produced it, then let’s define the INTENTIONLINE as the sequence of all the Intended States corresponding to the Decisionline of a person. And in a similar fashion, let’s call the sequence of Present States points, the Currentstateline or (CSL).
If we were given the CSL of a person’s life then in theory, we can use the Intentionline to reproduce all their decisions and the accompanying thoughts and actions. The only other thing we would need is their KNOWLEDGE MATRIX (KM). The Knowledge Matrix being the main generator behind almost every process unfolding in our minds, like the DMF and many other higher functions that I won’t be covering in this experiment. For example, the SEF of State Evaluation Function that assesses and evaluates the Present States conditions that then go into the DMF. The Knowledge Matrix will be discussed in more depth later in a separate post. But to keep things simple for the purposes of our current thought experiment, think of it as a live everchanging and evolving matrix modeled to represent someone’s “KNOW HOW”.
One such example would be if we know the Present State of a person is:
Externally - in class taking a math test with a problem in front of him.
Internally - Probably worried about how much time he has left.
If his Intentionline reveals the Intented State in which the problem is solved then we would know he’s going to decide to solve it (the Decision Point on his Decisionline) and what he’s going to write down (Action Point on the Actionline) since it’s a reflection of his Decision Point; Assuming we know his Knowledge Matrix contains the knowledge of how to solve it correctly.
One more thing worth mentioning about the KM matrix is that for the most part it is generated and governed by our Experiences and Memory. It starts off blank and it grows as we go through life and evolves through the process we would call “LEARNING”. There might be some other things can arguably play a role (ACT AS VARIABLES) in the LEARNING FUNCTION MODEL (since it’s a process) a person’s genetics and other intellectual abilities. These are all questions and points that will be considered when we discuss the KM, but for our purposes here, I simply wanted to point out that the “growth” of our KM is something that falls outside our influence. In other words, we don’t have a say or have any control over our KM.
I know this doesn’t sound like an accurate model at first since you may be thinking that we can DECIDE to go to a class and learn a new topic or DECIDE to go through training that develops a skill like playing an instrument or a sport so we do have the capability to influence our knowledge matrix. And you would be absolutely correct. The reason why my model for the KM disregards these factors because the model treats the matrix as a separate entity within the overall model of our MINDS. In otherwords, the MENTAL REALM already accounts for this WILLFULL INTENT to learn something in the “CHAIN” we have been discussing this entire time. So, the KM isn’t aware of our INTENTION to go to class to learn something, the KM model simply receives inputs and grows the matrix accordingly. So, if your in class, the KM takes in the instructions and makes adjustments based on this knowledge. The FUNCTION that is doing this LEARNING isn’t concerned or aware of how it got there or where it is going. IT is a function that is completely isolated and blind to these factors.
Perhaps an example here would be helpful. Imagine you went to a seminar and learned something valuable. Now you INTENDED to go that seminar to LEARN something. But what if you were picking someone up from this seminar and you were asked to wait somewhere that allowed you to listen in on the presentation. Would your ABILITY to LEARN this information be any different depending on how you ended up there? Obviously not. And that is all I am trying to explain about the KM portion of the model. It’s designed to model the internal LEARNING mechanism of our mind.
And that is okay, because remember that our model can still account for our DECISION to go and learn in the portions we’ve been discussing. I thought it was important to highlight this separation so I could accurately define what is producing the Intended States from which all our decisions and actions are derived from.
Part 5: Desire
With the understanding that our definition of the Knowledge Matrix puts it outside any sense of “control” we might feel we have over our own lives, we can continue with a MODEL for the Intended States production process. And let’s be consistent with our nomenclature methodology and call the Intended States Selection function the ISSF (I’ll explain why I used “selection” in a bit). So how does each of us determine the Intended States that guide our decision making? To begin answering this question we have to introduce DESIRES into the mix. I will define DESIRES as a list of the things that are always “in demand”. I will break Desires into two categories, Innate and Learned. Innate desires are those we deem necessary for our survival while learned desires are those we believe are geared towards helping us achieve excellence. And I will define EXCELLENCE as a measure* based on the total value of our accumulated learned desires. I know there is a bit of circular reasoning here, but bear with me for a moment and I will address it in due time.
The reason we want EXCELENCE is because learned desires are ultimately nothing more than a complex form of Innate desires. One way to think about it is that learned Desires are the things believed to facilitate the ongoing need to satiate our Innate Desires which are in turn believed to ensure our “survival”. So, all desires are ultimately the manifestation of our NEED TO SURVIVE. And we will define this SURVIVAL NEED as the NEED TO NOT BE DEAD.
If you’re following, that means our need to not be dead is the one and only DESIRE we all seek. EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING WHO’S EVER MADE A DECISION, MADE IT IN ORDER TO HELP HIM AVOID DEATH. IF YOU’RE THINKING SUICICIDES AND OTHER SUCH DECISIONS PROVIDE A CONTRADICTION THEN YOU SHOULD AT LEAST WAIT TILL I FINISH ALL THE DEFINITIONS FIRST THEN WE CAN REVISIT THAT.
Going back to desires, food and water are pretty straight forward examples of Innate Desires, while Learned Desires are things like money and power. One additional key distingtion between the two different types is the fact that Innate Desires suppercede the Learned Desires. However, unlike the infinite ceiling for how much of the Learned Desires we “WANT”, there is a cap or limit on Innate Desires that renders them “undersireable” when it is reached.
This means, it’s possible to have all your innate desires filled which makes them undesirable. The fact that this is a possibility is the phenomena that opens the door for the “WANTING” on the learned desires. Because, according to our definition, our constant “WANTING” is the manifestation of our “NEED FOR LIFE/ESCAPE FROM DEATH”. Otherwise, we would not care if we were dead or alive if all are innate desires were satisfied without any learned desires.
*This part will be critical in the computer generated reality of our existence later on.
The reason why I haven’t defined “WANTING” yet, is because it is another name for what we termed ISSF or the Intention State Selection Function. The ISSF is modeled to receive two dependent variables. The Present States conditions are one input , and the second one is a Current List of Priorities or CLP. And the output of the ISSF is the INTENDED STATE. The actual formula of the function that shows how these variables are manipulated to produce the INTENDED STATE varies from person to person since as we know by now, FUNCTIONS are products of the KNOWLEDGE MATRIX.
Now my definition didn’t show desires anywhere because CLP is nothing more than a reshuffled ranking of the list of Desires. But for now, let us thing of Priorities to complete our model for defining the ISSF or Want Function.
So, without knowing the specific Knowledge Matrix of a person, we can generalize the process carried out by the ISSF as :
Step One: Evaluate the Present State Conditions
Step Two: Retrieve the Present Measure (PMV) of the 1st item (Highest Priority) on the CPL
Step Three: Calculate the (PMV) of the second highest priority (calculates the value of the greatest possible in change in the PM as the value of that makes it equal to the value of the minimum change in PM of the highest priority)
Step Four: USE KM’s imagination functions to generate Possible Present State Alternatives with PMs ranging from (from the highest possible PM to the PMV)
- Relies on another the Value Assignment Function
- Since values below the PMV indicate the potential of more value in achieving your second most desire.
Step Five: Search the KM’s database for a “MECHANISMS” of “realizing” PPSA (and continue down the list until one is found) otherwise repeat step 1 with the second item on the CPL.
Step Six: if “MECHANISM” is found, designate the PPSA as INTENDED STATE and send “MECHANISM” to further processessing before adaptation into the DMF formula.
Basically, the function imagines all the potential states that can arise from their present state where their highest desire is realized and tries to determine if it’s achievable by searching based on whether or not the skill or knowledge is found in the KM. If the function doesn’t find a match in the KM, then it begins to consider “less desirable” outcomes until one it believes is achievable is found. That Potential State is then the Intended State that ultimately guides our decision making.
This completes our model for the ISSF and fixed the definitions connecting INTENDED STATES with the prioritized form of DESIRES or PRIORITIES that make up the CPL. Because the CPL contains the same items as the CDL but in a different order, it was acceptable to use the DESIRES and PRIORITIES interchangeably so far. But the next part takes us into the process of determines the ranking of the terms on the list so it’s important to remember that we PRIORITIES are the DESIRES as they listed on the CPL list which the one used by the ISSF program.
We’ve defined the base of all desires, INNATE and LEARNED, as the PRIMAL NEED FOR LIFE/ESCAPE FROM DEATH which I will label THE PRIME OBJECTIVE (TPO).
If you recall early on in our discussion, we used the ACTIONLINE as a model to described our experience of living or LIFETIME. We did it by concluding that experiencing life can be described as the ability of perceiving change. Initially we considered this change to be the product of the sensory information picked up by our senses, then we determined that our ability to take action was a superior way of capturing our experience of “being alive”. We then widened our definition of ACTIONS to include THOUGHTS, which were a type of action that only took place in the mind.
Unironically, the TPO somehow underwent a similar evolution in its understanding of life. Meaning that, at the first stage, it was more concerned about the most basic experience of life which is not dying. Therefore our INNATE desires were developed in order to continue experiencing life as the reception of sensory inputs. This I will call the PRIMARY FORM.
Later in mankind’s evolution, as our innate desires became easier to satiate, living meant something more than just experiencing as a receptor and expanded to experiencing by contribution. Being a member of the audience was good, but being on stage seemed great! Thus, the taking actions part manifest in our desire to make an impact on the world. I think being the cause of great positive change on your as well as everyone else’s life would be very desirable for anyone who thought it possible. A SECONDARY FORM of living was realized.
Until, finally the inclusion of the Mental Actions (THOUGHTS) that were beyond the reach of our sensory perception manifested as the desire to live beyond our current experience. Therefore desire for eternal life often depicted as going to paradise or heaven in a place beyond this world, became the TERTIARY FORM.
So, as our (KM) develops to realize each of these higher forms of LIVING, our LEARNED list of DESIRES begins to take shape as it inducts what we believe will be the means to experience these higher forms. Desire for wealth, fame (popularity), and power are staples on most people’s LEARNED list of Desires because they are seen as means of experiencing the SECONDARY form of living. Money and power, is what seems to be needed for anyone who wants to “make an impact”, while fame and popularity are also related to the “impact” tailored forms because they are often the result of a great contributions in the art or academia. Of course, it’s man we’re talking about here. He seems to have long forgotten the point for these desires, like a fool who looks at the finger pointing to the sun. At least, Acting Stars, Content Creators and Influencers have the correct labels for the FORM of living they are pursuing.
The final TERTIARY FORM of living a life beyond the grave was realized when the CREATOR declared it and set the terms of entry. So, when I define ABSOLUTE SELFIHNESS as the basis of everyone’s TPO, it means that every act is SELFISH including the selfless acts. For in the end, every desire of ours is meant to help us experience a better version of one of the 3 forms of living.
- Fun fact: this last part falls under “performing absolution”, hopefully you are starting to get a hint of what it is that we’re actually doing here.
Speaking of absolution, this definition of LIFE or LIVING accounts for everything decision including suicides. I don’t mean the religiously motivated suicides, as they obviously fall under the TERTIARY FORM of life. I am referring to suicides due to depressions. It isn’t evident in our discussion because it falls under the FORMS OF DEATH and I don’t want to cover here to keep the flow of our experiment since the next part is directly CONNECTED to what was just discussed.
Part 6: Morality
From the last section, The Primary Objective is the drive towards experiencing the 3 FORMS OF LIFE. This drive is modeled as the generator and maintainor of CDL which is the Present form of a person’s DESIRES. We will call the generator, the Primary Drive Generator or PDG. Just like every other mechanism we’ve entountered so far, the PDG relies heavily on the (KM) to generate the CDL. We can model this process as 3 separate steps or functions.
The Initial step, I will call the SURVIVAL FUNCTION, generates the INNATE DESIRES LIST which is the same for most people. There are some who’s Innate desires include things like medications such as the case for those who need lifesaving treatments and medications or addicts suffering from substance abuse and have psychological and physical dependencies on chemicals found in street drugs.
Note that these DESIRES didn’t start off on the INNATE list, and we wouldn’t consider them “INNATE” in the sense that we understand the word. However, they belong on that list because for the people in the examples these desires may have started off on their LEARNED DESIRES list but have crossed over to the INNATE side once the need for these substances and treatment started to supersede everything on the LEARNED desires list and even some of the INNATE DESIRES.
Then it generates and assigns relative values of the LEARNED DESIRES list (as an ordered hierachy) by also consulting with the (KM) as the next step and we’ll call it The EXCELLENCE FUNCTION step. And then a final round of editing and re-ordering takes part, also by referring to the (KM)’s RELIGIOUS TABLES. A step I’m going to term, the MORALITY FUNCTION.
As you may have deduced, I will be focus mainly on the 3rd step of the PDG, THE MORALITY FUNCTION step. As we stated earlier, the TMF shuffles the ranking of the raw version of the CDL and can add and even remove DESIRES. The RAW version of the CDL is the way it looks after THE SOICIETY FUNCTION step was completed but before the MORALITY FUNCTION has been executed on it.
NOTE: The KM’s Religious Tables have 3 main cells THE DEITY CELL, THE CHRIST CELL, and THE IMAGE CELL. The SPIRITUAL REALM is the container for all of the people’s THE DEITY CELLS in our MODEL
Applying this note to we established earlier, THE MORALITY FUNCTION checks with those 3 cells every time it prioritizes the CDL and by following the chain of causality, everytime we make a decision. In other words, every ACTIONPOINT and THOUGHTPOINT is ultimately based on what was in those 3 cells.
Let’s introduce as a hypothetical, a person who believes the United States President is the highest authority there is and pleasing that person is their highest priority at all times. Then the Morality Function will always find the IMAGE CELL value to be the name of whoever the president is at the time. This automatically fills in the remaining cells with The President of The USA in the THRONE of CHRIST CELL, and UNCLE SAM GOD in the DEITY CELL. The main idea here is that everything you see the Material Realm has a counterpart in the Mental Realm in addition to the counter part to both that exists in the Spiritual Realm and can be generally identified as their Deity if absent a specific label. So, an X Object of Desire corresponds to its Y Effects on our decision making. And Deity Z is the God of X and Y.
If every ACTION&THOUGHT POINTS of a DECISION is ultimately based on the PRIORITIZED list of Desires derived from the Values in the IMAGE CELL and CHRIST CELL, then it can be said that every ACTION/THOUGHT point is linked to the God corresponding to the values of these cells. A link that shall be defined as WORSHIP.
This brings us to the final step in our MODEL where we will determine what factors determine the values that fill the Religious Tables.
Part 7: BELIEF
BELIEF refers to what each individual has accepted to be TRUE. I define BELIEVERS as those who believe in the higher power or DEITY who is active in their decision making. Therefore, believers have their Religious Table filled with the values pertaining to this DEITY’s CHRIST and IMAGE. For example, a Muslim or Meek in English, is a person who’s Religious Table looks as the following:
In the DEITY CELL: The Creator
In the CHRIST CELL: The Creator’s throne (The Creator’s Appointee)
In the IMAGE CELL: The Chosen One (Chosen by the Creator)- on the Lord’s final day of creation, it’s The Mahdi.
I’m going to define (real) CHRISTIAN as a person who has filled their CHRIST CELL with the CHOSEN ANOINTED ONE of the CREATOR. And I am going to define the a (real) Muslim as a person who has submitted to the will of of the CREATOR. Therefore, both terms are referring to the same 3 general values in the Religious Table, so we can combine them and replace them with the MEEKS. Since, I’m speaking English and Meek is the English word for someone who submits (to the Creator’s will), and since following the Creator’s chosen one is how you submit to his will then
MEEKS ARE REAL ISLAMIC CHRISTIANS
To understand why I keep including the word REAL in my definition I have to introduce on more thing to the Religious table called the SCRIPTURE ARRAY. Putting Creator/Christ/Abraham in my RT doesn’t really provide the Morality Function with much to work with in terms how to deal and handle every situation in life. That information is modeled as the values found in the SCRIPTURE ARRAY and it’s filled by they learned from the CHOSEN ONE’s Teachings and written instructions (Torah, Bible, Quran).
The reason for defining the array to describe my usage of REAL is because there can only be one Absolute Set of values that fills the 3 cells and their corresponding array. And much of the important definitions in the Quran and other holy texts can defined as one of the many discrepancies possible if a person doesn’t adhere completely to this Absolute Set of values.
A hypocrite is a person who says THE CREATOR occupies his Deity Cell but one or more of the remaining cells contain values that are in conflict
A person taking the Lord’s name in vain is someone who publically displays that their 3 cells are filled with the CREATOR SET but the array of teachings they follow demonstrates the teaches of another DEITY”S TRINITY.
A polytheist is a person who’s DEITY CELL contain a dynamic value – A mokhlas : Static
The reason why so many self perceived believers go astray is because somewhere in their BELIEF MATRIX (BM) they marked something as TRUE when it was false or when it was Relatively True not Absolutely TRUE. A BELIEF MATRIX based entirely on ABSOLUTE TRUTHS is what makes the MEEK because it is the only guarantee that you are worshipping the CREATOR in the way HE told you to.
The process of deriving and relying exclusively on the use of ABSOLUTES is a process called
And should be performed everytime you start defining concepts like we did “Thought Experiment” or what I like to call
Since that’s what CREATOR calls it.
-Being alive means you never stop taking ACTIONS in Material Realm or Mental Realm (THOUGHTS).
This also means you never stop making DECISIONS since they are a reflection of the combined ACTION & THOUGHTLINES.
DECISION can be modeled as the execution of a function with INTENDED STATES (INTENTIONS) as one of its dependent variables.
INTENDED STATES are based off of DESIRED STATES and MORALITY is a group of functions that governs what it is that we desire and they are prioritized.
And since MORALITY is determined by BELIEF and BELIEF is centered around GOD, then our thoughts and actions are all based on our belief in GOD.
THIS MEANS WORSHIP IS A ON-GOING, NEVER STOPPING, NEVER ENDING ACTIVITY WE"RE ENGAGED IN. AND EVERY THOUGHT AND ACTION IS A WORSHIP OF THE DEITY WHO"S TEACHINGS ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR PRIORITIES.
وَوُضِعَ الۡكِتٰبُ فَتَرَى الۡمُجۡرِمِيۡنَ مُشۡفِقِيۡنَ مِمَّا فِيۡهِ وَ يَقُوۡلُوۡنَ يٰوَيۡلَـتَـنَا مَالِ هٰذَا الۡـكِتٰبِ لَا يُغَادِرُ صَغِيۡرَةً وَّلَا كَبِيۡرَةً اِلَّاۤ اَحۡصٰٮهَا ۚ وَوَجَدُوۡا مَا عَمِلُوۡا حَاضِرًا ؕ وَ لَا يَظۡلِمُ رَبُّكَ اَحَدًا
GLOSSARY OF TERMS:
A QUICK FRIENDLY REMINDER
TO PROCEED WITH CAUTION
THIS VIDEO IS ONLY MEANT TO PRESENT SOME OF WHAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER "COMMON KNOWLEDGE" ON THE TOPIC.
This completes the first part of LAP 1
BEFORE YOU MOVE ON TO PART 2,WE MUST COME TO A COMMON UNDERSTANDING BEHIND THE MEANING OF THE 2 FOCAL POINTS OF THE CLUES! PART. THESE POINTS ARE THE CONCEPT OF A MIRACLE AND THE CONCEPT OF A PROPHECY. IF YOU AGREE THAT A MIRACLE CANNOT REFER TO AN "IMPOSSIBLE" EVENT AND THAT "PROPHECIES" REQUIERE INTERPRETATIONS AND SHOULDN'T BE TAKEN LITERALLY THEN YOU CAN SKIP AHEAD AND START PART 2. SADLY, I KNOW THAT MOST OF YOU HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING OF THESE CONCEPTS AND I WOULD SUGGEST YOU GO OVER BOTH OF THEM BEFORE PROCEEDING TO PART 2.
The button below will take you to the page where we define what a miracle is by eliminating everything it cannot be.
This will take you to the prophecies page where we refine our understanding what a prophecy is and it means to interpret it.
Ready for part 2?
The next page is a compilation of prophecies that describe the Anti-Christ and provide clues to help identify him
UNIMPORTANT FOR CHALLENGE No.1 PURPOSES but SHOULD BE REFINED AND REASSIMILATED INTO THE T-E-1 MODEL. (Remember the 4th TMF type)
Every person has 1 of 3 types of TMFs. There is the Self based Morality Fn, the Social based and the Spirit based MFs.
The self based morality function is pretty basic and ranks desires as close to our innate list of desires as possible with alterations taking place only when the consequences outweigh the reward. The best example I can think of at the moment is an atheist seriving multiple life sentences in prison.
The Social based morality function is very similar to the Self based but with the addition of perception based values. That means a desire of mainting a certain public image will lead to the shuffling of one’s desires quite a bit. The magnitude of this shuffling varies depending on a lot of factors. For example a politician list of desires may assign more value and thereby find participation in public philanthropic activities more desirable the average person. This is the type of Morality that is by far most widespread. The fact that there is no regard to the TERTIARY FORM of living ultimately means that if you can get away with it / be certain nobody will ever find out, then the list and values of desires is nearly identical to the prisoner serving multiple life sentences. And this is why corruption is so widespread and prevalent in our world.
Why would a C.E.O. care about damaging the environment if he won’t be alive to experience the consequences if he doesn’t believe in a God that will hold him accountable? It’s not like there actual forces for good in the world capable of monitoring and regulating people in these kind of positions.
I know atheists and agnostics want to object to this, but if you take some time to really think about it, you would know I’m correct. But don’t worry, if you insist, there will be a time to voice your objections and argue against me. If you have a different model that can better explain and define everything or accounts for something that I missed or isn’t accounted in mine and doesn’t contradict or conflict with itself and its own definitions then please bring it forward, I would seriously love to learn about it. Until then, let’s move on to the Spiritual Morality Fn.
Spiritual Morality is the most diverse type because it can assign any rank to any concept depending on the religion a person follows. Since the person believes in a higher power capable of rewarding and punishing a person beyond its material existence, any amount of reward can be associated to any kind of act as long as the person believes it’s from their God.
All these variations mean that there is an infinitely large set of Deities containing all the deities ever worshiped.
In summary, the Self Morality produces a hierchy of desires aimed at pleasing one’s self via satisfying their innate animalistic desires. The Social Morality produces a hierchy of desires similar to that of Self Morality except for the added desires aimed at glorifying them in the eyes of others and increasing their popularity. The Spiritual Morality produces a list of desires with the highest value assigned to pleasing God.
I would like to remind the reader that all of these Moralities are still rooted in the Morality of Absolute Selfishness. The difference arises in what the practitioner BELIEVES will result in the highest reward. That is to say the Self Moral thinks pleases themselves is the only thing worthwhile. The Socially Moral believes holding back some of their base desires in favor of a better reputation will yield more reward in the long run. While the Spiritually Moral believes the greatest reward would come from incurring God’s favor than from satisfying their own basic desires.
A second reminder, or note, is that I used the word “pleasing” when I was discussing Spiritual Morality. I want to underline the fact that the Intended States that come out from the desire of pleasing God is not the same thing as worshiping God.
WORSHIP is the word for the association of a certain decision with the GOD it was intended to please, from the P.O.V of an objective 3rd party observer in accordance with that GOD’s teachings. What does that mean exactly?
For one, It means that you are in a constant state of worship. Every instant you are making a decision and ever decision made is an act of worship of the deity it was tailored to please. Because every decision making process is based on an Intended State that came from a specific list of desires unique to the specific deity being appeased by it.
As you may have guessed, that means most people are polytheists. Perhaps you can begin to understand why there is so much emphasis on the idea of “KHALAS” in worshipping Allah alone in the Qur’an.
The other thing it means is that CHRONOS, the God of Time is by far the most widely worshiped and appeased God in the world today. This assertion isn’t solely based on this philosophical reasoning I just went over, nor on the prophetic interpretation I’m about to introduce. My assertion is based on the fact that The Creator* declared seeking Knowledge & Justice was the only means of worshiping him and after a decade of offering both on a silver platter, the reason why nobody wants to learn about a plan so miraculous that it turned the most staunch atheist into a devout believer is because it wouldn’t please CHRONOS; Or as they like to phrase it “don’t have time”.
*The Creator according to the Abrahamic traditions as interpreted by the person he appointed to present his will.
Before we jump into the prophetic section, I want to take a moment to define a few more terms based on the definitions we established so far. We defined the Material Realm as the realm where actions take place and we can distinguish it from the Mental Realm by the fact that we can perceive the Material Realm using our senses. The Mental realm is where higher functions as simple as thinking and imagining and more complex ones like decision making are carried out. The Spiritual Realm is where the God’s being worshipped by mankind can be placed. And the struggle for mankind’s worship can be described as a war between the God’s that is unfolding in the Spiritual Realm.
Additionally, every deity exists in part in each of the three realms. For example, the Creator of Everything exists in the Spiritual Realm as The God of Abraham. In the Mental Realm, he exists as the culmination of his teachings and pushing man to striving for knowledge and justice. And in the Material Realm we find the means in which his teachings and philosophies were meant to reach us such as his prophets and the written word they left us. Similarly, Chronos is the how Time exists in the spiritural realm. In the Mental Realm, it exists as Time the concept and what is primarily guiding our decision making and around which our days revolve. And by days I mean the 24 hour long sequence of decisions that is determined by his material vessels, the written and spoken forms of all that conveys TIME to us (Clocks, Watches, Phones, Etc.).
So, if The Creator was to send his CHRIST over with a KNOWLEDGEBLE plan to establish JUSTICE, who would be his most worthy adversary to earn him the title of The Anti-Christ Dajjal (Deceiver)?
MODES AND PM TABLES
As human beings, each of us has an optimum state of being. But part of being alive means we are in a constant state of departure away from that state. If you are full, you will eventually grow hungry. If the weather is perfect, it will eventually change, so on and so forth.
Search (Curious) Mode
Safe (Iman) Mode
As I mentioned earlier, very little of our time (relative to previous eras) is spent in Survival Mode. Search Mode was my mode for the first 2/3 of my life before I finally settled in Safe Mode.