| The Best Possible World, All Possible Worlds: Why I Say The Things I Do by G. N. O'Dell |
Our Sunday school teacher entered the small side church room full of loud
rambunctious boys and said, “Stop talking and playing around. Take your seats
this is a Sunday school class and we are going to discuss the bible. I have a
serious question to ask you and we are all going to discuss it like adults.”
We all sat up straight in our chairs, eyes forward, anticipating the morning
lesson. He continued, “I have a serious question to ask you and we are all
going to discuss it like adults.” He paused for a moment and asked, “Why do
you think God created us?” as if he already had an answer ready. The other
boys were stumped as I said, “Because he was lonely.”
The teacher’s skin turned white, waved his right hand in front of us while
straining to say in hardly audible words “go back to what you boys were doing”
then left the room and never returned that day or if I remember correctly, teach
another of my Sunday school classes.
Why Did God Create Us?
Ontology is the study of being. In a religious sense, Ontology is commonly
referred to as a proof of God’s existence which gives meaning to how things
come to be. To others, the question of being is one of the most important
questions of human existence, a question deserving of explanation beyond
belief; even if that belief is likely to be true. The way we answer the question of
how things come to be, affects the way we think about the laws of physics as a
subject-object relationship.
Martin Heidegger, famed Existential Philosopher of the early ninetieth century
suggest, we are mistaken, incorrect with our ontological reasoning which gives
error to our judgment 1. If Heidegger’s claim is true, our presupposing of
reason may be the case of what we think we know may not be true. If our
reasoning in regards to nature and phenomena is flawed, everything we think
about is profoundly affected, including actual scientific applications. The PC
may be as IBM predicted, a useless toy, and Bill Gates is likely a geek gone
wild!
Charles Burton poetically describes ancient Sanskrit ontology as the “Over
Soul” published in 1939 2. If heaven exists, and I argue that it necessarily
exists, our own solar system must be nested within its heavenly properties. In
contemporary literature, we lose this association because our language now
determines these concepts as “abstract ideas” (3A Kripke-Plantinga (KP) world
is an abstract object of some sort). How can it be established that our solar
systems, including Earth, spins in abstract space, an area that can only be
appreciated intellectually?
If Sally says, “I might not have existed,” almost everyone will take her to have
stated an obvious truth 4 , if true then Sally is a situated knower within heavens
own properties. What Sally says, how she says it, and why she says the things
she does, is a logical linguistic link to how things come to be.
rambunctious boys and said, “Stop talking and playing around. Take your seats
this is a Sunday school class and we are going to discuss the bible. I have a
serious question to ask you and we are all going to discuss it like adults.”
We all sat up straight in our chairs, eyes forward, anticipating the morning
lesson. He continued, “I have a serious question to ask you and we are all
going to discuss it like adults.” He paused for a moment and asked, “Why do
you think God created us?” as if he already had an answer ready. The other
boys were stumped as I said, “Because he was lonely.”
The teacher’s skin turned white, waved his right hand in front of us while
straining to say in hardly audible words “go back to what you boys were doing”
then left the room and never returned that day or if I remember correctly, teach
another of my Sunday school classes.
Why Did God Create Us?
Ontology is the study of being. In a religious sense, Ontology is commonly
referred to as a proof of God’s existence which gives meaning to how things
come to be. To others, the question of being is one of the most important
questions of human existence, a question deserving of explanation beyond
belief; even if that belief is likely to be true. The way we answer the question of
how things come to be, affects the way we think about the laws of physics as a
subject-object relationship.
Martin Heidegger, famed Existential Philosopher of the early ninetieth century
suggest, we are mistaken, incorrect with our ontological reasoning which gives
error to our judgment 1. If Heidegger’s claim is true, our presupposing of
reason may be the case of what we think we know may not be true. If our
reasoning in regards to nature and phenomena is flawed, everything we think
about is profoundly affected, including actual scientific applications. The PC
may be as IBM predicted, a useless toy, and Bill Gates is likely a geek gone
wild!
Charles Burton poetically describes ancient Sanskrit ontology as the “Over
Soul” published in 1939 2. If heaven exists, and I argue that it necessarily
exists, our own solar system must be nested within its heavenly properties. In
contemporary literature, we lose this association because our language now
determines these concepts as “abstract ideas” (3A Kripke-Plantinga (KP) world
is an abstract object of some sort). How can it be established that our solar
systems, including Earth, spins in abstract space, an area that can only be
appreciated intellectually?
If Sally says, “I might not have existed,” almost everyone will take her to have
stated an obvious truth 4 , if true then Sally is a situated knower within heavens
own properties. What Sally says, how she says it, and why she says the things
she does, is a logical linguistic link to how things come to be.
1 Heidegger, Martin, Being and Time p 63
2 Burton,Charles The Oversoul
3 A Kripke-Plantinga (KP) world is an abstract object of some sort
4 <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#ProMetNewMet> In addition to these dualistic theories, there are monistic
theories, theories that dissolve the “interaction problem” by denying the existence of either the physical or the non-physical:
idealism and physicalism. (Present-day philosophers for the most part prefer the term ‘physicalism’ to the older term
‘materialism.')
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#ProMetNewMet>
5 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism>
6 King James Bible
7 <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3588/tattvam.htm>
2 Burton,Charles The Oversoul
3 A Kripke-Plantinga (KP) world is an abstract object of some sort
4 <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#ProMetNewMet> In addition to these dualistic theories, there are monistic
theories, theories that dissolve the “interaction problem” by denying the existence of either the physical or the non-physical:
idealism and physicalism. (Present-day philosophers for the most part prefer the term ‘physicalism’ to the older term
‘materialism.')
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#ProMetNewMet>
5 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism>
6 King James Bible
7 <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3588/tattvam.htm>
O'Dell, Gregory N. "The Best Possible World, All Possible Worlds:." Linearism.Org Advocacy For Human Rights. Nov. & dec.
2008. Web. 06 Feb. 2010. <http://www.linearism.org/EssayOntology.html>.
2008. Web. 06 Feb. 2010. <http://www.linearism.org/EssayOntology.html>.
| Cite This Page |
If we analyze the essential features of the way we speak and the way we think, we can easily identify and redefine words or phrases
of a particular cultural emphasis which predetermine our opinions. In other words, by applying a few principals of Linguistics, the
way we speak, to the way we think, we can, with little effort, loosen the bonds of cultural control, guaranteeing our right to freely
reason on our own. Thus, to think freely is to refine our somatic domain by redefining words or phrases that have bred false beliefs
such as the term ‘metaphysics’ and the phrase ‘metaphysical realism.’
We all praise rationality but seldom do we apply the same criteria in the quiet of our own minds. It matters not if we explore the inner
workings of the mind as an idealist, or trod a true materialistic path, all persistent thinkers awake in the same primordial substance
be it called matter or mind 5. What we say to ourselves in the quiet of our minds can and does determine what we know.
Right, wrong, or indifferent the Philosophy of language is the foundation of everything we know, we think we know a lot, and probably
do- a lot of thinking. Contrary to what scholars deem holy, reason is a known or the logos (Lost key Example). To think about
something is proof in itself that the thinker does not know.
Sally is a situated knower in heavens own properties- she knows her situation. Sally knows she knows, de re. Sally knows she
knows, de dicto. Sally, a ordinary human being is a situated knower in heavens own properties or the known, undefined. The only
evidence we have are textual expressions and word of mouth, or what we say, how we say it, and why we say the things we do.
Metalanguage, a language used to describe a language, what Sally says, is rooted in a fundamental primordial utterance- the word.
The oldest accounts of textual expressions such as the Rig-Veda and the Bible are discredited by contemporary philosophical
realism which is a “belief in reality that is completely ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices,
beliefs, etc. 5” Nevertheless, what we say, how we say it, and why we say the things we do is a predetermined echo of what has
already been said, so the following Hebrew text, written about 2000 years ago is a belief that is likely to be necessarily
true:
“John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:2 The same was in the
beginning with God. John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
In addition, the following primordial propositions compliment the same ontological argument from ancient Hebrew text dating back
some 4000 years ago 6:
“Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and
darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let
there be light: and there was light.”
The Rig-Veda or early Sanskrit dating back some 5500 years ago, compliment an ontological argument from ancient Hindu text and
the Upanishads or proto-Sanskrit that are among the earliest written expressions known today that date back to a period when
pictographs logos were superseded by straight symbolic lines or linear expressions. A period known by evidence etched in ancient
clay tablets, uncovered by archaeologist from the ancient Sumerian city of Shurruppak settled by wondering nomadic bands about
the biblical frontiers of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers- the origin of ancient Hebrew text.
A Philosophical paper titled “Tattvamasi ('that you are') in the Upanishads” by Octavian Sarbatoare (BA USyd) is a good reflection of
what the Vedanta poets are saying 7:
“The present work will draw attention to the multidimensional contents as well as the literature and spiritual messages of the
Upanishads. The Upanishads (Lit. 'sitting by the side') are a class of philosophical works expounding a secret spiritual doctrine by
emphasising on a monistic approach to knowledge. Behind the literal significance of the words as 'sitting by the side' there is that
secret spiritual knowledge that is acquired by a disciple, by sitting near an accomplished master. The whole philosophy of the
Upanishads has a common:
“Tattvamasi ('that you are'), Ahambrahmasmi ('I am Brahma'), Prajnanam Brahma ('the ultimate truth is consciousness'), Ayamatma
Brahma ('the extension of the Self is Brahma').”
These primordial principals compliment and are the origins of the aforementioned ontological argument from Hebrew text dating
some 4000 years ago; a belief that is likely to be necessarily true, continues as follows:
[Genesis 1:27 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the
sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the
earth.” Genesis 1:28 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:29And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have
dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth”]
If we consider Sally as an ordinary human being or man, then what we say to ourselves in the quiet of our minds can and does
determine what we know. Sally is a situated knower within heavens own properties; it is the case that what we say, how we say it,
and why we say the things we do are determined as if one mind sharing the same essential thing; however, it is not the case that
we are saying the same thing as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics summarizes well:
“The arguments of Kripke and Plantinga in defense of modality are paradigmatically metaphysical (except insofar as they directly
address Quine's linguistic argument). Both turn on the concept of a possible world. Leibniz was the first philosopher to use
‘possible world’ as a philosophical term of art, but Kripke's and Plantinga's use of the phrase is different from his. For Leibniz, a
possible world was a possible creation: God's act of creation consists in his choosing one possible world among many to be the
one world that he creates- the 'actual' world. For Kripke and Plantinga, however, a possible world is a possible “whole of reality.” For
Leibniz, God and his actions “stand outside” all possible worlds. For Kripke and Plantinga, no being, not even God, could stand
outside the whole system of possible worlds.”
As stated, “for Leibniz, a possible world is a possible creation: God’s act of creation consists in his choosing one possible world
among many to be the one world that he creates- the 'actual' world’ in which God is the lone situated knower of that world. The world
Leibniz refers to is a conditional Biblical world illustrated in ancient text, aforementioned. Under these biblical conditions, not even
God could make a false proposition true; nor could Kripke and Plantinga presuppose a possible “whole of reality” by standing
outside the whole system of possible worlds.
Nevertheless, what we say, how we say it, and why we say the things we do is a predetermined echo of what has already been said
and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics summarizes well:
“Theirs is not the only modal ontology on offer, however. The modal ontology of David Lewis (Lewis (1986)) stands in stark
opposition to the KP modal ontology. Lewis's modal ontology also appeals to objects called possible worlds, but these “worlds” are
concrete objects. What most of us call the universe is just exactly what Lewis calls “the actual world.” Non-actual worlds are other
universes, “non-actual”; only in that we are not among their inhabitants, for two “worlds” share no part. For Lewis, ‘actual’ is an
indexical term: when I speak of the actual world, I refer to the world of which I am an inhabitant- and so for any speaker who is “in”
(who is a part of) any world.”
Sally is a speaker in 'the actual world or a situated knower. We know Sally by what she says, how she says it, and why she says the
things she says, de re. Sally is a situated knower, we know Sally by what she says, how she says it, and why she says the things
she says, de dicto. If the only thing I know with certainty, I am a situated knower, then I must be inferred by all in the same way; we
are never alone. In a metaphysical sense, religious sense, or any sense at all, we can define Ontology as the study or being or the
I-ness of a being that determines its existence.
The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, metaphysics also quotes Frege, “Affirmation of existence is in fact nothing but denial of
the number zero.” I disagree, we can affirm existence without denial of the number zero, a sphere of emptiness envelopes all binary
relations, and by way of negation, limitation, or undefined schema; all things that come to be already exist as an empty set of ideas
or all possible world(s) (Figure Ontology).
Example:
0 is a real number, de dicto
1
0 is a real number, de re
1
0 is undefined
1
So there is a singularity of existence that is all knowing, all powerful, and in all places at the same time or a lone situated knower
the theologian refers to as God or the I-ness of being that determines its own existence. Metaphysically, we can illustrate Being as
a serious game of ontological "hide and seek," a lonely game of shifting from the known to the unknown and back again by way of
experience in its own multiplicity such as the situated knower Sally or the I-ness of a being that determines its existence . What Sally
says, how she says it, and why she says the things she does, is a logical linguistic link to how things come to be; however, if this is
just an echo of what has already been said, why say it? Nobody says it like I do!
We might consider our humble beginnings as the big bang of consciousness, no longer a
subject object relation of rocks, dust, gases, and things but the shadows of ever-expanding
awareness illuminating the dark unknown of our universe.
of a particular cultural emphasis which predetermine our opinions. In other words, by applying a few principals of Linguistics, the
way we speak, to the way we think, we can, with little effort, loosen the bonds of cultural control, guaranteeing our right to freely
reason on our own. Thus, to think freely is to refine our somatic domain by redefining words or phrases that have bred false beliefs
such as the term ‘metaphysics’ and the phrase ‘metaphysical realism.’
We all praise rationality but seldom do we apply the same criteria in the quiet of our own minds. It matters not if we explore the inner
workings of the mind as an idealist, or trod a true materialistic path, all persistent thinkers awake in the same primordial substance
be it called matter or mind 5. What we say to ourselves in the quiet of our minds can and does determine what we know.
Right, wrong, or indifferent the Philosophy of language is the foundation of everything we know, we think we know a lot, and probably
do- a lot of thinking. Contrary to what scholars deem holy, reason is a known or the logos (Lost key Example). To think about
something is proof in itself that the thinker does not know.
Sally is a situated knower in heavens own properties- she knows her situation. Sally knows she knows, de re. Sally knows she
knows, de dicto. Sally, a ordinary human being is a situated knower in heavens own properties or the known, undefined. The only
evidence we have are textual expressions and word of mouth, or what we say, how we say it, and why we say the things we do.
Metalanguage, a language used to describe a language, what Sally says, is rooted in a fundamental primordial utterance- the word.
The oldest accounts of textual expressions such as the Rig-Veda and the Bible are discredited by contemporary philosophical
realism which is a “belief in reality that is completely ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices,
beliefs, etc. 5” Nevertheless, what we say, how we say it, and why we say the things we do is a predetermined echo of what has
already been said, so the following Hebrew text, written about 2000 years ago is a belief that is likely to be necessarily
true:
“John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:2 The same was in the
beginning with God. John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
In addition, the following primordial propositions compliment the same ontological argument from ancient Hebrew text dating back
some 4000 years ago 6:
“Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and
darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let
there be light: and there was light.”
The Rig-Veda or early Sanskrit dating back some 5500 years ago, compliment an ontological argument from ancient Hindu text and
the Upanishads or proto-Sanskrit that are among the earliest written expressions known today that date back to a period when
pictographs logos were superseded by straight symbolic lines or linear expressions. A period known by evidence etched in ancient
clay tablets, uncovered by archaeologist from the ancient Sumerian city of Shurruppak settled by wondering nomadic bands about
the biblical frontiers of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers- the origin of ancient Hebrew text.
A Philosophical paper titled “Tattvamasi ('that you are') in the Upanishads” by Octavian Sarbatoare (BA USyd) is a good reflection of
what the Vedanta poets are saying 7:
“The present work will draw attention to the multidimensional contents as well as the literature and spiritual messages of the
Upanishads. The Upanishads (Lit. 'sitting by the side') are a class of philosophical works expounding a secret spiritual doctrine by
emphasising on a monistic approach to knowledge. Behind the literal significance of the words as 'sitting by the side' there is that
secret spiritual knowledge that is acquired by a disciple, by sitting near an accomplished master. The whole philosophy of the
Upanishads has a common:
“Tattvamasi ('that you are'), Ahambrahmasmi ('I am Brahma'), Prajnanam Brahma ('the ultimate truth is consciousness'), Ayamatma
Brahma ('the extension of the Self is Brahma').”
These primordial principals compliment and are the origins of the aforementioned ontological argument from Hebrew text dating
some 4000 years ago; a belief that is likely to be necessarily true, continues as follows:
[Genesis 1:27 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the
sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the
earth.” Genesis 1:28 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:29And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have
dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth”]
If we consider Sally as an ordinary human being or man, then what we say to ourselves in the quiet of our minds can and does
determine what we know. Sally is a situated knower within heavens own properties; it is the case that what we say, how we say it,
and why we say the things we do are determined as if one mind sharing the same essential thing; however, it is not the case that
we are saying the same thing as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics summarizes well:
“The arguments of Kripke and Plantinga in defense of modality are paradigmatically metaphysical (except insofar as they directly
address Quine's linguistic argument). Both turn on the concept of a possible world. Leibniz was the first philosopher to use
‘possible world’ as a philosophical term of art, but Kripke's and Plantinga's use of the phrase is different from his. For Leibniz, a
possible world was a possible creation: God's act of creation consists in his choosing one possible world among many to be the
one world that he creates- the 'actual' world. For Kripke and Plantinga, however, a possible world is a possible “whole of reality.” For
Leibniz, God and his actions “stand outside” all possible worlds. For Kripke and Plantinga, no being, not even God, could stand
outside the whole system of possible worlds.”
As stated, “for Leibniz, a possible world is a possible creation: God’s act of creation consists in his choosing one possible world
among many to be the one world that he creates- the 'actual' world’ in which God is the lone situated knower of that world. The world
Leibniz refers to is a conditional Biblical world illustrated in ancient text, aforementioned. Under these biblical conditions, not even
God could make a false proposition true; nor could Kripke and Plantinga presuppose a possible “whole of reality” by standing
outside the whole system of possible worlds.
Nevertheless, what we say, how we say it, and why we say the things we do is a predetermined echo of what has already been said
and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics summarizes well:
“Theirs is not the only modal ontology on offer, however. The modal ontology of David Lewis (Lewis (1986)) stands in stark
opposition to the KP modal ontology. Lewis's modal ontology also appeals to objects called possible worlds, but these “worlds” are
concrete objects. What most of us call the universe is just exactly what Lewis calls “the actual world.” Non-actual worlds are other
universes, “non-actual”; only in that we are not among their inhabitants, for two “worlds” share no part. For Lewis, ‘actual’ is an
indexical term: when I speak of the actual world, I refer to the world of which I am an inhabitant- and so for any speaker who is “in”
(who is a part of) any world.”
Sally is a speaker in 'the actual world or a situated knower. We know Sally by what she says, how she says it, and why she says the
things she says, de re. Sally is a situated knower, we know Sally by what she says, how she says it, and why she says the things
she says, de dicto. If the only thing I know with certainty, I am a situated knower, then I must be inferred by all in the same way; we
are never alone. In a metaphysical sense, religious sense, or any sense at all, we can define Ontology as the study or being or the
I-ness of a being that determines its existence.
The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, metaphysics also quotes Frege, “Affirmation of existence is in fact nothing but denial of
the number zero.” I disagree, we can affirm existence without denial of the number zero, a sphere of emptiness envelopes all binary
relations, and by way of negation, limitation, or undefined schema; all things that come to be already exist as an empty set of ideas
or all possible world(s) (Figure Ontology).
Example:
0 is a real number, de dicto
1
0 is a real number, de re
1
0 is undefined
1
So there is a singularity of existence that is all knowing, all powerful, and in all places at the same time or a lone situated knower
the theologian refers to as God or the I-ness of being that determines its own existence. Metaphysically, we can illustrate Being as
a serious game of ontological "hide and seek," a lonely game of shifting from the known to the unknown and back again by way of
experience in its own multiplicity such as the situated knower Sally or the I-ness of a being that determines its existence . What Sally
says, how she says it, and why she says the things she does, is a logical linguistic link to how things come to be; however, if this is
just an echo of what has already been said, why say it? Nobody says it like I do!
We might consider our humble beginnings as the big bang of consciousness, no longer a
subject object relation of rocks, dust, gases, and things but the shadows of ever-expanding
awareness illuminating the dark unknown of our universe.
| Click Picture for larger view in you web browser |
Imagine, if you will, that you have lost your keys to your automobile at a most
inopportune time with the worst (almost) possible situation as the result. Your
lower mind immediately comes to the rescue and lays out a linear grid of your
past movements. Before your minds’ eye, you see all the limited possibilities as
per the laws that govern the lost key in the physical universe.
inopportune time with the worst (almost) possible situation as the result. Your
lower mind immediately comes to the rescue and lays out a linear grid of your
past movements. Before your minds’ eye, you see all the limited possibilities as
per the laws that govern the lost key in the physical universe.
If you’re like most, you will blindly follow this lower mind to all the possible places
search in the same places even if you have already search in the same place this
lower mind has already sent you! In fact, it soon becomes obvious that the mind
will have you search the same place over and again just to satisfy its own
inefficiency.
search in the same places even if you have already search in the same place this
lower mind has already sent you! In fact, it soon becomes obvious that the mind
will have you search the same place over and again just to satisfy its own
inefficiency.
There comes a point where anger sets in from the emotional stress of the lost
key. And maybe you blow your top or vent in some way, but ultimately you refuse to
follow the lower mind because it’s taking you to the same wrong places. There is
calm after the anger storm or a point when you may say to yourself, “I accept that
the key is lost.”
key. And maybe you blow your top or vent in some way, but ultimately you refuse to
follow the lower mind because it’s taking you to the same wrong places. There is
calm after the anger storm or a point when you may say to yourself, “I accept that
the key is lost.”
Perhaps you grab a newspaper or turn on the TV, and focus your attention away
from this mental activity called thinking and presto- Immediately, your intuitive
consciousness is activated because you have let go of the justified false belief of
thinking- the foundation of epistemology. And low and behold pure reason reveals
where the key has always been; you know it’s on your dresser as if you have
ALWAYS KNOWN IT! The key consciousness has always been HERE NOW;
therefore the only false belief is thinking about the possibilities of where the key
may have been.
from this mental activity called thinking and presto- Immediately, your intuitive
consciousness is activated because you have let go of the justified false belief of
thinking- the foundation of epistemology. And low and behold pure reason reveals
where the key has always been; you know it’s on your dresser as if you have
ALWAYS KNOWN IT! The key consciousness has always been HERE NOW;
therefore the only false belief is thinking about the possibilities of where the key
may have been.
| The Lost Key Example |
| In the fall 2008, Integrated Digital Collaborations plunge the new world into Global Economic Crisis. Quality Assurances that once relied on human intervention are now integrated digital collaborations- Quality Assurance programs Hardwired to Favorable Responses. |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Lost Key Example ePost Card Click Here Down Load and Share |
| Big Bang of Consciousness ePost Card Click Here Down Load and Share |
| Terrorism has won immunity to the 911 Patriot Act haphazardly used to violate the privacy of all US Citizens. American privacy deregulation has become a dogmatic circulatory process of sniffing one another's tail ends. |
| A Logical Linguistic Link to how things come to be ePostCard |
| OM |