My Blog

* Try to know the intent of the story
* Tell the intent of the story to other party of the idea that you understand or not understand; intent of understanding and the intent of being as "educated" as possible.
* Be as simple as possible; other party would not have a clue on other statements that seemingly be related or not related at all.
* Visual expressions most of the time relates but there is also a point that most of the time it does not relate. We human beings interpret 70 % of information visually without knowing of the misjudgment
* Try know the intent of the result
* Try to educate them from time to time and put forward to their understanding, your understanding and others understanding.
* Try to tell them how you feel and think from time to time so they could have a better understanding on how they perform in front of others on certain aspects of problem solving
* Try to give them another view and idea of things that gives a positive light rather than a negative one regardless of the result
* Reflect back on the ideas given. We ourselves are reflections to others.

Information recorded on the brain involves more on emotional factors relative to the past and the present point of time for some. It could be previous experience that cause them to ‘push’ away from certain things in life. It could be also that ‘attracts’ them to certain things in life as well.

* Try to know the bounds of life of this ‘attraction’ and ‘push away’ factor from experience rather than information that has been past down previously; and re-experience it at a different point of view given a good intent was known

* Try to promote ‘good’ intents without saying the bad ones first or from environmental distractions of the user’s experience

* When nothing works out, just walk the simple steps of life

(2:15PM Previously had an argument with Dad about building a storage furniture for the garage)
Going over the first the step for a particular problem (that arises and thinking it should be solve for another party) arises a lot more problems than the solution itself, especially for another person. Such as in the hierarchy levels of society, parents and children in a family; how to deal friends, elders and others.

There is more consideration that needs to be agree to is:
* Is the offering appropriate for both parties? 
* Have we consider the needs and wants for it?
* Is this just an arising chicken and egg question where one party is already happy with but the other party is not happy with?
* Is there another way to address the problem?
* Should there be more sides to a story than just the story itself?
* Should the atmosphere and the environment be positive rather than negative? (starting of it and finishing of it also counts)
* Should there be a conclusion to what was arise rather than continue on and on?
* How should the third party treat the problem itself mutual before there is essence of biasness in either sides and what governs a fairer way in explaining things rather than to add on to either biasness?
* Was there a different level of communication between the two?

In my result for the argument of day was: both sides did not really want to know. One spoken in ‘direct-ness’ to address the point at hand; the other was addressing ‘indirect-ness’ of letting somebody know as well as the person at stake that it means ‘you’ as well.

It is a typical way in addressing a problem, leaving one guessing on "what are you trying to say?" when it becomes cross-purpose when one arises that it is addressing to the other party and not the third-party.

It could also leaves room of misinterpretation for the third party as well, once he/she knows about the situation of what happen beforehand, how he/she should judge about it and then afterwards.

Having to do something for a third party itself also arises problems of "Did he/she wants it or not and how much value does it give once the "Move" been made?". "Imaginary Value" gives more on the arising of the intention itself, "Realistic Value" after the "Move" has been made.

So what is "Imaginary Value"? Something that has been taken from a realistic description of what the third party description of what’s he/she value in according to their nature of preferences. So imagine if a handyman would give more value to his tools rather his socks, whatever and then start judging if this description is really correct by looking at a certain amount of handyman’s tools and socks and does it really correlate?

"Realistic Value" is then judge from this arising information. Is this harder with hierarchy in families; elders when the leader’s preference is provide their arising of conceptual characteristic wants rather to understand what is opinion, what is fact, what is out of range, what is BS?

(Stands for: Best for the listeners where the speaker’s intent was to explain according to their knowledge of understanding or what they are able to accept at the point of time because of their knowledge of the environment?)

For example: in my case, dad wanted a storage furniture in a garage. Long-term "Imaginary Value": more things could be fit into it. Short-term or arising "Chicken-Egg" problem; is this a good way to solve a third-party problem of storing his things. One it is overcrowding, second it is messy: claim by the person who arises the problem itself.

Another thing is to be asking did the person actually know about it? Did he really think it was a problem of itself if he did? Yes/no and why? What did it really cause the person in such an instant reaction from the crowd? What was the emotions inside and out?

The truer essence was: he sense there was something he did not want to choose at all in such an instantaneous reaction and gave a response that he did not support at all at that point of time of response.

In this "Imaginary Value" of "Move" had a negative starting point in the beginning. It was cut out at the boiling point of the discussions before anything could had happen. Act and result. Had long-term "Imaginary Value" which was positive and lesson learn; which was also positive; having a more clearer idea of the third party "Imaginary values" really lies.

(3:42PM Take a break. Relax)

Every person’s "Imaginary Value" is different; concepts are different but what is similar to everyone us in dealing with problems? The "Imaginary Value" of how shall they treat themselves and others. Some factors include attitude and what kind of world they believe to be in given to the information that they know.

(3:58PM Clear the mind, "Empty" everything)

Those who thought the things of the above was true; experience it and take whatever it is. Those who thought it was false; explore it and throw it away.

Remember the origin intent was neither to prove true or false. Understand happiness "within", peace "within".

Let’s refer back to the essence of ‘Move’ on how we behave as Objects taking in light information and transmitting information out to other human beings. Everything that is taken is from what arises in the imagination then what is this choice of us acting or reacting out to really coming from?

"I think therefore I am" - some philosopher

Therefore this is an act of "Judgment". Judging past experience, expecting to be similar to the current experience but things could not be expected exactly to the experience, therefore the so-called "suffering" of not really understand why.

Then what is "Non-judgment?" For me, it is the matter the "Stillness" of the mind of whatever arises in the imagination that is causing me to act or react at the same time. Nothing comes up, nothing goes down, nothing. Emptiness that clears away the environments surrounding us for a period of time; peace "within".

I would like to demonstrate a similar idea taken from a religion which I know, but not that I believe everything is true coming from this religion; for example of the Adam and Eve story of how God created the world, animals and beings in seven days and that they were living in happiness (non-judgment). Then God said them both not to eat the apple (arising-judgment) and eventually they did and fall into so-called hardship of humanity.

(2:40PM Take a break, have a moon cake)

The teachings from Nao Zhi (Confusius’s teacher) also taught similar things using a different example of having’s and not’s; there-is and not; arising of imagination and not.

Everything is relatively co-exists (this is "arising-judgment" which bring to the subconcious mind). It is only when the objects-being itself starts to be concious if it really does co-exists to other objects. If nothing arises, nothing occurs. So what does that mean?

I say it as the "non-judgment of Nature" of things; going back like a little boy or girl and exploring again the footsteps of what we had trod on in the path of our lives from the emptiness of the "Beginnings" where there is non-attachment (very-little attachment to the objects surroundings). When there is that "Emptiness", it can put anything into life itself; happiness "within".

Asking a question, if you had a piece of paper what would be the first thing in your mind you write for everyone to know?

Everything of what "arises" counts.

(2:26PM Hmmmmm….)
People who emits positive energy would probably have a fairer idea what does it really mean. Does it mean this? Does it mean that? Does it mean anything at all? We only know when we actually meet one. Why do we like kids? Because they are funnier than us. Why do we like certain actors in TV’s, whatever it is?

They are funnier than us; or doing something that different from our old boring selves; looks good; sexy; sense of humor; big, bold and beautiful; witty and dumb; acts cool; say smart things; whatever it is. Also with an inner sense of belief of certain things that goes in certain ways. That is a certain physiological factor of what steers and attracts and what does not; in the sense of making humanity happy.

What happens when our own self is not properly maintained of this happiness? Obviously it goes pretty crap out.

Now, future betterment for humanity involves in my own opinionated "Imagination":

* Accepting different morality standards of different culture, race and kind
* Scientific and logical approaches to the problem at stake
* A good team spirit from society itself
* Good health, food and living and a sense of humor
* No yumcha-ing that much unless the person really likes yumcha-ing and you accept that person to yumcha-ing
* Understand and develop better for us from the newer information itself on how should we grade the environmental surroundings to the betterment for us and others

Where does this really leads to? One thing is able to control better each persons emotional factors and seeing new light on different things.

The first thing to start of is to know:

No swearing (indirectly or directly)
No sexual misconduct
No killing
No stealing
No lying (for me, only to give positive energy, not negative ones) : in consciousness.

Giving loving-kindness and metta.
Something between religion and reality.

Second: Hang around with certain people who has these kind of positive energy; the environment also counts as well.

Third: Arts. Study arts, drama, movie, music, inspirational books of certain category and whatever can get a hang on for "Imagination"; treating "Imagination" and "Reality" in an arms length.

Put all this in a mix bag and do it in different order to see the results. Experience.

I haven’t really been "Nosing" around too much to know who has or not, why or why not; I treat everyone does has positive energy not matter what they look like, etc; they may not know how to show them exactly the way they like to be presented.

This is the start of getting the right understanding of our own self: meaning enjoying on what you are doing - regardless whatever happens next; having the "right energy" before moving to the next.

What is "Future Betterment for Humanity?" or how next society generation be shape as?

Pushing the standards of happiness is one factor for humans.

Anything outside the human experience would probably ask an engineer (maybe a computer engineer such as I?) about how should the cost be building the constructs that gives the human experience more value in each and everyone. Consistently engineer with a new improve concept for human habitation. This is the same as how computer improve every year, how they are getting cheaper, faster, efficient, better, less error, larger in dimensional space and size.

How did they really make that?  I heard a concept that now days it is computer that does architect that even humans cannot even architect in able-ing to do the job itself in designing their own things and does a better job. Why? The access of vast information at different dimensions and automatically combines and tests the effects of the compound element; may it be in materials, bio, whatever and could maybe give out more ideas of how to construct newer resources to the limiting resources which claims to be.

This applies with allocating people to places, work, training, experience and so-forth; for what is called the Maximum benefit effect for everyone getting their priorities and work done for a much more clearer perception of how the next-Gen be.

Afterword:
I guess it would be quite hard for those to picture what I am saying in reference to the experience and the books that been read.

Remember the pattern of words this society choose to use and the pattern of actions the society choose to take; where the majority uses to reflect their own light to others from their source of information access. Where? Newspapers, Books and mainly via verbal communication.

The main focus here is in changing certain choice of pattern of words changes the pattern of actions. Changing the experience light form changes certain patterns. In training them to experience certain ways changes certain patterns.

Problematic "Change": Nobody would like to highly define how to change. From Problematic "Creators and Maintainers" Creators saw a vision, maintainers follow the creator’s vision from training; end of story.

It raises questions on how much Creators vision was really followed and the intent of the vision itself due to different experiences both parties have. How much different experience is needed to teach the maintainers the creator’s vision? How much is needed to "Change" like light? Depending on the light source itself and how to choose the change to be.

(6:12PM Break for dinner - Coming back at 6:35PM) Therefore, it is more like actors in an imaginary world where reality is the limited sources which is coming from; from a list grading of those who react quickly like a ringing of a dog’s bell in dinner time causes the dog to saliva regardless if there is food or not to those who does not move like a rock.

Not saying one is better than the other because it keeps a balance; but yet more on the fact that there should be more imaginary actors on the lower scale and realistic actors on the upper scale of this society and a consistent training of every skill sets needed for future human betterment from different dimensions provided.

Imagine: When most people have satisfied their needs and wants; they have already reach middle aged and do not really know what they are doing after they retire except knowing that they would be happy to reach that stage from doing the same thing again and again and happy that they do not need to work afterwards from owning their earnings.

Imagine: When every person have satisfied their needs and wants and everyone not being satisfied from their needs and wants.

Eventually, resources reaches to a stage that it gets too expensive to satisfy the majority of the crowd where everyone fighting for the same thing - something like the game ‘Monopoly’,  no-one really wins because the winner will be the first one who loses from having too much of everything; land and money; opening a black-hole for those who loses.

Imagine: When every person have all overly satisfied their needs and wants?
Imagine: When every person commits to a certain program where every person shall be satisfied at the end of the day?
Imagine: Money earn being expires at the end of the day or end of the month or something like a earning credit points when every person have satisfied their needs?
Imagine: When every person understands the future human betterment idea?
Imagine: When does every person has training to do it?
Imagine: Imaginary actors crossing with different grades of Imaginary actors? (knowing they are actors and not knowing they are actors)
Imagine: When Reality and Imaginary is an arms-length away?
Imagine: When there is workshops, facilities, information for the sporting the Imagine’s?
Imagine: Knowing the 6 questions of asking each imaginary driving the imaginary?

I heard a statement of this from a movie: "What is the purpose of all this and the reply of this is the more that is asked about this the more non-purpose of this it becomes". This arises back on the essences of the "Problematic".

(7:38PM Finishing the bowl of fruits)
Tomorrow’s topic focus on "What is future human betterment?"; wrap up with references or say so focus’s should be, past experiences; Imaginary or not?

(5:30PM Woke up an hour ago from sleep)
Yesterday topic was crossing of the ‘Land’ where people in this world
define it is finite space ie limited. Is it? Remember on the
Problematic "Fin" where it takes so much time and effort conveying
information because of the different objects in aspects. Objects that
have missing information would convey things differently in terms of
light?

Most of us treat land as static; something that does not "Move". For buildings as well, something that does not "Move". I think people like to say there is a prefer sense we do not want land to be "Move" or moving to different land because of the so-called use-to-it.

Problematic "Abstract": It is the human who is really experiencing on their senses of their surrounding objects as they "Move". A human senses is very, very limited because there is an expectancy ratio in their own mathematical world of collected data of how things should be according to their own information.

Imagine: Stereotypical concepts of similar theme, similar plot, similar experiences fed into big systems itself again and again throughout time.

It questions the original purpose of the stereotypical concept the creator/s and where does it really want the society to lead into which is a just testing environment to lead a betterment for future society itself.

Problematic "Creators and Maintainers":

For example: A constructor builds a high storey building that uses the current concepts of the architect in the way they are built. As time goes on, the maintainence fee of these structure goes high because there would be a more improve, better object exist; such as cheaper cost, etc and the people who does the maintainer needed more work to do to upkeep the current concept which has become old - otherwords unefficient. Problem with high storey buildings is, it is very static when built.

Imagine: If moving people in is already hard enough. Moving people out could be caotic until asking every people and asking them what causes them to "Move". Ie: cost is respectively in accordance of how their cost in moving them "In" in the first place and the concepts that has been use to move them "In".

If systems can be built in transistional ways such as a flowing of objects and retaining a generic platform then the cost of "Maintainence" would be more efficient, otherwords pre-sent more on the present "Now" than before because the information has change already.

Imagine: Designing a high storey build that can be detach per unit leaving only concrete as the platform; with high mobility rate. Each smaller unit is a building block that has different type; maybe something like high storey building that is residential, commericial and industrial independence of the current wants of that building in time to time.

Imagine: Implying this to big static systems where concept design will reach to a stage of maturity and more concept arises to stretch from the origins.

Imagine: Humans as artist and actors morphing into onto different platforms everyday of their life which is natural.

In reference on Problematic "Abstract". It arises on
Problematic "Ownership":

Definiton: A person owns something such as the clock I see (on the left of the computer which I bought it for more than 50 bucks). Once I leave this room, I only know in essence that I own a clock but the clock is not in my experience for a certain period of time. So I would not know if the clock has been "Move".

It questions on how much humans are "Move" onto something that they did not own for a certain period of time biasing with something humans did own for the period of time.

This is the so-called "attachments" of worldly objects including the own self but may give the answer for Problematic "Creators and Maintainers" when there is a many-to-many in terms of creators and maintainers relationship and trying to bottleneck these two factors when one arises faster than the other; giving continual strains to both sides of the story when the creators continue create better ones and the maintainers training to upkeep to maturity.

Problematic "Maturity": Creators and Maintainers being "attach" to maturity in ownership of the creation itself, leaving little room for "Move" to adapt to the present "light" of information really exists. "Detach" from the "Attachment" and moving back to the origin clause of why did creators and maintainers exist in the first place.

So what is this "Why?" or so-called "Karma"(causes and conditions)?
Exploring a betterment for future human habituation which we ourselves continually changing without really knowing why or appreciate where should this world be really heading.

Appreciation of a own choice that needs to be made. When couldn’t do that, it would be crossing the barriers of what is the betterment for human habituation.

For example:
We all know vegetables is one of the easiest way for the digestive system work then why are we eating so much meat and so little vegetables? My dinner table has at least two-thirds with meat in them.

Some claim a mix of diet. Other claims it is their culture, nationality, language barriers. Other claims it is their own freedom. Others wants to convey something to their own bodies and others directly and indirectly. It is all valid. They can do what they want.

A more reasonable answer would be so long they know themselves it is right for their bodies to function in future according to their own preferences of the information that they know. As we all know past affects the present, present affects the future.

This is the same answer with people smoking with biasing of a past that there is no "Ownership" to but rather just a continual loop from some objects in our brains that causing to "Move" into certain patterns of thought and consciousness from our previous experience, education, upbringing or the so-called "definition" should-be from the Creator/s itself.

(8:51PM Time to sleep. Next topic: Choice from the "Mix Bag")

(2:47PM Finish doing banking, return home eating Mars Bars.Tired, Lack of sleep) Essence of ‘Move’. Different aspects of "Move".

Imagine: From the start of something arises to the point of acting. Let’s backtrack on yesterday’s posting "Now" on what was experience (senses) causing the point of something arises to the point of acting.

Imagine: People as compact objects regardless of which levels. There is a combinational level of us being built as solid, liquid and gas and what causes to move is when something arises like a light (in the speed of light; can or cannot be identified because we do not know how much information as humans we can really interpret from light waves) and like light we send/receive information. When the light hits an object it can be like a mirror; reflecting, it can be hitting an opaque object so it is absorbing, it can be going through like water so it is refracting and it could be like gas which is transparent.

This could cause us to act from the materials which we are really built from. It also causes chemical reactions as well causing to adapt, break down, redevelop, mutate, evolve, etc in terms of solving the problem.

Problematic 10: When this light is cause from humans and its creations. When original light is being broken down from the objects it goes obviously it changes the information.

Problematic 11:  The six questions in building language. Who, what, why, where, when and how.
Imagine: Time and place languages was built, who built them, what was happening, why and how when there was no languages. The sources came differently all over the world where each claims to be origins. Language came from civilizing certain people who understood the language together and separate those who did not. Therefore, languages is built from the essence of a cross. The time and place was also unknown but believe to be mutual; where there is different tribes consuming the language of the essence of the cross on what is so-called genetic evolution of evolution.

This leaves reminences behind of those who win and those who lost from the power of their languages. For me, being crossed by someone and crossing others does not make sense; emotionally and physically; whatever.

Imagine: the reminences of what is left behind from the language of those who won and those who lost. It is still crossing even if it is won or lost; either case. Remember the mix bag from yesterday’s last paragraph; try mixing each paragraphs and identify where is the emotions at. It would be quite simply, we identify more crosses that judges as negative than positive.

For example: The word Good; could become God, Dog, and could be G(Ge - Point) O(Hung - Red; bad) D(Dog - Gaou) in Chinese, a lot more differently that crosses the mind to a point of acceptance as so. Even worse when it comes to Ordering - per letter, flipping each letter around (d - g - p - q), shape, size, color and sound syllables and open creations into a certain negativity. So where did it result when feeding in these crosses time and time again? What could be say is there is a certain degree of negativity aspect to it in this example language cross and a certain degree of how we choose the meaning of language for our own causes which is one aspect from our emotions.

What kind of words encapsulate a positive one? Fan-tastic, Not bad, Excellent, Marvelous, Superb(Superv - pronounced); something that have essence of the similarity of both languages or the out of range understanding of the majority of the crowd of the known language from pronouncations, sound, different word, styles, etc, etc.

So what I believe is there is a choice between the crosses that has been establish before everything could be crossed out in different ways.

Problematic 12: Essences of human interpretations as Complex Number mathematicians.

(4:25PM Have a shower first hand from the headaches of typing
4:44PM Have a sip of lemon tea, back, feeling better)
Going back to "Integrals of a certain Function" as an Imaginary human mathematical function; the language rate of crossing could soon reach to a finite amount where the area is establish and set. It just becomes a "common crossing standard" as the result.

Imagine: Implying the idea to the current system to languages, sex, race, culture, our interest and values, economy, money, relationships, careers, religions, land of this world, resources which we have, etc, there shall be a common crossing standard
of everything that is arises.

Problematic 13: The building factor and the maintanance factor of the system. When systems are small, it is easily to be maintained and ‘Moved’. When systems are big and being built of past reminences, that is where these objects arises back to Problematic 10 of human as objects (example given Problematic 11 - language that was being arise).

Imagine: Objects change from time to time depending on the light sources that is being emitted; small systems can quickly change from the light source; yet big systems would take more time; ie. harder to change because they have more objects which takes time to transcend object and cross object and remember the more objects there is the bigger the error rate because of their large medium ranges. In this example this ’small systems’ is said to be more efficient.

Problematic "Fin": Going back to the origins of todays argument; what is the point of ‘Move’ and where are we actually heading if it is really true that there shall be reaching "common crossing standard" for everyone in this world "system" that we are in?

Hint: How much new ideas have evolve in the last hundred years, how much things that the current system have taken to adapt, how much facilities there is to train and change the current system.

For example: what is the current system most needed and why?

Building something for future human habituation from exploring what is currently unknown or unproven to us.

Growing a lot of food could be one factor that implies we shall need a lot of land to do that. But now, we could grow food like hanging gardens inside a high storey commercial complex building being provide with light and water. Then we could grow a lot of food.

Water: Desalination plants from the sea already is one solution. Therefore we have a lot of water.

Land: One of the toughest one for big systems to cope because it is really limited to them. High storey buildings could solve some problems of compacting them into limited space.

All of these leads back to Problematic 13 in the cost of maintainence terms. Is this where the "crossing" really starts for Problematic 12?

(25/8/08 6:57PM Radio on; news on killing, bombings, terrorist around the world, etc, etc)

It is six months now where there is so much news happening around which does not really make sense. How did spurred and how did investigations and interpretations go weird where it did not even prove a thing and catastrophes just explodes in chains?

Ok. Human handling error information. In and out. What fed in and what came out. If a tree falls downs in the forest, would there be a sound? If I ask you what sound it is. Boom, bush, blang, etc, if we measure in sound waves, it would be decibels, if we measure in words it would be numerical, whatever it is. So the impericals of the human own measurements is also wrong. When the person is emotional, it would also give a different aspect on the measurement. If the environment of the falling tree is underwater also gives a different mean to what it is meant. If the person is confuse, it also gives a different mean.

The question is: what means of that point of time am I am giving to whom on what statement and why; given in what I had said so much or so little in the blogs I had said.

Second question: who knows the exact truth and from which sources really referring to?

Third question: what is the testing environment that has been referencing to the person at that present point of time and being.

Fourth question: how did it cause this ripple effect of result?

Fifth question: what should really be the limits and boundaries of testing environment in future when similar occurrences happens.

Sixth question: what should be the standards for everyone to really know and understand so to keep the current system running and just to sort out the current problem.

Problematic 5: human error in fear relative to our perceptions (ie. our own senses) I am not God. One thing that is true. I do not know everything. I do not know the best solution. I do not know what is happening. Again. Chicken and egg. It is the matter of who said the statement chicken and egg really arises the chicken and egg that we imagine. Or the tree example of what I had said earlier ago.

Does this really solve the problem of what has been arise hand? Keeping things contain in this testing environment and how to move present information without going into some sort of different tunneling visions and not really getting from the primary source at hand.

(7:42PM Stretching in sore-throat, feeling over worked, listening to TV soapies on talking the other gender; listening about a person angry-ness about the guy and the girl; 7:50PM just watch a partial episode of this TV-Series about a gay guy, the girl  (concubine)who has his brother’s baby, the brother who has a wife confronting his concubine (and is pissed on the confrontation) and with the dad and how they confront with the problems ahead. Theme: rich, respect within the family, understand moral of the story)

This gives me arises on the how it really shapes our own perceptions on how we generally accept things on who is the bad guy, who is the good guy and who is the middle guy. Gay guy solves the problem. Being gay is un-respected in his family but what he does is understandable because he is helping the concubine to solve her problems without further problems going ahead. Concubine: having emotional problems on relationship of having baby and keeping the relationship with the person who she love, the brother who wanted to keep the respect in the family but does un-respected thing within what he loves as well and did not suggest he have family problems with his wife (probably meant he wanted to keep everything and prove to dad and brother that he is capable - I would leave the ordering matter behind) and the dad which I presume he did not even know anything or knows everything but in order to keep the family just acts as normal until things arises.

Lets go and ask in a eating fashion does it mean that? (Arising Problematic 6: Eating builds crosses? (if it is reference to eating - maybe arises to eating and language disorder when we eat and talk at the same time..??) - preferably say someone is trying to build a cross in our eating habits in reference to language because it supposably be Round? Is it a barrier in humans??)

So going back to the theme I had said. Is everything understandable? It is bias favor in the gay guy which is already a cross in the family, not favor for the brother which is already a cross in the family, favor in the concubine which is already a cross in the family, favor in the dad which is already a cross in the family. Having a general accepted theme is already a cross. Are we missing information in mentioning these crosses? If we know so much crosses in the missing information given should we have taken the move in the first place?

(8:19PM Feeling a bit sick currently; sore-throat)
Problematic 7: We-You-I : occurance as Trinity; effecting in you, i, we.
Problematic 8: Ordering discrepancy. I, we, you; We, you, I … arises alot of possibilities. Funny thing is Ordering is taken from the change of tone, the change of heart. Imagine what was written is a mix bag and ask people to choose from this mix bag what is the best solution to the problem. No one knows what is the best solution and the worse solution?
Problematic 9: Given in knowing and not knowing and the time it arises to the time it falls. Time shifting, occurring in time, again and again; missing information.

(8:34PM 25/8/08 Continue on tomorrow. Time for sleep )

Here give something hints mix the Problematic number; what emotions does it arise; mix the paragraphs together; what does it arise, mix each sentence of words together; what does it arises? Then what is move?

(5:37PM 25/8/08 Listening to a radio, theme: being thankful on artistic, change of heart, the change of tone and question how did it really reference to the previous topic I have written, with what I have done just then and listening with dad’s singing at the same time. Imagine with feelings giving back in reference on how do/did we treat things)

Ok exploring how do we interpret that?

For me if there is some correlation of what I had written then yes it could be a bit insulting or not; let’s not really use words of insulting; it is more like hey… how come it is like that? Is my writing not thankful? Rolling eyes… , eyes pop out, urmmm, nose moving, tweaking, whatever because writing and thinking and reflecting occur in a differently at different time and also reflects the person who said it with the person who is listening to it. Fat question which is hardly to be believe because of different mediums (one is sound waves, the other is computing) , unless … ho ho ho I do not want to go into that category of knowing.

If not, then listening to it is great news because it is asking others to be thankful on what they have such as what I have, what you have, what others have.

This is the question on going back how to treat things or how people are moved by things. Feelings, emotions, with our five senses (Sight, Touch, Smell, Taste, Hearing) and our experience from the past with the expectancy of how it should be treated as from upbringing.

For example: imagine a person you really like and a person you dislike and ask yourself why you like that person and why you did not like that person and compare the results. I give you an infinite amount of time and tell yourself when would you be liking that person and when not.

What really comes up causing not to like that person and coming down in causing in liking that person.

Imagine: This theory works for everything such as the things we see, the environment we experience, etc, etc, etc.

(6:25PM 25/8/08 I am writing this in friendster so am I really referencing the friends in friendster or as I am seeing the girls page on the right so am I really referencing the girls ad page on the right hand side of this blog or am I referencing the dinner I had just then where my family had to sit in circles with certain dishes in front of us and each plate means something and eating it means that thing so what is it?) Go back. Chicken and egg. (Ref: Beginnings and endings? Post)

From my own experience, it is always missing information because the past had already past.

Problematic 1: people referencing the past and think the actor of the past as present. But the actor is presently thinking other things that does not reference the past because it has already past. This leads to problematic 2.

Problematic 2: people continually referencing the actor the past as the actor of the present. This crosses the present and the past given in the example I just had given you. So what is the truth? Have to ask the beginnings and endings? or we focus on the past and put forward the past with the present which is looping around and around or we can start new fresh. When does it really expire that people do not really know of whatever we had arise from the problem given in front of us?

Problematic 3: Imagine the Problematic 1 and 2 is only what I imagine and really the truth to the story. This is the second side of the story. I can tell you one problem leads to four sides of a story; more and less and it keeps on changing depending on who really interprets this.

One thing imagine. I lied about everything I had said, done, did in the past. So that makes me a liar in the present. Second thing imagine. I am in truth about everything I had said, did in the past. So that makes me a truthful in the present. Imagine the person doesn’t even know what is he/she even doing in the past, what does that really make?

Ok. going back to chicken and egg. I really like to tell everyone it is not really what everyone expect because we only reflect on the past to make current judgment on the present. That is all can do.