Like New DIARIO

Hi!
How Great Video, had a lot of fun!
Amazing!
Seeing later.
Loving!!

Hi!
Amazing Video. Had lot of fun Nice!
Seeing later.
Loving!!

Hi!
Amazing Video. Had lot of fun Nice!
Seeing later.
Loving!!

Great video. Amazing!
See later.
Loving!!

Hi How Tremendous Lovely oh my Goodness You Looking and Doing!!
For little while before first dinner. Coming later at night for Hug Loving.
God Bless Thank You

Something happened to my developing on the forum, quite connected to all "little" problems I have to face, intentionedly brought out, to my daily living. I don't think it's a good thing to do (by instance, still listening to my cell and so). Forum has erase words. After the effort I've done, and with no getting out for walks, I have to face this. It's cruel, and Immoral forum of mine
But I have get used.
I said that I think the conflict for integrating these natures was some challenge Professor was waiting for me to try to explain. As You I think Knew (as I know You Did See my Pictures in cells; I can't understand this, but I am not angry; Good I see is heavy on these days ).
aND i THINK it's probably getting filtered again, what I say now.
Hope I'm Helping, from heart.
Now I know We're NEVER getting really connected, for the permanent lack of respect and manipulation, what I do it's my personal Fulfillment as Wish for Good Universal.


d

On the works.
Good brain and hands. Using.
How Very Nice Videos Today, and How the same I say about those yesterday's night Pictures! More than Delightful!
And coming for some sharing. Good I guess.
The more I investigate theories from other thinkers and my own own developing on logic and integrative sense of mind, the more I see how reduced was their thinking, in terms of critic and in terms of selfconstitution.
Heidegger criticizises metaphysics from occident since Plato, and Descartes and Kant; and thinks, following somehow Nietzsche (the psycologic motivation of Heidegger is the really connected essence to his personal understanding of Nietzsche: just the ultraman as selfaffirmation, which is translated to his theory). Though, he's just playing around with ethimology of ancient words, playing with all metaphors possible and with those of his own, by the use of the same reason his critisizing. Sorry me, but the vision that comes to mind is a chicken with halfneck cut, going around with no sense with the head hanging out (it's HORRIBLE, but I've seen it, when I had to go with my father to kill animals for eat them).
Metaphore I used because he perceives some trascendence (there's only a star on his epitaphy of rock, his grave, and he said something like give an str to follow), but can not explain it.
The same as Gadamer, when for explaining symbol, somehow following Heidegger, says this is coming from the ancient people, where the host and the invited person shared two middle parts of the same piece of wood ("tablilla de madera"), for expressing some mutual confidence and respect (you're part of me and the opposite thing); trying to express the symbol does mean some "game" of hiding-apperaring.
It's NOT this at all.
Symbol explains this problem, the same as explains the missunderstanding of Heidegger on metaphysics (and his unfundamented ontology, like some kind of purely primitive domination of the world by the ego, "being" on very brith words, but just for geting imposed by his survival strenght -in human, intelligence and smartness- on others; inspired by some big Good Lévinas Critic); on the way of trascendence as it is.
It's not, as Derrida says, by his Deconstructivism, that there's no longer a chance for an uniticity ("unicidad") of the sense/meaning in text/discourse; the operture of metaphore and all paradoxes can be integratively bring together by a integrative understanding of human reason, departuring from the first problem, as we could maybe define it: the problem of selfconscience of the terms of the logic-causal (this correspondence is clear: the sequentiality of logics and the temporarity of causality are two faces of the same process in mind, somehow, at the very least to whats related to the evolutive fundaments, growing up to abstractivity from animals).
The fact we can not fix by words this meaning does not mean there's not a core of sense, falible but real (as Wittgenstein would say about any specific language game; his difference: he understood the trascending reality of logics).
It's necessary to understand the biologically reality of the made up reason, on the evolution. It's not only logics-causality we use for the concepts and for the meaning and the sense, it's more, all of mind. Intuitive sense, this used to be called by philosophers as Schopenhauer. The complex system of integrative systems the mind is, as DAmasio would saym, including all biologic dimmensions. Not for building up an ontology with no epistemic ground, as Heidegger, but for the opposite.
And this, does mean including "the other" Lévinas claims for, because the biology is not only wild imposition, but also Sense, Emotion, Morals (with only logic reason there're no morals, here it's even more obvious than in any other field of philothinking). Only by all the things put together we can work out the existence with dignity and respect to values all People, in moments of calm, can see. The different visions of it is another thing, but the weight of values can drive our differences: by instance: 9.000 millions dollars for Siria! GREAT GOOD!
If there’s no chance for sense, how the… Derrida is explaining his reasons, the same as Happens with Nietzsche! Heidegger said, after IIWW “only a god can save us”. But it’s not for he comes to defend your reason, or for killing/dominating the good by the instinct of human prevalence, man, but for understanding his discourse as a global everything, impregned of Morals, Goodness and Wisdom from the transcendent dimension we all Need for the Sense. I am not this one god, but I think I can share and explain this good.
Our nature is biologic material, logic, transcendent and symbolic.
Very Good Hug, Loving!

Hi&Hug!


On the going. Really focused. Good
Have to say that Video from Book made me think. Two things.
First, when talking about "15 minutes" I was not talking about the "50" and many more these Books Do Truly Deserve. Cause beyond the stardom You are in, it's so Important Your Experience and Achievements on a really Special Living
Second, have to say that I think, Honestly, that not many people are going to get interested in publishing my treatises. By now, the University is not I guess, for this professor talked me about a private editor.
Anyway, I'm not very confident about my publishing chances, to be true.
So, the Video has also made me remember that I can publish in the internet, as e-book. From today I'll start looking after this way, asking and asking for help to people I know to get more and valuable information.
About what I am going to do, the Truth is that I do only trust in my capabilites and my efforts.
Not for special bad day on confidence on human, but for the 10 years trajectory of mine. Facts. And it's OK. The most important is to know what you can or not can expect. From this, you can start taking decissions. This is key and Fundamental to Anybody.
And, well, I'm not closing the paper, but if the paper does not want me... I'll have to do something fine.
And it's All. Back to so more task before some rest. Feeling Good. The more I work, the better I feel, about my Goals to achieve I mean.
Though I have to keep real about living world, I know
God Bless Families, and a Hug!
Loving for Always!!

Hi!


Very little moment, it's just that I have a funny foundation moment to share, from dream from last night.
I think, not totally certain thing, Brooke had come. And for something, we had a problem with this guy from the Classic Movie, Norliss I guess it's his name. I had to face him. He lifted a table, then I lifted a chair. He lifted a car, I lifted my skate-board. He broke a door, I said: guy, break a leg! how bad humor I made.
But it's True, there was something, though I can't remember exactly well. Fortunetely, I was Listening the "Top gun" Anthem for good part of the night.
So, it did not turn into nightmare; I was really tough rival for this guy
(well the fact is that I don't use to have nightmares, True)
Shared for some
Seeing, Hugs
What about another Nice nickname for You, with Respect of Kindness and Heavenly Childish Watching -so True: "Hugs". I LIke it.
I am not using nicknames for me, excepting David, cause I think it's too egotic, so True; cause, as You can see, through all the ego going, I'm not missing self.critic spirits at all!
One of first issues for Health: "Kind Self-humor".
Seeing the Love

Well, it's just a first very first version, I'll Try to read in the weekend for first editing of it.
But I Wanted to Share and Dedicate (anyway hope You All buy my books! ).
Did not go for a simple moment to the outside. Now doing for little while before going.
Everything's OK, a Big Hug Loving for Eternity!!

Hi!


My mind is close to exhausted.
But not!
I've been "multitasking".
This is a part of the result, on the phenomenologic and logic critic of cartesian reason (pure objectivity and deduction everything), from the inside (for this phenomenologic and logic, yes it's true... ), focused in the paradoxes of Russell and Epimenid for explaining the needed specific essence for the self-reference, from the same perspective (conclusions using contrafactic argument from the logic digression in projection).
I ADMIT, open terms, I'm a little ; but even though maybe there're People who may have some difficulties in understanding everything (me really had, and I'm sure there're some mistakes in the text I'm posting that I'll have to edit and correct). It's Normal, specially if you think about not exactly everybody has been dedicating the same time as me to the studying of these questions (Nice Friend Araceli -she says she knows nothing about my virtuous virtual doing when she gets photographed so close to the White House... ( - told me she did not understand Russel paradox, at the very least by now).
This is it. For Helping and for Proving the true usefulness of my tasking:
"Abundando en la cuestión. Al insertarnos ya en el ámbito del concepto simbólico-explicativo de la realidad, en términos objetivos, lo cual incluye comprensivamente el doble aspecto que estamos analizando ahora, esto es, el carácter no objetivable de lo mental por razón de su naturaleza no material y por razón de su situación externa a la relación “típica” de sujeto-objeto ; desaparece la reducción eidética y la unidimensionalidad ontológica, lo cual, a su vez, elimina de raíz toda posibilidad analítica absoluta de nuestra comprensión del mundo. Con esto, queda bien expresado que el problema con que se enfrenta Descartes es bastante más complejo y de una naturaleza más profunda de lo que podría parecer de principio, conforme a sus argumentos, y conforme a los argumentos de sus estudiosos. La “quiebra” de la analiticidad no es sólo un resultado de un correcto ejercicio de nuestra capacidad para la digresión lógica, sino una naturaleza innata que representa la base estructural de nuestra conocimiento.
Hasta aquí se han planteado una serie de cuestiones fundamentales que tienen un carácter altamente complejo y, sobre todo, problemático –lo cual queda evidenciado por la historia filosófica de estos conceptos. Se trata de focos de discusión que requieren un capítulo específico, en páginas posteriores. Sin embargo, para aclarar el contenido del presente sub-epígrafe creo que es preciso insistir un poco más en el carácter de la unidimensionalidad ontológica que procura la reducción eidética de la lógica o de la objetividad “simple” que trata de defender Descartes. A tal efecto, hay un ejemplo dentro de la literatura filosófica que parece casi llamar intencionadamente nuestra atención (valga la licencia expresiva), por el hecho de que conecta directamente con la cuestión de la autorreferencialidad, y la coincidencia no es casual. Me refiero a la conocida paradoja de los conjuntos de Bertrand Russell y a la paradoja del mentiroso Epiménides (s. VI a.c.), entendida esta última en un sentido ontológico .
Lo que hay que notar en primer lugar es que, en ambos supuestos –muy conocidos-, nos hallamos fuera de la unidimensionalidad ontológica, pues estamos hablando en términos de sentido, lo cual supone incluir todo el aparataje simbólico-conceptual de la mente en la discusión y en la comprensión del problema. Efectivamente, lo primero que debe notarse en una paradoja lógica irresoluble es la necesidad de “paralizar” el desarrollo lógico normal, en el contexto de la reducción eidética, para intentar descubrir, desde afuera del sistema, qué es lo que sucede; lo cual, por otra parte, es inevitable, dado que la paradoja supone una ruptura o quiebra de la dinámica interna formal del sistema.
La paradoja de Epiménides se refiere al posible supuesto de que, siendo el carácter de mentiroso un carácter esencial, como el de ser humano, alguien pudiera decir: “todos los cretenses mienten”, siendo el mismo autor de esta breve alocución un ciudadano cretense. El problema es evidente, puesto que al decir esto, Epiménides se niega a sí mismo, a la vez que se afirma, implícitamente (supongamos que estamos en el ámbito de la comunidad ideal de comunicación, donde no hay intereses estratégicos y todo el mundo dice la verdad), como un individuo veraz.
Por otra parte, la paradoja de Russell se refiere a los conjuntos normales (que no se incluyen a sí mismos, como el conjunto de los libros) y a los conjuntos singulares (que se incluyen a sí mismos, como el conjunto de las ideas ) y, más concretamente, se refiere a las repercusiones lógicas de la siguiente pregunta: ¿se halla incluido en sí mismo el conjunto de los conjuntos que no se incluyen a sí mismos? El problema es evidente también aquí: si no se incluye a sí mismo, entonces se incluye a sí mismo. Aparece, nuevamente, una situación de significado (ya, automáticamente tras la ruptura lógica, nos hallamos en el plano simbólico-conceptual del sentido) en que la afirmación y la negación no se excluyen mutuamente. Esto es una ruptura del principio de no contradicción de Aristóteles, que resulta estrictamente esencial no sólo para la funcionalidad de los sistemas lógicos, sino para la comprensión y el significado general. Por tanto, al efectuarse la transposición de la paradoja del ámbito lógico en que se halla Russell, por ejemplo (en el caso de Epiménides hemos tenido que hacer un añadido al planteamiento original con el mismo fin), vemos que el problema no se desvanece por sí solo, como por arte de magia; hay que pensar. Bastante.
En primer lugar, es preciso introducir algunas aclaraciones respecto del principio de identidad ya comentado. Aristóteles se refería, fundamentalmente, a la definición de “substancia” (ahora, con independencia de que su formulación original de los conceptos de substancia y de individuo fuera muy problemática en relación con dicho principio), que, a su vez, se refería a los seres y entidades substantivas –valga la expresión aquí - del mundo. Sin embargo, en un sentido ontológico más moderno, no es preciso referirse al ser sólo como substancia de algo físico, un ente, sino que es posible –y necesario- incluir otros aspectos no substantivos, como son la acción (el verbo), la descripción del substantivo (el adjetivo) y la descripción del verbo (el adverbio), entre otros. No debería haber mayor problema en esta afirmación, si partimos del principio ya expresado de que el ser debe entenderse en un sentido ontoepistemológico, lo cual supone la posibilidad (que debe justificarse a lo largo de los capítulos siguientes) de admitir, por el momento, que el ser queda constituido por el concepto. De este modo, no parece que haya problemas para admitir que existen los conceptos (en vez de la tradicional nomenclatura ontológica, generadora de no pocos problemas) de “embellecer”, “bello o “bellamente”, junto al substantivo de belleza.
La siguiente aclaración que es preciso efectuar es la idea del carácter fundamental de la negación como elemento constitutivo dentro del Ser o de la totalidad. Si bien es una cuestión que será objeto de un desarrollo mucho más amplio –y necesario- en los capítulos que siguen, me interesa reflejar su importancia desde una perspectiva no propiamente hegeliana dialéctica, sino desde una postura cercana al post-estructuralismo de Foucault, concretamente, en lo que se refiere a su noción de “diferencia”, como posibilidad y como necesidad intrínseca al conocimiento. En términos de la unidimensionalidad ontológica de los sistemas lógicos, la diferencia puede concebirse, directamente como negación (en los sistemas lógicos cualquier cosa distinta de la unidad formal “a” es “no a”; ahí no existen “insignificancias” ontológicas, ni “estados” lógicos), y éste es el punto de vista que quiero destacar ahora, puesto que en mi argumentación debo remitir al principio del problema, a lo que sucede dentro del sistema lógico.
En el primer supuesto –y ahora en mi exposición complementaré ambas explicaciones, referidas a cada paradoja- nos hallamos en un ámbito de analiticidad (al menos en mi descripción de la paradoja), pues se mantiene la noción de verdadero o falso como negación mutua, que “es” o “no es” (identidad frente a negación), en términos absolutos. Es decir, tanto en la afirmación general de “todos los cretenses mientes”, cuanto en la idea -que se elide en el discurso- de que Epiménides pretende sostener que no miente; nos movemos exclusivamente en el ámbito de lo que “es/no es”, de lo verdadero/falso.
En el segundo supuesto, aunque pueda parecer algo más complicado a priori, sucede lo mismo; puesto que respecto de los conjuntos normales contenidos por el conjunto objeto de reflexión, la esencia se predica de su carácter de conjunto en cuanto que elemento que “contiene” u ostenta elementos incluidos, lo cual constituye la definición de su esencia, en términos analíticos del mismo modo que sucede en la reducción eidética de la lógica como “ser” (“ser ‘a”); e, igualmente, esto se puede predicar del conjunto global.
El siguiente paso de la reflexión es un poco más complicado, y se refiere, precisamente, a que el hecho de que ambos supuestos puedan situarse en paralelo no es casual. En la configuración del sentido filosófico, ya vimos que desde los orígenes, el problema esencial a elucidar es la contraposición cognoscitiva natural de la mente humana entre lo Uno y lo múltiple. Si nos fijamos, lo analíticamente esencial de esta dicotomía son las dos dimensiones ontológicas que, precisamente, se reflejan en los ejemplos anteriores: la esencia de “ser” y la esencia de “estar incluido” (lo múltiple dentro de lo Uno). Con ello quiero decir, retomando el ya clásico ejemplo de W.O. Quine de que “ningún hombre no casado es casado” –como modelo excluyente de juicio analítico-, en esta doble dicotomía se da una analiticidad susceptible de abarcar todo el significado de la expresión “lo Uno y lo múltiple”, de forma que ésta sea perfectamente inteligible a priori en su significación esencial. Con independencia de que el problema requiera soluciones de rango hasta metafísico, esta doble dicotomía consubstancial es insoslayable para cualquier reflexión posterior.
Con ello, puede observarse que los dos ejemplos traídos a colación son de alguna forma constitutivos de las estructuras de nuestro pensar, en tanto que toda la conceptualidad filosófica sobre el conocimiento humano parte históricamente de esa dualidad, y adquiere en ella todo su sentido originario. Por otra parte, y ahora se comprende la primera razón de mi introducción inicial del principio de negación/diferencia, que es plenamente complementaria con la segunda razón, para mi argumentación final; esta dicotomía, de forma innata a nuestro pensar, lleva implícita otra noción: la ya precitada de negación/diferencia. Puesto que así debe concebirse el problema de lo Uno y lo múltiple como una cuestión epistemológica con significado. Es decir, es analíticamente correspondiente al significado (en el mismo grado esencial que lo son las nociones de “ser” e “inclusión”, la necesidad de la noción de negación/diferencia . Sin estas tres condiciones conceptuales, no puede entenderse el problema. La concurrencia de las tres representa la causa necesaria y suficiente para comprender el problema original de la filosofía, tras Parménides y Heráclito. El carácter “necesario y suficiente” es un carácter lógico, por definición. He ahí expuesto un primer principio de la lógica estructural inmanente al lenguaje, un poco más allá del punto en que la dejó W.O. Quine.
Pero no es, de momento, esta última cuestión la que estamos obligados a discernir ahora. Volvamos a la raíz del problema. Ese carácter de la negación, como tercer elemento concomitante de la discusión filosófica originaria sobre el sentido del conocimiento, se reproduce de forma particularmente “grave” en las dos paradojas citadas. Todo ello no es “coincidental”, pues los tres elementos: ser, incluido y la negación (o la diferencia); conforman la arquitectura de nuestra razón simbólica, bien entendida en el sentido de dimensión de sentido como unidad en la multiplicidad . Y, como digo, se manifiesta de forma “grave” en las paradojas –dando lugar a ellas, para ser más precisos- por lo siguiente, refiriéndome, en primer lugar, a la paradoja antigua en términos del supuesto ideal que he recreado a efectos de la explicación lógica y, a su vez, ontológica (porque para comprender estos problemas es preciso reconectar debidamente la lógica y la ontología): Epiménides hace una afirmación sobre una negación del valor de verdad que afecta al conjunto de todos los cretenses. En este caso, lo que “posibilita” la aparición de la paradoja es el hecho de la doble negación que se produce entre dos planos ontológicos (el total de individuos, lo Uno; frente a Epiménides, que forma parte de la multiplicidad, constituyéndola por el simple hecho de diferenciarse de cualquier modo) afecta a la esencia analítica constitutiva de cada uno, puesto que verdad y ser, en términos de lenguaje no son distintos. Es decir, si afirmo algo, el propio uso locutivo del lenguaje del contexto en que nos encontramos, estoy implícitamente afirmando también que esto es verdad, pues en caso contrario no nos hallaríamos en un ámbito comunicativo de la investigación, sino en cualquier otro del mundo de la vida, como creo que diría Habermas .
Bien, con esta doble negación de carácter ontológico y analítico, se abren las puertas de la paradoja constitutiva. ¿Y, por qué? Por razón de que se produce una ruptura de la unidimensionalidad ontológica en que nos hallábamos al principio, en el seno de la totalidad; es decir, porque se produce un salto lógico que rompe el carácter del juicio de verdad -al juzgar lo que dice Epiménides- como estructura analítica formal. Recapitulemos.
El hecho de partir de un conjunto de negaciones respecto del valor supuesto en la referencia objeto de juicio, “decir la verdad”, las cuales tienen un carácter analítico en los dos planos ontológicos de “lo Uno y lo múltiple” por dos motivos: porque cada uno (la dicotomía de unidad frente a multiplicidad) se define totalmente (reducción eidética) por ese mismo valor “decir la verdad”, y porque, como ya hemos explicado, lo Uno frente a lo múltiple también tiene un carácter analítico (por eso hay una transposición posible de la analiticidad); nos lleva necesariamente a la negación del juicio del juicio implícito (que es: “dice o no la verdad Epiménides”), el cual, no obstante, se mantiene en una esfera de analiticidad.
La conclusión de todo ello es que la doble negación analítica rompe todo el dimensionamiento unidimensional del sistema lógico en que se hallarían insertas las dos proposiciones (“todos los cretenses mienten” y “Epiménides dice la verdad”); y por ello se produce una falla lógica que llega a convertirse en una falla de sentido, en términos epistemológicos. Esto no representa ningún “salto” no autorizado del pensamiento (a diferencia de lo que sucede en la comparativa cartesiana de “pensar” y “existir”), puesto que éste –el pensamiento- opera mediante estructuras lógicas, como lógica es la esencia de la estructura del juicio de verdad. Para entender esto es preciso también comprender que la mente opera en sus juicios en forma de estructura lógica wittgensteniana (tal como ya comenté en su momento), con independencia de la problemática de la inducción y del carácter “abierto” que lleva consigo el elemento simbólico. Estas dos últimas cuestiones también serán objeto de explicación detallada en los capítulos siguientes.
El carácter esencial y clarificador de lo expuesto anteriormente, que a simple vista pudiera resultar baladí en un estudio somero de la cuestión (es evidente que se produce una contradicción, a “simple vista”), puede quedar de manifiesto en el análisis del segundo supuesto. En éste, podemos observar cómo se reproduce exactamente el mismo carácter contradictorio de lo analítico respecto de los dos planos, afectando también la cuestión a la esencia de nuestro aparato cognoscitivo, esto es, la ya comentada tríada de “ser”, inclusión y negación. Tenemos dos planos ontológicos, “la multiplicidad” y el “conjunto”, y un mismo carácter analítico que se niega, la pertenencia, en este caso, la cual, tras la quiebra lógica, no puede disociarse del carácter de la afirmación de verdad o falsedad cuando nos adentramos en el plano general del sentido.
El carácter y alcance analítico de la negación es posible en ambos casos por el hecho de que en los dos la reducción eidética se reproduce, respectivamente, y en cada plano de la multiplicidad frente a la unicidad, respecto de una misma categoría: la verdad/falsedad y la pertenencia. Y, a su vez, ambas paradojas se hallan intrínsecamente conectadas, pues en las dos se hallan implicadas las nociones esenciales representadas por la referida “tríada” que, a su vez, forman parte constitutiva y estructural (analítica) de los procesos mentales del sentido cognoscitivo.
Una vez presentada esta quizá excesivamente extensa reflexión sobre las paradojas, cabe plantearse cómo pueden conceptualizarse a los efectos del último paso (en sede del presente sub-epígrafe) para la comprensión inicial de la autorreferencialidad, autocomprensión o autoconsciencia. Y es un planteamiento capital para dicha comprensión, que llevo a cabo en términos de contrafácticos. Desde un punto de vista lógico (de acuerdo con el método ya descrito de la digresión lógica a efectos de “medir” el ámbito de lo posible y lo no posible ), y de acuerdo con lo anterior, bien podría producirse también la negación de la negación, por tanto (en forma de paradoja), en el mismo ámbito de la autoconsciencia. ¿Por qué esto no es posible, pues la lógica nunca ha matado a nadie?, al menos no de forma directa. Simplemente, porque la autocomprensión requiere de un elemento extralógico, esencial en la constitución del conocimiento humano, intrínsecamente simbólico para la conformación del sentido. Con esta afirmación, creo que queda patente la necesidad crítica que denuncio a lo largo de este sub-epígrafe dedicado en buena parte al método solipsista cartesiano, cual es la de replantear substancialmente el significado y naturaleza de la racionalidad epistémica humana, lo cual sin duda afectará a la comprensión no sólo de las estructuras lógicas y extralógicas intervenientes, sino también, obviamente, del elemento normativo de los juicios de verdad".

Hope you may understand how I am truly getting further and further from the reality of You All.
Even an animal, when it's badly treated, will untrust in you.
How can you try on me this doble mix?
Good or Bad?
Respect or War?
What's Up?
Situation is getting worse and worse. Soraya, Mariano, Obama...? Are you sure you want to keep things this way?
Make these people go away from me. Help me. Change this policy. Help us All.
And, Brooke and friends, are You still Sure that don't want an honest talk with me, for telling me what's really happening and for try to somehow solve this situation , all together and for the better for All?


Have to say this weekend came to mind more Good things.
1) Much better defined for a new concept of analicity
2) Explanation of consciousness and of conceptual thinking from its origens in animals. Really Good.
3) More Complete Perspective for the Language, Connecting to the Emotional Part of Mind through the Symbolism.
Really Important Improvement.


And none of them came to mind for the real life watching and spying. I Swear!
Now some symbolic yoga in mind for going beyond all this.
Dont anybody of those I named really care about consequences of the conspiracy; and about the consequences of my doing or thinking towards them; and about the possiblity there's no emotional turning back, social terms?
I am

Hi!


How are things!!
That Video from John Carson TV Show, New One, is so Very LOVELY to See, Thank You! I'll Watch today again.
Had a Good sleeping night; this is Key to All.
Today feeling a little more better, not top, little far from it, but enough for working well and start the focusing for texts again.
Beautiful, Heaven.
About Videos on sentences, some are really Bright, very Smart. Not all at the top of mind is Normal, Einstein was not able to be "Einstein" (the Celebrity) for the 24 hs a day, so...
I Love the belly in that Video from "The Middle" because it's Beautiful and because there it's a little pulled by the skirt, that makes an even more Sensual effect. It's a Cuteness and a Treasure to me!
And now, to Task.
I Love You!!

Hi!


What a Real Good One!
Thank You Guys, Today Show NICE!
And a truth of mine: you making pressure on hand and I not and "rejecting" this type of touch: two main Reasons, at the very least, CONTRADICTORY BUT NOT SO MUCH.
1) Self-defense before a not very predictably friendly unknown
2) Too deep wills for Delicate Touching; wills that were Increased for the Fear from the bad choices as possibilities I had in my prevision upon the time that was closely coming Ç(for the 1) reason), for Not breaking Chances for Good.
True.
Feeling quite Fine about this Moment
Though, I think it will ALWAYS be COMPLICATED between us. Too Intense Me and Too "Challenging" You; You KNOW it's TRUE!!
For Helping Feel Well: I think we can Never be TOGETHER, NEVER, for these Reasons (fifty per cent guilt, to my Subjective opinion); so I'm Accepting All "órdenes de alejamiento"; and so True, till the point I SWEAR that if someday there's a REal chance for working teacher me at Princeton or Harvard... (Prestige and Money -the second I SWEAR JUST FOR MY FAMILY), I SWEAR I AM TOTALLY ABLE TO NEVER GET CLOSER THAN ONE KM to You, Lady of my Heart, my Eternal Love of Mine!!
This is not for my personal interest, as long as I'm Not much hopeful about any recognizing for me at any moment of my life, True; I said it for Feeling Peace, related to the thing "between" us!!
Ah, and I don't like too sexy leading guys in Movies...
Obviously, this Was a joke. Human is Human.
Loving Eternally, God Bless, Seeing later!!
Now me to some more rest, while ideas keep flowing for treatise. Later conscious development of "Consciousness"
I'll have developed two points, this week: 2.1 "Vida y consciencia" (or something like that, Not remembering title now True) and 2.2. "crítica de la ciencia como crítica de las ideologías".
Agenda ¨Goes Well.
As A Gen of Eternal Love!!

Just little moment.
Politics.
I dont like very much to get politicslly fixed, cause me not anarchist of course but too selfish on my sense of freedom. Its too strong, i Need it.
This Increased so recently for much morr ethically justified reasons: my work for hearted human reason, as a coomon ground to build up a bettet future, and more human, to my opinion, souls.
Obviously, its Clear im with the Human Progress. The Theoric Principlrs in Constitutions and Declaration of Huma Rights... Freedom, Equality, Fraternity... Love, Caring, Protection of Kids... Ideals from Middle Age knights from the Literature... Many Sources Are Needed for some Future Better. Earth...
Its Important fact its Possible to Combine different sources for something Good. Not for a breaking revolution, an armaggedon in structures; just a little jump into The Most Purely Human. Agressivity, malice.. These animald have too.
Creativity, Empathy, Altruism, Expression Art.. These things.
Well and now to rest. My pleasure to share it.
God Bless!

how really I have to be at this moment that I did leave the forum opened (Brooke Picture Shining! ) on the pc screen. I remember I had to listen to some music before getting out for a while... But I did go out to another table for some reason of my tasks.
Well, as I said, stopping hearted "mindbeats"
See and see later...


ps: it's OK, just many things doing and much focused. Controlled, True. Said for fun, and also for expressing in my own person what I said before. Just for the better, sharing experiences.

Hi!


I'm Working.
Also, I have called the Police Station, just to Know the Legal Time of the Day.
Though, I've been called for telling me it's not them.
I'm very objective, actually, True. I'm calling in anyway if they don't respect the Law. And CALMIE, TRUE!
I'm Amazed for the Actual state of my emotional mind. It's Blessing.
For not going much murther. yesterday's night. After watching a Movie, "Cocodrilo: asesino en serie" (yes, not always philosophy, though I Admit lately I'm more on sports -Pep and El Cholo are Both Tremendous, though me Cheering Atlético de Madrid- and docummentaries: "Cosmos" and "Story of God" I Like so Much, I'm tapping them).
Some emptiness in mind... And Calm. Calm. I mean, I Always slept well, excepting few days sometime; but this awaken state in bed, with the mind flowing realistic terms on reflections about "all"... It's New.
And, at the very least to me, it's like a "definitive" prove of my actual "maturity" of emotional mind. I'm HAPPY.
Honestly, the "idea" of bringing these guys Family beside my house...
If All Had Been Normal, I Know and You All Know, I would Have Stared Normal at them. Nice.
Look at my relationship to All other Nice neighbours. Look at it.
Well, I Swear I'm Keeping my Calm.
And NEVER, NEVER using UNJUSTIFIED violence or any other kind of agressive expression towards them. I SWEAR. You All can be CALM about it.
Me, even when the most in my life moments, have ALWAYS been Brainy at this kind of things. True!
And what about calling Vero and Kelle?
I knew they were tapping conversations. And I thought it was "only" for Her Eyers (Ears) and I was so HAPPY for this, so THANKFUL IN HEAVEN for this; and also so STUPID for impressing her, for proving things -like me "un hombre de mundo que ha vivido casi todo", because of her well known Big Range of Vital Experiences I wanting to prove it- that now I See how stupid they Were (by instance: I have never had sex with a Lady from Asia... I Condemn myself too, Brooke, and I Cheer Up your not so nice answers, for this and for other things; True I Swear!).
But I think a normal call... What do You think about it? Not so bad thing, right?
I Swear not talking about You, just about what's going on about me, Lady. True!
And now back to task. Inspired, Focused. This is Going on so Well.
Finishing on time, and Results much better than I had ever expected for.
Accepting collaborations, professional, for publishing. Spanish, English...
Sorry for the "business", it's I think I Needed side to get expressed now for a really like "total" Good staying!
See, and see later!!
Big Good Greetings, Loving!!

And How Beautiful Looks!
Had i said it before?

And though what I said to me it's funny, People Loving me said that they wanted to "beat" me, for this. They just complained and asked for more care, that's all.
And sorry for talking too cute ways like You delicate glass, Obviously it's not this. My guilty. It's just that the Loving takes me and...
Good Hugs Loving!

Posted at that point cause cell was on induced crazy again.
Missunderstanding of me reveal serious lack of intelligence and of empathy.
Maybe a little excusable at once, but now totally ashaming.
No problem with these people existing and doing. Im Focused in Love, Duty and Healthy going.
Also know some would change these dinamics if they could.
God Bless!
When agressive talk me (never physical though all) i was in "enajenacion mental transitoroa"already for Loving and Feeling Attacked; a True thing.
No excuse: in street, you find an agroamerican Gentleman, and say tp you but out loud, looking elsewhere like nothing: "i see nigger tonight".
Gentleman is in his mind when angry or not?
For finish.
After first time, i became Angry and i haf fear, looking at all happening alone.
My reactions then were normal.
And now, to say some bright thing and in end of dsy saying me tired (,after ton work) is not bipolar.

Thank you forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've been thought about the dealing with this "moments" of creativity before computer in the morning; cause the blogs are not able from my pc, for reasons of work.
I'll write them, and I'll keep in penndrive, for posting later, "en diferido" but real the same.
I started by the relativity theory, and I think I'm almost ending at it too.

I just can say these ten years are Something in my life to remember. Bad moments passed away in my memory, already; and only the best: the good ones and the learning from the bad ones.
Probably, I'll never see again Brooke Shields.
As I'm never seeing any of you in real life.
But I Want to Take this PIcture with me, this Magic Sense that's Flowing Here right now. It's some Hope to me upon the future, of mine and of the world.
I'll remember in those low moments that will come for sure.
Please, whosayers, keep Posting; beside all other Nice things, Remember I'm Watching, as I am Able to Feel We Do Really Share Something Good, Pure.
And, to Brooke, I just can say Out Loud that I Wish All the Best for Her, Her Family and Her Friends! Always!
Hasta luego a todas y todos

Hi!


And about "The Big-Bang Theory" I forgot to mention Amy's Mom, so Lovely.
I Remember that Scene, where Sheldon is telling her, by pc screen, good-bye; so nicel all... but finally adding "tengo que hacer el coito con su hija"...
The of that woman Mom and all of the moment was so VERY , I Still when I remember.
It's ; and the Truth is that I did not forget that Character intentionedly, I noticed I had forgotten ; and this Scene almost immediately came to mind, so Tremendous and Funny.
Well, on the going, back easy to Work.
Loving Very Good!!

Hi!


Here alone. Its a night.
Truth: there're no "Debs", in the me-ani-ng i mean, from the days at Feinsteins. Its True that all those gentlemen together there could have given me "sense", or meaning. Many ones and me alone. But i was not too worried, "barbo-teen" flowing up was more than enough in those moments...
Ans,we ring; the bell i mean

Its very late...
I see connections are working everywhere. Net, neibo and tv. Its a real lack of interest to me. Things at sight i Clearly See; motivations... Well, very heterogeneous and varied i think.

First, Thank You Christopher and Gary.
Second, i have no space for explain well what i said on Russells, too difficul t to fingers lol.
But its True it is Done, and that critic is the same as Godel but for different reasons.
And i am crazy, in minutes since last post and my entering in the internt (not now after low minutes writing), i "Solved" second part.
Negative of negative is not positive.
I mean, saying "its not green" ok. But here us nothing closed as identity. Can be many other ones. Negation of the opened as this id not bringing you a fixed identity principle, but a paradox; this means a revolution to logic of language, i have just seen, at the very least to very classic stream on meaning.
For more investigation; but now i have the intuitive and True answer to All of paradox.
Good night.
May i take Xisca with me to Harvard, or Princeton...?
Einstein did not have to teach. Just investigate. I Want to Achieve this level of recognizing. Not for ego, but for time dedicated for more and better investigations and, obviously, for the Family of Mine.
God Bless!

Brutal efforts on philosophy that are key and all payed work actualized.
A person like me, stalked by drug trafficants at home and a psycopath at work, what is happening?!