jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (57 posts)

A Cyclic Vision To Existence

  1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
    The0NatureBoyposted 4 years ago

    I'm the philosophy (lover of wisdom) Elijah Alfred "NatureBoy" Alexander, Jr. with the "Pin Name" The0NatureBoy.  I use the because I was required to have an alphabet first, zero because 1 plus negative 1 equals zero which makes 0 the only whole number, nature because using cycles to explain existence makes the self-reproducing and man's made environments natural and boy because I'm the sperm producer of our specie called man which makes girls be man's sperm producers and prepubescent man man-child(ren).  I also am using zero instead of one when speaking about a thing because it is complete in itself.  Because 1 plus negative 1 equals zero I generally use the term Zeroverse rather than universe.  I use blue because it's easier on my eyes than black.

    Every cycle have a seen/positive and unseen/negative side suggesting the Zeroverse is made like an onion with earth one of many the layer covered center balls layered to and including the outer skin, the Phoenix or Sum Bird and 0 I use as it's symbols because it has never been made nor never end.  The positive Zeroverse is when all the observable manifestations are in existence as the sun bird and it's negative is when they are decomposed like the phoenix in ashes.  Every manifestation has something like a honeycomb cell in which everything gets its definition from that I will now apply to earth and its inhabitants. 

    Every living manifestation has a lifeforce which evolves through every individual attribute of its and all other species.  Each attribute of the specie has a specific honeycomb cell from which it draws its DNA announcing everything concerning its existence, length of existing, sicknesses, and every action preformed like killers, psychologically disturbed, additions, rich, poverty and everything in between and beyond.  I have given 182,000 years to man on earth's cycle. 

    I haven't determined what the first earthen specie is but karma and reincarnation require what I estimate to be 700 million lifeforces to enter earth at any one harvest time (a time when a mass of lifeforces moves from specie to specie in what I call a timeline) {the specific sequence the lifeforce will migrate or evolve through every type specie} and evolve through every type of attribute in every specie.  Living as those species there's interactions within and between species called karma which the lifeforce retains memory of but upon reincarnating it doesn't usually, but to give man a glimpse of our eternal nature it occasionally does, allow memory into the new incarnation. 

    {Here we'll use the Connecticut school killing to explain karma in detail.  The shooter has been or shall be -- we'll use has been for this explanation -- each person he killed as they are all in his timeline.  The specifics of which is first isn't important.  That makes each person the killer killed to be at least 182,000 apart and the closest the same behind him in his incarnating sequence or timeline.} 

    Only man incarnate to be harvested from the earth, raptured, so they go through a metamorphosis (new birth) where they recognize they are the lifeforce and not the body.  As a new adolescent they begin to remember bits of their past life and integrate what the I am my body mentality segregated and judged good and evil into a comprehensible realization.   As a new adult they come into the abilities Jesus demonstrated and remember every language of every specie (speaking in tongues), heal their own bodies even from death so long as their heads are not dismembered (the purpose behind Revelation 6:9-11 which Older KJV says they were beheaded) and communicate lifeforce to lifeforce with others (how Jesus healed others) to heal or raise them from death. 

    Man's earthen cycle consists of this material and a spiritual civilization (Revelation 21) of 84,000 years each with two 7000 year transitions like first light to sunrise and sunset to dark.  It's during the transitions that harvest time happens. 

    To go from this material to the spiritual world everyone living in it has to discarnate to forget this material world or it could not be formed which is the reason for the Apocalypse called the end of the world.  They will began to reincarnate during the last 6000 years of the transition as children of the remnant Christianity calls the saved as they are harvested zero at a time (Matthew 20:1-16).  Going from the spiritual to the material world the rapture is all at once as Genesis 1:1-8 shows but it will take until the end of the 6000th year to learn their physical bodies enough to eat and reproduce and they only reproduce the 700 million who enters the man specie from the last specie before man.  The Adam Concept through the flood (Genesis 2:3-9:29) is the metaphors explaining the rise of this material world. 

    Those harvested enters the first layer around earth and oversee that the earthbound life in their timeline to do exactly what they did when they were here while preparing for the next layer.  Unlike on earth, there is no death so going from zero honeycomb cell to another they metamorphose to retain memory.  That continue until reaching the outer layer of the onion at which time the lifeforces forgets everything and remains discarnated to forget everything which prepare them to go through another timeline.  However, ultimately, every lifeforce becomes the lifeforce of the Zeroverse when the Phoenix discarnates.  It's during the phoenix's discarnation the lifeforce destined to bring it back to life learns the location of every other lifeforce to ensure no lifeforce line jumps and get ahead of another in the process.  It's this lifeforce religion calls god and science calls intelligent design.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wow, so much gibberish AND an annoying font color.

      1. wilderness profile image93
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know - mathematicians the world over will be ecstatic to find that the only whole number is 0.  It is a startling revelation of enormous value to us all.

        I quit reading at the point, so didn't have to put up with all the blue.

        1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
          The0NatureBoyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I apologize for the annoying blue but it made it easier for me to edit since for some reason black and white is against my eyes which I already use glasses for reading anyway. 

          I've given that to some mathematicians and only one accepted that concept which the numbering system we use suggests is a fact.  Once we complete 1 through 9 in counting we use the zero to represent all nine numbers and one of the nine to represent them for showing how many times.  Every time we exceed 10 usages of them we then add another zero as 200, 3000, 40,000 and the like. 

          The way to count in cycles is like the American football field, leaving zero or the goal line we begin with one and at the halfway point began returning to the zero, therefore, when we are counting to what's actually an odd fractions at the halfway point we use the decimal of point five (.5) for returning to zero.   It's very logical according for how we count today.

          1. wilderness profile image93
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It didn't occur to you that as of all the people you've explained this to only one (a non-mathematician) has agreed just might point to it being false?

            1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
              The0NatureBoyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Why isn't it like the prejudice of the field of study they accepts instead of seeking the integration of all concepts?  Both your and my fields of vision has validity.

              1. wilderness profile image93
                wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Because the vast majority of concepts dreamed up by people untrained in the specific subject have no validity - no connection to reality.

                That makes them a wee bit difficult to "integrate" into a field of vision that is designed and required to represent reality.

                1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
                  The0NatureBoyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  When I was in the seventh grade when they were teaching me the positive and negative number concepts I told them then, but without the power of reasoning why except 2 haves makes the whole, I said it to my teacher who dismissed which made me not want to even finish high school.  My mother, having been a teacher herself, required I at least get a high school diploma, so I did, but I turned down a football scholarship to college. 

                  It has always been my nature to question things established as the actuality when it was not logical in relation some other law(s).  That is why I left off living civilized and studied nature, science, math and religions in search of truth back in 1976 until just the past few months of this year.  In living the life of an objective observer showed me many errors society have adopted as reality but doesn't logically fit into the rest of earth's patterns.

                  Reality suggest if something exists then it can't be good nor evil but can be a deviation from a norm, which may well be the deviant from what is the actual norm itself.  That's the reason for the disagreement here, most man don't want to believe they have lived so long believing an error to the reality, they are satisfied with the status quo.

                  1. wilderness profile image93
                    wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "Whole numbers" are a defined concept, useful in mathematics but that's all.  You are attempting to change that definition, based on changing other definitions and a perceived correlation to cycles. 

                    Your definition does not fit with the uses of the term and are thus of no value.  If you want a new term to indicate such things you need to make a word for it, not try to change a word already in existence.

    2. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not going to wast my time here, but O is NOT the only whole number. Whole Numbers are simply the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, … (and so on). There is simply no point in reading the rest if you don't understand whole numbers.

      Your words:
      (I'm the sperm producer of our specie called man which makes girls be man's sperm producers and prepubescent man man-child(ren).)

      You are not (the) sperm producer, you may be (a) sperm producer.
      Girls are not man's sperm producers, the testes produce sperm,

      I can't go on any further.

      1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
        The0NatureBoyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        All boys are the sperm producers of man and all girls are the egg producers, how many times did I read over that section and not catch it amazes me.  How many times have I either put egg behind boys and sperm behind girls and not see it in the editing is astounding.  We are all perfect for our purpose but do things which makes us not to appear perfect.  Life often do things like that to self editors.

      2. The0NatureBoy profile image79
        The0NatureBoyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What is the definition of whole?  Isn't it complete and self-contained?  Then wouldn't a whole number contain both the positive and negative, if divided or multiplied by itself it is still complete as well as when added or subtracted from itself it is still complete?  Then why don't I understand whole numbers since only the number zero meets that definition.

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Is an apple the same as apple juice?  Why should the definition of a "whole number" have anything to do with the definition of "whole"? 

          The most common definition of a whole number is the set of all integers, but the closest that comes to the definition of "whole" is that it includes all those integers, which is a different concept.

          One could also claim that whole numbers are those without a fractional part - 1.5 doesn't qualify.  The number is a whole unto itself and doesn't include an additional part of a number.

          1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
            The0NatureBoyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The name -- integer -- derives from the Latin integer meaning literally "untouched," hence "whole": is how the dictionary reads.  You will notice the definition for numbers should be untouched and not whole.  Why?  Because we have touched, that is to say fractured, every number by applying a positive and a negative to them.  Even the dictionary agrees with me when the words are understood.

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              whole number
              n.
              1. A member of the set of positive integers and zero.
              2. A positive integer.
              3. An integer.

              The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

              Guess you can take whatever definition you want.  I know which one works when communicating with others, at least for me, and will continue to us it.

              1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
                The0NatureBoyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No wonder so many United Statesman are not able to communicate, the US don't have a standard by which to define words.  Any way you want to cut it is OK in the US so accept your definition for whole numbers which negates the definition of whole and I'll accept the definition of whole and recognize everything except zero is a fraction and the more numbers added to them the smaller the fraction become. 

                We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

        2. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          A whole number. A whole apple. Two whole apples. Three whole apples.
          Half and apple. One and a half apples.

          1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
            The0NatureBoyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The way the numbers are set up 1 is half of zero, two is 2 parts of 1 half of zero, three is 3 parts of half of zero because te other half of them is the negative which makes therm whole.  But I'll agree to allow the tradition to stand so long as we realize 1 to 9 are only whole numbers in half math or half counting.  So we can agree to disagree.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I have no idea what your talking about? "three is 3 parts of half of zero"?

              three:
              equivalent to the sum of one and two; one more than two.

            2. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Judging from Rad Man's question, you are having a little difficulty in communicating even very simple concepts (whole numbers).

              Perhaps, just perhaps, it would improve in you used accepted definitions rather than making them up yourself?

              1. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No no no. It just has to be me. I'll get it eventually. Let's see three is 3 parts of half of zero... I know what 3 parts is, but I'm having problems with half of zero. If I have zero apples can I divid no apples in half? I'm just lost.

                1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
                  The0NatureBoyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Three plus negative three equal zero therefore three is half of zero divided into three parts, negative is the other half of zero divided into three parts.  If i used fractions to describe it it would be three is 3/6 of and half of zero, the other half of zero is negative 3/6.

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Negative numbers are not whole numbers. Perhaps this is where your getting confused? Three is simply one more than two.

                  2. wilderness profile image93
                    wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    As 0/2=0, you'll have a hard time showing half of zero is 3/6.  Especially when you also claim that it is -3/6, which would mean that 3/6 = -3/6.

                    Even if you're dealing in semantics instead of math, each half of a whole is identical to the other half, which means that  they cannot be negatives or mirror images of each other.

    3. kess profile image61
      kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I can only point to the flaw at the base of of that which form your entire thought structure,
      There are many other things I can point out, but these can be easily seen once you have laid a proper foundation.

      In the foundation your flaw appears which in turn makes everything else flawed.
      The flaw is 0 (zero) is the only whole number.

      The only thing whole about zero is that it the whole of nothing... both in concept and practice.

      To clarify the concept let do the math..... 1+-1=0

      this means that the 1 has negated its own self and become whole of nothing,
      Only the -1 has the power to negate the 1, thus the result of 0... which is absolute in its ownself...
      and because of this as 0   it mirrors the 1 but only as a negative reflection.

      Whosoever perceives the true nature of the 0 will also see the 1,
      and will see that 1 is the nature of God/life and 0 is the nature of Death/Devil.

      When the 1 does not perceive itself for what it is it is consumed by Death, by the way of its own negative.

      Therefore 1(man) + -1(mans own ignorance of self)= 0(dead man)

      This is why the origin of 1 can only be nothing(0)
      Therefore 1 has always been, always is, and will always be....
      And 0 will never be its enemy but its ally for it has become a part of the 1.

      The 1 alone is Whole, perfect and self sustaining self replicating...LIFE

      1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
        The0NatureBoyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The zero 0 is the mirror through which the 1 sees a reflection of it's negative counter part.  Zero doesn't mirror the positive 1 but is the window allowing the negative 1 to be seen.  If the origin of one is nothing, or zero, then you are saying exactly what I'm saying, [b ]Zero is nothing and everything at the same time[/b] is why when we take something from zero we leave the vacancy as the mirror to see the negative counter part. 

        What do you consider the definition of JHWH or YeHoVeH to be?  My research says it means I AM THAT I AM which says it is neither positive nor negative but because man ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they divided Yehoveh -- Zero -- into god and devil to create the negative devil and positive god.  Therefore, man made god and devil after disobeying the command don't be judgmental.  The book says death came because of man's judging which is nothing more than saying I like and don't like.

        Had you been thinking objectively you would have seen that but in your prejudice you missed it.

        1. kess profile image61
          kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I say Mirror
          You say window

          But understanding the nature of Zero is the question here.

          You say (0) the only whole number
          I say it is the whole of nothing
          it Mirroring the whole of all things which is the (1).

          You say I am prejudice thus unable to see.
          I say I see this is why I have spoken.

          Many things I agree and disagree
          But your foundation is where I point to the cause of those disagreements.

          Even I can agree and say it is indeed a window that allows you to see the 1 as in a mirror, thus you see -1.

          But the entirety of the Negative amounts to Zero...Nothing, Death

          And is never inclusive of the positive, otherwise it cannot be Zero(nothing) but now is Something.

          This is the origin of this age....
          1 going into the Zero causing it to be something rather than nothing...
          but yet in the Earth the  both the 1 and the 0 can be clearly seen for what they are.

          So to the 1 the 0 is merely something that has become part of itself and being used for the purposes of the 1 and not for 0 itself.

          You might continue to disagree, but you are the one changing the natural order of the Zero calling it a whole number. I am saying this you need not do......Just saying

          1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
            The0NatureBoyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            My foundation, zero is the only whole, is correct because 1 has a negative counterpart which makes it incomplete until united with it's negative or positive half.  Zero has it's positive and negative so integrated that one doesn't recognize it until squeezing it's center produces the Lemniscate or infinity symbol that represents the circle zero or ball.   The zero when added or subtracted to itself or another number become another number but not Zero, the only whole.  1 is never divided by itself but when multiplied by itself does equal itself although it doesn't follow the the adding or subtracting requirement to be a whole.  In other words, every whole is a whole no matter what you do to it.  Why, then, is my foundation an error? 

            Zero is all containing therefore appears as nothing but in the counting process it proves to be everything.  You count 1 thru 9 then use a zero to represent them, for every 9 series you count you add another number to show how many whole series you have making the fractions of zero even smaller although the fractional number increases.  It's like zero is the whole, 1 is one of   2 halves of zero, 2 is 2/4 or 2 parts of half of zero, 3 is 3/6 or 3 parts of half of zero and so on.  Can you do that with one?

            1. kess profile image61
              kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Zero never reproduces nor replicate itself.....?

              How much is  is half of Zero?

              1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
                The0NatureBoyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                That's why it is whole, even when you make the Lemniscate to represent it it remain zero although 2.  Half of Zero is the Lemniscate cut at its joining point therefore it is still zero in the actually, but, in math and counting half of zero is any positive or negative number.

                1. kess profile image61
                  kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  so how 0 reproduces and what does it reproduce...?

                  if half 0 is any number, then all numbers amount only to half 0, so what is the point of numbers?

                  I guess you will only say what you have already said.
                  otherwise I would like to hear

                  1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
                    The0NatureBoyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The purpose for numbers?  They represent how many fractions of a thing is necessary make the things man produces from a portion of, lets say, the earth since that is where we are.

          2. The0NatureBoy profile image79
            The0NatureBoyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Instead of saying The zero when added or subtracted to itself or another number become another number but not Zero, the only whole I intendeds to say The zero when added or subtracted to itself equals itself but when added to any other number leaves the other number itself because the other number can not contain zero.

  2. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    A whole is anything you want it to be. My whole existence. I will give you the benefit of my half-existence. Half a whole is a whole.

    1. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Half a whole is a whole half, but not a whole.

      1. wilderness profile image93
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Why not?  Half a hole is still a hole...

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ha ha ha. Not when there is a W in front to the hole. Or an ass for that matter.

          1. wilderness profile image93
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I make a good one, don't I? smile

    2. The0NatureBoy profile image79
      The0NatureBoyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      [color=blue]To everyone not understanding the nature of Zero (0) I'm offing this explanation.

      Zero represents everything and nothing.  It's like a forest is the zero with the trees being its divisions.  When a tree is added to the forest it is still complete or when some are removed it still is.  So long as there are trees in the forest it represent a forest but when you remove all the trees its location is still there therefore it represent the absence of a forest.  Replant the area with something else the zero will then represent the new thing.  Therefore, no matter what the zero is still there, be it the divisions increases, decreases, become completely removed and/or replaced with something different the area is still whole and complete.

      1. kess profile image61
        kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I have no problem with your logics except it does not differentiate between the ZERO and the ONE....

        take note of your statement again but as in a mirror:

        ONE.... represents everything and nothing.  It's like a forest is the ONE with the trees being its divisions.  When a tree is added to the forest it is still complete or when some are removed it still is.  So long as there are trees in the forest it represent a forest but when you remove all the trees its location is still there therefore it represent the absence of a forest.  Replant the area with something else the ONE will then represent the new thing.  Therefore, no matter what the ONE is still there, be it the divisions increases, decreases, become completely removed and/or replaced with something different the area is still whole and complete.


        The diiference I am trying to point out to you is that with the ONE,
        ..there can be a multiplicity of ONE but it still remain as ONE...
        Like in One multiplied 10 times is in itself  greater than one but still amounts to only ONE.

        Try that with Zero.....

        Therein lies the difference between Life and Death...

        There can be  no multiplicity of Zero that is greater than Zero.

        1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
          The0NatureBoyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Everything you multiply by zero remains what it was before multiplying so they are the same there but not with one in all four math equations.

          1. kess profile image61
            kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            But that just isn't so,,,

            but if you wanna remain stuck there then.......

  3. janesix profile image60
    janesixposted 4 years ago

    Nothing worse than fake crazy. Sad.

    1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
      The0NatureBoyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Whose faking crazy, Elijah's only learning to live without the comfort made by civilization.

  4. A Driveby Quipper profile image61
    A Driveby Quipperposted 4 years ago

    Ya'll are just going around and around..

    1. The0NatureBoy profile image79
      The0NatureBoyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I realize it.

 
working