Theory

(religious theory stuff from main page will be moved here)

Remember social equality (ps: THIS IS NOT COMMUNISM - THIS IS VALUING YOUR COMFORT AND THAT OF OTHERS - NOT ABOVE, NOR BELOW YOUR NEIGHBORS, FAMILY, AUTHORITY OR MANAGER. I DON'T LIKE THE WORD EQUALITY EITHER BECAUSE IT'S A MATHEMATICAL WORD BUT THIS IS A FINE DESCRIPTION), meaning that for all that you tell and send, you ask, listen and receive, provided they are most comfortable with it. Consider the other equally to you and your emotions (including your emotions for them), so long as they have not given you a reason to consider them less - the reason being that they seem to have clearly been less considerate of you than you would be for them. If they consider you highly, then consider them highly in response. If they, in their treatment of you, seem to think little of you, then do the same for them. By default, think quite highly of someone. To consider someone highly is to not value yourself over them - but this includes valuing what they value in your consideration of them - so that is is truly considering what they would want you to consider, not just their life. Someone you think of highly, you would often go along with their idea although it is not your personal preference. Someone you think not much of, you would take the opportunities they give you that really suit you, without interest in their interests. Someone's moral and practical mistakes, and the self-inflicted struggles of their life path, even subjective, can give you reason to be wary of them and to see them as an opportunity rather than someone to care about or trust as much as yourself. You can only reasonably trust someone as much as yourself if they have considered your emotions and desires to the degree that you have. If, in their treatment of you, someone showed lack of concern for your health, agreement, desires and emotions, then, think little of them, seeing them as an opportunity and/or a risk.

If there is someone you know and you are not sure how highly you should think of them, think back to what they did for your development and desires, compared to what you did, if anything, for theirs, and consider the degree to which what they did for you could have been for their own satisfaction, thereby not exactly for you as someone with your own individual desires and development. 

The less that communication and consent was involved in what they gave you that you may feel expected to agree with, the more that it was not for you.

The more that they have behaved in a way that shows less consideration for you than you have for them, the more that you should reduce your consideration for them, thinking more of yourself and what you can get from them, rather than you and them equally and what you can do for them.

So, what you do is match people’s consideration optimistically. The optimism comes from considering strangers highly by default. 

Misunderstanding, and failures on your own part, means that you can forgive someone a few times, but if they have demonstrated a pattern of paying little attention to your own soul, letting you be unfulfilled and suffering when they could act to stop it, then, continuing to engage with them and think of them and their emotions so much is only going to perpetuate (in other people) their lack of emotion, and their social style that you disagree with.

Of two parties, the one which has willingly had the greatest effect on the life of the other, is the one which may be causing suffering while being considered by the other. Someone cannot cause suffering by disagreement as much as someone can cause suffering by expectation, particularly when there is no immediate threat to life or safety involved.

"Thank you" is a defence mechanism against people who are not thoughtful of others, given that someone who is not thoughtful could not think of others to say "thank you" in the first place. The same goes with please. So, if you think that "thank you" and "please" are pointless because we are all one anyway, then surely you are a good person.

You need not do this for every message, but..

Proof-read your messages before sending them.

Imagine your reader’s perspective and imagination as they read your message.

Part of this perspective checking is to remember and take into consideration the context in which they relate to you, which is to say, what led them to see your message in the first place, and it is more than one identifiable thing, especially if you consider long-term reasons for relation as well as short-term reasons for reading your message.

This may help you to understand how your message may make them feel.

If you write a general message for anyone to read, imagine a YouTuber that you respect saying it. This may give you an idea of how to write it more clearly so that it can be interpreted accurately more easily.

The less socially attentive that someone has been to you (and others), the more that you should dismiss what they think of you (and others). They will think of social attentiveness as making social barriers and of etiquette that, in truth, serves to restrict more powerful people. They will be relatively quick to use insulting words, to anger, to make accusations and assumptions, and to amuse themselves with disgusting concepts and images while quick to think of you as disgusting, because they've been conditioned to see humans as threats much more than you have. They are disgusting and they have to suppress it, and so they can only assume that you, too, must suppress it. Of course, it will not be long before you notice they fail to suppress it, and will notice their degenerate dependencies. They will be confused and bewildered by your purity which they can only see as masking impurity, but they will not publicly be confused and bewildered by their own behaviour. In private they will suffer mentally, as they should. Despite their joking shows of strength or superiority, they will be fearful, impotent, socially failing, and crying. They have brought it upon themselves. In defending themselves, they lost themselves, so they could not be as powerful as you.

If you think you need "medication" in order to fit in and function, then maybe it's not your brain that needs changing, but society that needs changing.

Remember, we are "irrational" agents in a "rational system".

"Maladaptation" is part of adaptation, particularly when behaviour considered "adaptive" or a "disorder" is only within a society that is objectively not adaptive and is objectively falling into disorder.

Who's the disorder now?  The ones prescribing the drugs are – the ones who profit from your "disorder" as their world crumbles.

I think birth control drugs are actually degenerate.

If you take such drugs, you're disrupting your biology, which will of course have negative effects, so that a man can cum inside of you without any responsibility.

Why would you do such a thing to yourself? It's as bad as smoking.

You're not a meaningless dump for his fluids. Your health is more important than hedonism.

I get that you might get some benefit from it, but if anyone does use birth control drugs, in a successful society it would only be a very small fraction of the population - not 17% of women in the UK.

Everything can be explained by evolutionary pressures. For example, the reason it's in large part notherners who went around the world and "punched above their weight", is because of the pressure of a harsh winter to be good at planning. 

You always gotta look at things through a "how did evolution lead to this?" lens.

All that your genes are interested in is surviving, which means reproducing. 

As long as your genes think they're working to reproduce themselves. It doesn't matter what you consciously think. Consciously, you think you are doing the right thing for yourself (regardless of having kids or anything), and therefore, either your genes are being tricked by your own intelligent behaviour, or, more likely, you are indeed working for your own perpetuation (which means war or other exploitation is coming).

The only reason why your genes tell you to cooperate, is because if you don't cooperate, then other people will, and they will take from you.

In a world without deep cooperation, there would be no incentive to cooperate. But that's not enough. Cooperation will not (have) take(n) over without the prevention of less cooperative groups from reproducing. Therefore, no matter how cooperative someone is, there is always going to be a perceived outsider non-cooperative group to diminish. 

In the negative view, you could say that the ‘default’ state of man is utterly selfish, and the thing is, it is, really, selfish. Cooperation is done for your gene’s selfish reason, even if in your mind you think that you cooperate because you love and care for certain types of people.

Humans just need to figure out how to cooperate more deeply, which means an equal level more “good guy” and “bad guy” complexity. 

You can't just be a good person. That's not adaptive. It's futile - obviously because you’ll just get taken advantage of and absorbed. You have to be cooperative, which means for all that you are cooperative with people, in equal measure you are uncooperative with others.

This explains people's behaviours with politics and religion and countries and everything.

Ultimately, if complex systems of cooperation fall apart, then we're all savages.

Only the one with the most complex cooperation system - which therefore is both very inclusive and very exclusive, can say they're better. You could say that people can be better given the commitment to achievement of cooperation, even if it doesn't make them better deep down.

But there's only one way to find out who has the best system, and that is through conflict, which happens.

Intelligence decreases hostility in relationships, since people can ultimately understand each other better. Intelligence is a big deal for cooperation.

PS:

I overlooked cooperating to survive harsh environments. But that doesn't take much away from my point.

Since a harsh environment can ‘squeeze’ people socially closer together for survival, humanity may have evolved such that some brains are primed to hallucinate threats. These threats are then told to other people, which keeps people together around a common most important issue, which may, down the line of time, lead to the survival of the gene pool. 

Perceiving a threat also chances that a real threat or danger is actually scared off or avoided, even though the real threat or danger wasn’t perceived.

Negativity bias is a staple of the species - leading people to react to a threat when there may or may not be a real threat.

The belief in a supernatural threat may also encourage creative thinking about what is possible (in otherwise non-creative thinkers), producing supernatural beliefs regarding one’s existence as a human.

Hallucination is most likely if a brain is damaged or needing rest. A damaged brain is more likely to make bad choices, and may be more likely to succeed if it leans on community (as a result of threat avoidance).

PS:

This is the law of inclusion.

For every inclusion, there is an equal and opposite exclusion. That's the natural way and it's the only way for cooperation to happen.

So, then, you could say cooperation is good, or you could say good can't really exist.

In Paraloop.

Happiness, coming from genuine broadly useful activity, is what is actually important. Happiness is the truth. Happiness is healthiness. Healthiness comes from the most natural things which we evolved for.

Identified purpose to activity is not necessary. Your brain identifies purpose by making you enjoy activity. 

"Mental health condition(s)" is some of the stupidest shit ever heard or said, particularly in the context of them being "treated" using drugs.

Such stupidity is what happens when you don't look at things through an evolution lens, and your leaders and professionals aren't bothered to do that, because they’d rather push their agenda and make money.

I suppose there are some physical health conditions that people can develop, and the same is possible with the brain, but the mind is a whole different thing. I’d say, the only reason something can be considered a health condition of the mind is if there is a very physical issue in the brain, affecting it, such as a tumor or parasite.

Physical issues aside, the brain is just doing what it's “supposed” to, even if the behaviour or personality type is destructive or if society isn't built to make use of it, channeling it properly.

There are no "normal" times. Humanity has evolved through and for all times, not just "normal" times — suited to none, mildly adaptable to all. The less that humans need to adapt to fit in their time, the longer that time will last.

Nature gives all the adaptations necessary. Order can only order or suppress these adaptations (in the case of suppression - to its own detriment). It cannot produce adaptation.

The mind is always adapting to its environment. Not only do beliefs and desires influence actions, but largely, actions influence beliefs and desires. Actions themselves are responses to the environment. Action includes simulated action within the imagination.

The best way to get an idea for how an organism will behave is to examine its body, because as far as evolution is concerned, the brain and the body are one and the same. Evolution doesn't care about your sense of free will.

By looking at the body of a cat you can tell that it won't behave like a human.

By looking at human twins you can tell how likely they are to have things in common in their brains. Identical twins have the most in common, of course.

Bodies in common have brains in common, and brains in common have bodies in common.

Each habitual action of yours is a node in a network

All that you do profoundly affects you. There is no inconsequential action. There is no risk-free action. Even, to avoid risk is itself risky.

We know that one significant experience can shape someone for life.

Yet too many overlook how one habitual, seemingly trivial behaviour can and will shape the rest of their habitual interactions with reality. 

You are what you do. 

And what you do shapes what you do.

All of your habitual behaviours provide information to all of your interactions with the world, teaching you how to act without your awareness.

All of your behaviours and choices - no matter how little you may think of them and no matter how natural and normal and quick they may appear to you - seep into your instincts and emotions and mould you on a daily basis.

You cannot hide a habit - or lack thereof. It will show through in all of your other habits and people will be able to pick up on it even just through your appearance alone.

All behaviours affect appearance. There is no fixed appearance. 

If you have an ugly face you most likely have ugly habits.

Take this analogy:

Imagine that you are a farmer planting seeds.

When you do something you are planting a seed.

You may think that you in the future will have independent control over what you plant and how it will grow.

You may think that your future action is independent of your present action.

In reality, when you plant a seed of action (or inaction - whatever it may be that you are doing or not), the action will grow and spread its roots deep into the ground, reaching for the roots of your future actions before you even plant them. When you plant an action or reaction, it is immediately modified by the roots of your past. They are trying to give you the personality that your previous self []>. (something - had, probably)

You are not only making decisions in the present. You are informing your future performance with your present experience.

If your present experience is extreme, know that extreme plants create extreme roots.

Anxiety is when someone is under pressure to be something other than themselves, since, to be is to do. The disorder isn't them. The disorder is their society. Anxiety stops the society from messing them up even more.

Someone will not be anxious under any circumstance, no matter how "traumatic", if it is aligned with them as a person. What is nerve-wracking to one person is desirable to another, who would find what the other enjoys doing to be stressful.

There is never a one-size-fits-all, or one-size-fits-most, or a one accurate emotional label. Such a mentality paves the way to bad things.

If someone is anxious, it is a sign that they are good.

The bad will, instead, seek power, oblivious to what is truly wrong, and thus they can't fix the problems that make people anxious.

If you could see into the future

Nothing that you see would be destined to happen, including whatever future you see yourself seeing in the future. You can never have an exact picture of the future because as soon as you see it, it changes.

The future you see yourself seeing in the future is not gonna be as accurate. The more futureception you look into (futures within futures etc.) the less accurate it will be.

So seeing into the future would be like being able to predict events well, but the closer they are to you, the less you can predict. Because the more your clairvoyance-affected behaviour affects the world.

For example, you can see you will be hit by a truck in 5 seconds, this is easy to change and be inaccurate. 

However if you see something will happen in 5 seconds half way across the world, it will happen basically exactly regardless.

If people (like, the general public by TV broadcast) knew you could look into the future and you told them what you saw, that would wreak havoc on the future in that it would be changed massively.

Water isn't wet

Liquid water isn't wet. A solid can be wet. Ice can be wet. "Wet" is a property. It describes that a solid has water on it. Water plus solid equals wet. Water plus water equals water. You cannot wet water, but you can wet a solid. Wetness can change a solid and/or how you interact with it, because wet solids exist. Wetness means nothing to water, can't change water, and can't change how you might interact with it, because wet water isn't real.

There is no difference between wet water and not wet water, because wet water isn't real. When you say wet water, what you're saying is "water water". 

You can't water water. You're not making water watery by watering or wetting it or anything because that's not possible. You can pour water onto water but that's not watering nor wetting or any of that.

It is impossible to wet water but that doesn't mean it's<already wet and thereby can't be wet.

If water was wet, you could make it wetter than it already is.

You can make a wet sponge wetter. You can make a wet floor wetter. You can't make water wetter - because it isn't wet. It can't be wet.

And that doesn't mean that water is dry. 

Wetness and dryness are the presence and absence of water on something that isn't water and that can be wet and dried.

If you add water to your water, you get more water.

If you add water to your couch, you get a wet couch. 

You can't drink something wet.

Liquid water isn't wet.

If all water is wet exactly, not even as a variable, then no water is wet.

Null and void. 

A non-variable, all-applicable property, is not meaningfully a property or state at all. It transcends its definition, bursting the bubble of its categorisation, its contents dispersing into the undefined.

Your feet are not wet when submerged in water.

When you take them out of the water, they are wet. You can slip on a wet surface, but submerged surfaces are not slippy.

This is, of course, to suggest, really, that, if a logic says that the wetter a surface is the slippier it is, and if that logic says that water is wet, then underwater surfaces should be the slippiest. This is not the case.

Water is the cause of wetness, but water isn't definitionally wet.

Water isn't dry nor wet. 

Water being wet is circular bullshit.

That's like saying heat is hot, like a fucking two-year-old.

Because it takes about two brain cells to say that.

"Water is wet" is the equivalent of clicking two pieces of a puzzle together and saying, "Yep, I did it".

It's a prime demonstration of thoughtlessness.

In response to "Is water wet?", the artificial intelligence ChatGPT 3.5 says "Water itself is not wet, but it has the ability to make other things wet when it comes into contact with them. Wetness is the result of water adhering to a surface."

+ Wetness isn't just adhesion.

+ I’m not entirely sure about the “its contents dispersing into the undefined” bit

Guide brackets

The purpose of<guide brackets>is so that you know how words connect, making long sentences more legible with less effort and less room for human error or misunderstanding, or machine learning error.

Example:

Between since I can remember to the age of 17 or so..

Becomes:

Between<since I can remember>to the age of 17 or so..

You'll have to get used to guide brackets replacing spaces. Spaces are asking to be filled with meaningful information.

If guide brackets were used on the example differently, it would change the meaning:

Between since<I can remember to>the age of 17 or so..

Now the example doesn't make sense, because "I can remember to" doesn't fit with "the age of 17 or so", given “between since”. 

Guide brackets will make reading more comprehensible because you don't have to figure out the connections between words, similarly to how brackets are used in mathematics to show what numbers are connected, even though they might not be needed.

You can use guide brackets whenever there might be a possible comprehension challenge in your writing. Mostly, you wouldn't use guide brackets.

"Machine learning error" could become "<Machine learning>error" for readers unfamiliar with "machine learning", who might interpret the words as "machine<learning error>". 

The meaning still holds well enough (+unless the reader thinks there might be such thing as a human learning error called a “machine” kind of learning error), but if you want to make sure your reader makes the connections you make, use guide brackets.

There are many connections made in speech, using intonation and timing, that are lost in writing.

Guide brackets can and will bridge the gap between<speech>and<writing>for those intending to make textual statements properly and harnessing more of the power of speech. 

Thinking of yourself is part of thinking of others, because others are like you.

It would be destructive to others if you only thought of others, as opposed to you and them and your bond.

It is your bond which you share with others which is important.

To think of others more than yourself (meaning that you would serve a stranger more than yourself) would be more destructive to others than if you served yourself and a stranger equally.

By serving yourself, you serve people like you, and, the kind of person that you're best at serving, besides your opposite, is you.

So, to do what you want is to validate people like you, and it's also to validate people who are opposite to you in character – not in the sense of good or bad but in terms of interests and so on.

Don't give yourself up to people who aren't like you. Give yourself up to people who are like you. In doing so, you give yourself up to people who can truly take care of you.

Others can only take care of you if you take care of yourself and your kind.

You have no reason to worry about the pride or goodness of a social system that did not worry about you. That's give and take. If something gives you carelessness, you are to give it back in equalising.

You do you, and if you works, you win.

Just because someone is capable of getting into politics and getting votes, that doesn't mean they have any serious idea about the truth of their fellow men who they probably don't see as fellows. The most dysfunctional politicians are those who have not made something or done something that people appreciate and which isn't essentially an extension of politics, be it theirs or someone else's. They may be capable of pushing some form of progress, but that progress will be for someone else while they want it for themselves. And that is their issue - they want for themselves. Because of that, it will go to their enemies – A great and deserved and soul-crushing and humiliation for them.

If politicians did what they're supposed to, then, few non-politicians would be interested in politics, just as few non-plumbers are interested in plumbing. 

If plumbers didn't do their job, then suddenly everyone would start being interested in plumbing. 

The more that people are into politics, the more that the way your country is run is messed up.

In a scenario where plumbers are very efficient and genuine, you would need few plumbers and people wouldn't be interested in plumbing unless for fun.

A problem with politics is that it isn't fun, and therefore it attracts the least fun people. The people who do find it fun are not genuine people doing their job - they just like the theatre and attention.

The problem with politics is that it isn't object-oriented and is about what is right and wrong, and therefore is subjective, and, therefore, while you need education to excel at plumbing, you only need your individual subjectivity to excel at politics.

What is subjectivity? It's feminine.

The problem is that politics isn't a job. Therefore, it mustn't be a job.

The fact that there are different parties with different ideologies proves that politics isn't a job. A real job is not really ideological. It’s just common sense providing a service.

If someone hasn't actually been of service in their life in a common sense way which doesn't require a lot of subjectivity about what is right or wrong, how can they have the common sense to know what is right or wrong?

If politics is about what is right and wrong, it should be controlled by the people who have not simply been doing the subjectively right all of their life, but the very obviously positive – the common sense good in which there is no debate, and no question that their action makes people happy or allows people to be happy.

There is clearly a lack of common sense if a society is split between political parties.

Ideally, the only people into politics would be politicians doing a job in the same way that the only person really invested in plumbing is a plumber.

Politics isn't a job as technical as plumbing. A politician (particularly a male politician) should be as technically capable and invested as anyone not in politics. This means that politics should be a thing to do on the side, if one has been selected, and hasn't chosen themselves to be potentially selected.

A politician's primary power should not be merely social power over others. Otherwise, it is 'false power'.

The opposite of social power is physical power. So, don't give social power to the socially powerful. Give social power to the physically powerful, who are powerful physically because of their ability to productively control and affect physical things.

Women may not have as much physical and technical power as men ‘to externalise’. However, they have the ability ‘to internalise’ and physically produce offspring. So, this balances their physical ability with that of men’s. Men can make external, logical constructs, with the help of women, and women can then beautify them with humans.

Men are the dominant creators of the external world (like, structures and social constructs), while women are the dominant creators of the internal world (that being, humankind). Men should externalise their ideas (regarding the external world) into women who internalise them, uniting them into singular suggestions, such that the men agree on singular things to externalise into and thereby be cohesive.

It is not great if a man creates a social construct regarding the 'internal world', and decides some morality regarding it. That is far too subjective, and not something that makes people happy, and it is a woman's realm.

Binary-flow-analog

The water cycle is the best example of binary-flow-analog.

It's good for demonstrating “binary-flow-analog” as a tool or lens or framework, however you want to call it, for navigating and describing and understanding and getting meaning from the world.

We’ve got the water cycle, and since it's a cycle, we can split it into three parts in order; binary, flow, analog.

Rain is the binary.

Then, rivers are the flow.

Then, oceans are the analog. 

The water takes all these different behaviours on its journey because it repeats the cycle. This cycle affects something greater and with a longer timespan than itself obviously, which is the land it travels on, eroding it which sculpts hard things into beautiful towering things. So, it's always creative outside of itself.

Before considering this, remember that everything is relative, so I'm not going to pretend that a universe “binary” is an absolute. Since, within something that's within a cycle is the cycle again.

Now, we just have to figure out what makes rain binary. It's binary because it travels down to earth under the binary pull of gravity AND it travels as disconnected droplets. It travels through air and the dominant force is gravity. That's it.

Flow is now more dimensional so not only do you have gravity, but just as important for that travel of water is something a lot less predictable, which is the land features which are themselves affected by flow, so there's a cycle within flow which actually determines the nature of flow. However, flow itself is just a trace of a rain droplet, so you can expect flows to resemble the paths of rain affected by wind, back and forth. So, the turbulence of flow both within itself and in terms of the path it takes is a reflection of atmospheric turbulence. It's like flow remembers when it was binary, and pays respects to that.

Analog, although it's most removed from binary, because this is a cycle, actually pays the most respect to binary. So, analog turns flows into one big binary drop of water - the ocean - paying respect to the actual water droplet. So, you can expect that water droplets themselves have currents, resembling oceans more than flows.

So, you can see how binary-flow-analog is one big equal loop, like a circle, that never actually gets away from itself.

Analog is basically freeflow, but freeflow isn't really flow because to flow you can't be free, you have to really follow a carving in the landscape and dig in to that. That's flow - it's getting stuck in to something - immersed in the land that you travel. Freeflow is just being immersed in yourself. That's why flow has to be a certain activity. We want flow, which means we want certainty in our lives, like the rivers that flow along certain paths that do gracefully change in a binary manner, relative to the ocean where you can't really see the water going anywhere, it's all currents and tides, which again, respect binary rain in how it is pulled by gravity - except instead of the earth’s gravity it's the moon's gravity as it circles the earth. 

The most beautiful thing is a waterfall or something where you can really see flow. It's a perfect metaphor for power in relinquishing. The flow doesn't have control, it's just pulling itself along in cohesion which is itself pulled along by gravity, but it does have power, creating sound and life along its path. 

Most people like to be empowered but not the one who controls the existence of that power. This is what women want, by the way. So, if you want a woman to feel good, imagine you are the gravity and she is the flow and all of water on earth which is you, and she enables life to grow and mountains to be sculpted out of your rock. So, she beautifies you. When you're looked at from a distance, you're seen as a pale blue dot, because the most significant thing about you is your woman who rests and flows and rains on you - you who is a lot more stable.

To recap: 

Rain - Binary goes most of all in one direction, so it's like one-dimensional, very simple.

Rivers - Flow is more like two dimensional. It has an analog which is that it can flow in whatever lateral direction it needs to get down, binary to the ocean.

So, flow combines binary and analog very visibly.

The ocean - Analog has all its complexity hidden to us within itself but it can be teeming with life. The ocean has plenty of life, as do water droplets - they have microbes swimming around freely. However, mostly when we see water life, it’s not completely aquatic, like ducks.

The raindrop is one analog, but rain as raindrops is binary.

So, you see, the binary is made of the analog. Indeed, raindrops are made of the ocean. Half of the water cycle is when the water is just vapour that was made by evaporation due to the sun’s heat, like ghost water, even more analog and free than the ocean, but this isn’t what gives you life directly that you drink and that you are half or more than half made of. However, air without enough moisture causes health problems. So, what keeps the loop going is something extremely analog which takes a different invisible form and it surrounds us. This reminds us that half of power is extremely weak and not visible. For example, we can see matter as easily as we can see water, but there must be some invisible form of matter which is necessary in the matter cycle but we can’t see it but it’s everywhere - dark matter. This is like how there’s more to the mind that creates consciousness than neurons firing, but we can’t see it, as least not so directly. We can investigate to see.

The binary, the flow and the analog are all the one impure third in their own way - and only because of each other. They must all be done, otherwise, there is no impure third and instead the whole is impure. So, you must move towards analog, always. If you are at analog, move towards analog again by moving to binary. You can always advance. You can always advance your advance. This is dimensional. It is your advancement that redeems your impurity, making it only a third of you. Your impurity is for your advancement. It is a double helix. You must stand between worlds and jump gaps, unbound. You are an athlete doing mental sport of the highest kind, just as you do physical sport maximally. It is your athletics that keeps you fit and stable. It is the unstable nature of your athletics that makes you stable, in Paraloop of the Angular Double HeliX. It is your ever-shifting focus and propulsion that keeps you going in a straight line - for no line is straight. In the complexity of the Paraloop you follow the straight and narrow, in Paraloop. Go and go back. Go, pause, resume, over time. Go go go. Start, finish or let finish, restart. Then, you can be a HeliX expert machine, always, in ascending dimensional complexity, touching the eternal to the degree that you possibly can, my friend. Then, your love is insurmountable, and you find yourself with immense power. You change to stay the same. You are a striver – striving and courageous and therefore masterful and therefore sociable. Your striving is not always the same but it is always striving. Half of your striving is the striving for a new striving. Your time is always coming, because your time is always. Never forget your soul. You never lost it, so to leave it is a choice. 

So rain is binary because it has two main aspects, both of which are predictable and direct:

At any pinpoint in space during rainfall, either that pinpoint is or is not inside a raindrop. So, through time recording that status, you’d get a binary true/false pattern.

The 1-0 of rainfall is that, and also the travel of the rain is 1-0 in a way, because it is one object (a raindrop) being pulled towards center of another object (the planet).

Then flow (rivers) just has the binary that an entire flow travels in the same direction by gravity. So it’s half binary. It is pulled by gravity like rain, but this does does not travel primarily towards the center of the planet, it can go any direction.

Then in the ocean you don’t see any binary travel, so it’s analog. The binary water molecules within the analog of the ocean can go any direction, it's not being pulled by the earth's gravity and instead the analog itself experiences the binary pull of the moon, producing a tide that goes in an out.

1D for binary (X) - rain

2D for flow (X,Y) - rivers

3D for analog (X,Y,Z) - ocean

“Beauty” is everywhere including guns and traffic lights.

Bullets "flow" out of a rapid-firing gun. Traffic lights conduct the "flow" of traffic. People "flow" through mazes.

Flow is related to turbulence which is related to vibration which is related to Paraloop which is related to balance. Flow is related to balance. Flow involves controlled, harmonious changes in direction or speed.

Only in Paradox can there be Loop. Only in self-contradictory nonsense does the world go on. For, self-contradictory nonsense is equilibrium - vibration. Quote: "The law of nature states everything has a vibration." A vibration is like spasm. We are all spazzes. Your pulse is the binary core of your life. Each beat of your heart is of contractions of heart muscles. Contraction is binary yet produces the analog movements you make. ChatGPT: "A contraction is a shortening or tightening of a muscle, resulting in a decrease in its length. Contraction can occur voluntarily, when a person consciously contracts their muscles to perform a specific movement, or involuntarily, as in the case of reflex actions or muscle spasms." First, there is binary, then between binary there is flow, then between flow there is analog. Your heart beats (binary), and, between, or "riding" your heartbeats>blood flows around your body, and between your blood as it flows or rides your heartbeat>your muscles move in any which way. Of course, for your muscles to do this, the cycle repeats. First there is the binary contraction, causing a flow of pressure (tension), causing the movement. If you take a rope and try to pull it apart between your hands, you will experience tension as a turbulent flow of pressure. Your binary pulling will create a flow that creates analog motion in your hands. Binary, flow, analog. If you swim in a river, you get the binary of the source and the destination of the flow. Where there is flow or binary or analog, there is the other two. The ocean has flow, although relatively slow, and so it has the slow binary of the tide. The surfer rides a binary flow of water - the binary being the waves and the flow being the direction of the waves. The neurons in your brain transmit binary electrical flows to produce the analog of your brain activity.

How does 232 come into this? Binary (2). Flow (3). Analog (2). Clearly, binary has something in common with analog that it does not with flow. Flow connects binary and analog, and it is unstable and so impure, but of course, behind every binary or analog stability is flow instability. This itself is a binary. 

Binary always comes before analog. If you try to use natural resources to make something rudimentary akin to a machine, you will make something of a very visible binary. By building and innovating on that binary you could reach the milestone of repeating the cycle, going back to binary after analog. So, humanity had analog computing out of binary machines, and then binary (digital) computing out of analog computing. Digital computing is digital computing, but it involves flow and analog. 

This is what humanity has done as it was inventing computing. Since the invention of computing goes in a direction, you could consider it a flow, and therefore expect it to be turbulent, with harmonious changes in direction or speed. Turbulence only seems erratic and therefore perhaps frightening when you don't know the flow that's that's causing it. If computing innovation is a flow, there must be an analog and a binary to it. Imagine it, then, as a bloodflow around a body caused by even a single beat of the heart. What ultimate analog motion is the flow leading to? What was the binary force that set it off?

The most advanced being has something much in common with the little being - and it's something that the middle being does not. 

In paraloop and the cycle of binary-flow-analog, this is true.