The claim that God created Man 10,000 years ago makes more sense than ‘humans evolved from apes some 300,000 years ago’. There is no sense to the idea of ‘being’ prior to “I am”. Man and the world were created at the first instance of reflexive consciousness, which was the original expression of sense/Logos.

A lot of verbal gymnastics to finally admit where inflation comes from. Now change “flow of money” to “the amount of money in circulation” and the picture will be complete. https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/banking/get-rates-up-devastating-call-on-inflation-as-economist-predicts-the-rba-will-be-forced-to-act/news-story/fb5f75faf4dfd265499b205f2643e104

If Dezi is in SA, he is an operative/agent with State protection. No other way of getting out of the country.

The show we watch is not a conversation, but one-directional programming. It makes little difference whether it is terror or celebration. There is no conscious presence in the spectacle. It is crucial not to engage with it as if it were a conversation or a meaningful argument. Meaning is created, and the integrity of Self is preserved, only via reciprocal engagement; every non-reciprocal imposition of information is an attack on conscious agency that can be neutralised by recognising it as bad faith.

Why do most people like simplistic music?

HYPOTHESIS. Music is a cognitive pattern. Humans have a predisposition for pattern-retention and for making the simplest patterns the most salient. Simple patterns please us because they give us the sense of control over the environment, and the feeling of safety arising from its predictability. Popular music (just like political propaganda and advertising) exploits this predisposition, but it also interferes with the higher-order structures of meaning and neutralises the need for the inquiry about reasons. It makes us blind to the more complex patterns that are always present within the superficial simplicity. The ubiquity of music has a broad hypnotic effect that precludes the questioning of reasons and degrades environmental awareness.

Music is a common addiction, a numbing poison that degrades reflexive consicousness, and any unwelcome exposure to music may be regarded as a psychological assault.

Self-ownership implies the ownership of your own creative effort, therefore of everything you create by your own effort, or to the extent that it was created by your effort.

Hypocrisy is absolutely essential for the ruling power to elicit the unconditional submission of the ruled.

Computational ‘logic’ is semantically inconsistent

In computational logic the term ‘conjunction’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AND_gate) signifies the addition of binary “truth values”: ON or OFF, signified by 1 or 0. The addition of ON and ON (1 AND 1) does not mean 2 but simply ON. These hardware-oriented terms are used to encode sense, but their computational use involves the equivocation of two senses of Zero/0: ‘false’ and ‘nothing’, which are not logically equivalent. For example, adding 0 and 1 as truth values results in 0 (meaning ‘false’), whereas adding the numbers 0 and 1 results in 1. This is a semantic inconsistency.

In consistent semantics, all terms are taken to be ‘true’ (in the ON sense); they are meant as sense-unities to be included in the logical synthesis of meaning. Here, ‘conjunction’ refers to the synthesis of these sense-unities, combining lower order unities into a higher order unity, which may be called the ‘conclusion’ or ‘result’.

Not_1 does not mean ‘false’ or ‘zero’ but the opposite of 1. Both 1 and not_1 are unities of sense, but opposite in sense. This opposition is signified by the mathematical sign ‘minus’.

1+1 = 2 by definition

not_1+not_1 = not_2 by definition, therefore

(-1)+(-1) = -2 by definition

not(not_1) = 1 by logical necessity, therefore

-(-1) = 1 by logical necessity.

Gödel‘s proof of incompleteness (of axiomatic systems) presupposed the completeness of the rules he relied on as the standard of proof: the fundamental law of sense that is informally referred to as ‘consistency’. Gödel implicitly contradicted himself. I call it Gödel‘s paradox: the proof of definitional incompleteness of any axiomatic standard presupposes the completeness of the standard of proof, or else it is not a proof. It can be shown that the law of non-contradiction and its analogues (excluded-middle and identity) are the only axiomatic standard whose completeness is guaranteed, as it is presupposed in the question of completeness, in any instantiation of meaning, by anything whatsoever.

NOTE: The ‘second incompleteness’ proof is internally consistent, but it assumes that the theorem of ‘consistency’ is unprovable. This assumption is disproven by ‘consistency’ being already presupposed by the question of poof, by the use of symbols, by the possibility of conceiving of theorems, and by anything whatsoever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%E2%80%93Bernays-L%C3%B6b_provability_conditions

Every theorem proves the theorem of consistency as a necessary condition of its own articulation.

Persons do not want to be proven wrong, they get indignant or defensive when proven wrong. They want others to accept their beliefs not because they make sense but because They believe. The difference between a conscious being and a deterministic person is that a conscious being wants to know whether they are right or wrong, and so they are grateful when their errors of reasoning are rigorously corrected by others.

My new website: https://meaningbeing.wordpress.com Tell me whether you like it. Is the layout problematic?

No private language
If you speak and expect to be understood (which ‘implies other minds’: P), you cannot consistently claim uncertainty about other minds (uncertainty ‘does not imply other minds’: not-P); that would be a performative contradiction (P and not-P). On the other hand, it would make no sense to speak without expecting to be understood; why bother, therefore P.

Can anyone in Australia still access Substack via web browser? I hear that everyone is locked out now, unless they agree to a face scan.

If the medical practitioner knows that the patient is coerced to submit to a medical procedure, they know that the patient cannot freely consent, and thus the practitioner is still in breach the requirement for obtaining free, uncoerced consent. The situation is analogous to someone pointing a gun at you and demanding that you “consent” to donate a kidney to someone else. The surgeon who would then perform the kidney transplant in the knowledge that the patient is acting under duress, would be not only in breach of medical ethics but guilty of grievous bodily harm, aggravated assault, organ trafficking, etc

The authors who argued otherwise are misrepresenting submission to coercion as consent. The term ‘consent-receiver’ already begs the question; ‘executor under coercion’ would be a better term. https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2025/07/14/jme-2025-110950

Substack removed the age verification lockout, for now. Those who didn’t blink, prevailed, but the message is that no platform is secure.

Vaccines are not ‘preventive treatments’ because they are intended neither to diagnose a suspected illness nor to treat an illness. Preventive treatments treat minor deficiencies of health to prevent major deficiencies of health. Anything that alters what is healthy is not a medical treatment but harm (by the medical standard of health).

Inflation is not a force of nature but a tax you pay to the banks.

The most common paranoid delusion is probably the denial of obvious betrayals, obvious dangers, obvious abuses, which is rooted in the anxiety about losing faith in the established authority and order.

The Parliament, by allowing any agency or person to exercise “emergency powers” that exceed the authority of the Parliament to legislate for that agency or person, is thereby renunciating its legislative authority, and consequently any delegated authority to any agency or person, including the emergency powers. By invoking emergency powers, the State abrogates itself. https://news.1rj.ru/str/NormalParty/2087

Control presupposes a definitive identity that can be subjected to control, or else there is nothing to control. Nothing is determinate of itself or in itself, but only by conscious acquiescence to a contingent determination of ‘what’ something is. Control is presupposed and consented to by the acquiescence to the terms of identification. Those who do not question identity, acquiescence to being determined by others.

There is no way that Substack would abandon compulsory age verification without getting an OK from the regulator. They went beyond what was required and then pulled back, which looks like a globally coordinated test of compliance. It was then never meant to last, just a provocation to measure the response.