a fish in water

Has the reader heard the idea that a fish doesn’t know that it is in water because it has never had the contrasting experience of being out of the water? To me it seems that a fish must know that it is in water because it can swim and uses gills to breath, but what do i know about what a fish knows. Anyway it is a cool concept, probably very true in many regards.  That idea has  been offered most likely to point out to us so called humans that we too must have something going on in our environment that we simply ignore because it is always such a pervasive experience, an unchanging background. I want to talk about ideas that we all seem to know about, ideas that some might say are so obvious that they don’t need to be talked about. I want to talk about some of these ideas. To start with the idea that there are at least two of types of knowledge. One, I want to call first hand knowledge and the other could be called hearsay. When someone tells another about what they know, would  it might be good to recognize if the someone is testifying, saying that they have first hand knowledge of the so called facts being offered  or if the someone is retelling what she had heard or read.   First hand knowledge would be the reporting of so called facts that

In court if a witness says that a wall was white and nobody rebuts it, it becomes a fact on the record, I believe. In court, on the record, or even off the record, evidence is admitted or denied. Once presented, evidence becomes fact when unrebutted. Lady justice in her scales weights these so-called facts and uses them to make a decision, to come to a judgement. The facts don’t necessarily need to be true (what ever that means), they just need to be admitted and unrebutted and that is what in the eyes of the court makes them facts.  They just need to be assumed as true, as far as judgement goes.

This brings to mind the idea of honorable rebuts and dis honorable rebuts. Later, I might talk about the how this relates to contract law.

When we are talking to a brother or sister, a fellow so called human being would it be best to be honorable? If you said that you would be at a place at a certain time, would it be best to honor that  as best you can? If you borrowed what another thought was money, would it be best to return it in a timely way?in  all this peaceful inhabitant stuff , we want to remain “honorable” with our fellows, is how I see it. And so when the so called man comes after you, the way I see it they also have to be socalled honorable. Why does the “man” have to be honorable? Because the way I see it there is a law in this universe and you will get what you give and also that no being can do to another what they have not consented to on some level.  This is not a law because it is a rule, as I see it, but just an observation of the way things are. This noted I guess I have to be ready to have a discussion about blaming of victims and such, and I want to let you know that I believe I have compassion for others and the trials, tribulation, and traumas of life. It is a difficult idea to defend and I will refrain from doing so. I offer it as an idea that you might explore. Hopefully I can clarify it more.

So the idea is like how dracula can’t come into the house unless you invite him in.  I think i can find many expressions in folklore and literature of this idea. Or like if you dance with the devil, the devil starts to dance with you. He makes an offer  as if he is offeingr for you to lead in a dance and before you know it, he is leading.  Now you may not want to dance anymore, but you find it hard to stop.  The “man” is like these characters, in that one will never meet the man.  The “man” will always be a concept, a character like santa clause.

A maxim, consent gets rid of a mistake or error, means to me that in the rules of the universe, if the “man” can get your consent to dance then he cannot be held accountable for the results of the dance. If he gets one’s consent, he is not accountable for the so called bad consequences as he had only given one an offer to dance, he cannot force one to dance as I see it.  If one consents consiously or unconsiously, then one is responsible for the consequences of the interaction. So, if say the devil (an archtype), fucks with you and you haven’t consented, he will get in big trouble. Actually, the way I see it, he just can’t do anything at all unless one consents.  It isn’t that he will get in trouble, it is just that he becomes powerless to influence those who do not consent. Of course there seems to be a difference between not consenting and resisting. The consent that the “man” or the “devil” is looking for is the consent to be in a controversy.

So in the battle for the record it often becomes a fact that the so called state is the plaintif.  Could this be an example of unrebutted hearsay that becomes assumed as fact.  Was the state in there (santa clause) to testify that he or she was a plaintif?  Or did some lawyer, some so called representitive of the state offer hearsay evidence and say something like “the fact is that the state has charged you with jaywalking”.  In this statement notice how if one tries to rebut the fact that he jaywalked, he is accepting the assumtion in the question that there is such a real thing as an entity called the state, because he has remained silent to the admission of such a so called fact. When we remain silent, we agree is a so called maxim, i have been told and also noticed.

 

the use of negatives in language

How does the use of the word “no” fit into the peaceful inhabitant perspective?  Have you ever heard that the subconsious mind ignores negatives?  For example, don’t think of a pink elephant, OK? I bet that you thought of a pink elephant, right? Or in the realm of manifestation science do “they” say that it is best to think, “I am rich,” as opposed to ,”I am not poor”?  So if negatives are ignored, what is the difference between guilty and not guilty? Could they be the same thing? If the burden of proof is on the claimant, why would you ever claim to not be guilty? How could you ever prove such a thing? Would it be best to ask if anyone is claiming that you are guilty and if someone is making such a claim, would it be up to them to prove such a thing?

Also, how can one prove a negative? Is it possible?  Can you prove that UFO’s do not exist? How can you prove that UFO’s do not exist?  You might say that there is an absence of evidence to prove that UFO’s do exist in that you have never seen one that you can recollect, but it is still possible that they exist even if you haven’t seen one, right? Is it impossible to prove a negative and if so,  is one required to do an impossibility by law?  Have you ever heard the maxim that reads “an impossibility is not required by the law“? Can the law require one to make a table disappear? Can a law require one to float in the air? How could one even do these things? Could proving a negative be just as possible as floating in the air? I suppose it could be possible to float in the air, so if a judge ordered you to float in the air perhaps you could ask him for a demonstration so that you might learn how to do it.  If a judge asked you to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, could you ask him just what is the truth?  How can one know the truth?   Could he demonstrate what it is like to tell the truth for you so that you might be able to do so yourself?  Otherwise how in the world could you possibly comply with such a request?  I would love to help you and if it was possible to know “the” truth I suppose I could tell it to you, but how can I possibly know the truth?

 

Possible reasons to refrain from”no” and other negatives- 1) subconsious/universe ignores negatives. 2) can one even ever prove a negative? 3) in contracting is it considered dishonorable to refuse an offer? In contracting has it always been considered that it is best to give a counter offer as opposed to a refusal? 4) Could it be a maxim that what one resists persists? If that is so, could it be that resistance is futile and just increases the power of that which one is resisting?

Would it be best to avoid all negatives words when dealing in so called court or with so called agents of the so called state?

“Is it not true that you went to the store?” a prosecutor might ask. How would one respond to such a question? If one believe that one had gone to the store and one answered yes to the question, would that mean that one is saying one  went to the store or that one did not go to the store?  Would an answer of yes be saying- “yes- I did NOT go to the store” is what y

How does the use of the word “no” fit into the peaceful inhabitant perspective?  Have you ever heard that the subconsious mind ignores negatives?  For example, don’t think of a pink elephant, OK? I bet that you thought of a pink elephant, right? Or in the realm of manifestation science do “they” say that it is best to think, “I am rich,” as opposed to ,”I am not poor”?  So if negatives are ignored, what is the difference between guilty and not guilty? Could they be the same thing? If the burden of proof is on the claimant, why would you ever claim to not be guilty? How could you ever prove such a thing? Would it be best to ask if anyone is claiming that you are guilty and if someone is making such a claim, would it be up to them to prove such a thing?

Also, how can one prove a negative? Is it possible?  Can you prove that UFO’s do not exist? How can you prove that UFO’s do not exist?  You might say that there is an absence of evidence to prove that UFO’s do exist in that you have never seen one that you can recollect, but it is still possible that they exist even if you haven’t seen one, right? Is it impossible to prove a negative and if so,  is one required to do an impossibility by law?  Have you ever heard the maxim that reads “an impossibility is not required by the law“? Can the law require one to make a table disappear? Can a law require one to float in the air? How could one even do these things? Could proving a negative be just as possible as floating in the air? I suppose it could be possible to float in the air, so if a judge ordered you to float in the air perhaps you could ask him for a demonstration so that you might learn how to do it. Otherwise how in the world could you possibly comply with such a request?

Possible reasons to refrain from”no” and other negatives- 1) subconsious/universe ignores negatives. 2) can one even ever prove a negative? 3) in contracting is it considered dishonorable to refuse an offer? In contracting has it always been considered that it is best to give a counter offer as opposed to a refusal? 4) Could it be a maxim that what one resists persists? If that is so, could it be that resistance is futile and just increases the power of that which one is resisting?

Would it be best to avoid all negatives words when dealing in so called court or with so called agents of the so called state?

“Is it not true that you went to the store?” a prosecutor might ask. How would one respond to such a question? If one believe that one had gone to the store and one answered yes to the question, would that mean that one is saying one  went to the store or that one did not go to the store?  Would an answer of yes be saying- “yes- I did NOT go to the store” is what one would be saying if one aswere “yes”, correct?

truth, facts, proof

What is the truth?  Is there even THE truth? Could it be that there are many truths?  Instead of there being one big the truth, could there be many truths, a different truth for each brother and sister?

“Tell us the truth.”

“What is the truth?’

“The truth is facts.”

“What is a fact?”

“A fact is something that is real.”

“What is real?”

words and meaning

Did you ever notice how the words in the dictionary are all self referential? For instance, what if you looked in the so called dictionary at the word “money” and it said “money is cash” and then you looked up “cash” and it says that “cash is money”? Does that seem circular?  I suppose that what ever word you looked up would be defined by other words that are then defined by other words and in the end you would come back to the original word that you looked up. Seems ambiguous to me.  Could it be that words only mean what the individual understands it to mean?

Could it be that statutes and such are the same in that they are all ambiguous?

 

 

Staying on point with the questions

 

The whole topic of discussion in the blog is what could be called fractal?  The subject is so vast and intricate because it is actually so simple. I will enter the topic from many different avenues and eventually all of the posts and discussions will begin to make a cohesive whole, like a mosaic that doesn’t make sense when looked at from too close up will form a picture when the observer steps back and can take it all in at once. I suggest that the reader of these blogs, just reads for a while and lets it all soak in bit by bit.

“Right” to face one’s accuser

Could the only point be, really, who is it in court that has a bitch?  Who is it that is claiming that one made a claim?  Is it true that for a court to have jurisdiction that there has to be a controversy and for there to be a controversy, would there need to be two people bitching at each other? If there are not two people bitching at each other, where would be the controversy and where would be the jurisdition?

In a case such as THE STATE vs JOE BLOW,  where is the state?  Is it assumed that the state and joe blow are in a controversy?  I mean in godzilla vs the smog monster, godzilla and the smog monster are bitching with each other. In Ali vs Foreman, you have two people scrapping with each other. In the state vs joe blow, who is the state? where is the state? If you think you are joe blow and you get a letter saying that the state wants you to confirm or deny a charge, would it be best to ask to speak to the state? Does any court system make sense if one can’t speak to one’s accuser, speak to the one who has a bitch that you did something to them to cause injury or loss? If you go in there to so called court as a friend of the brothers and sisters to provide first hand reporting of one’s perceptions if one had such a thing and a brother or sister told you that the state had  an issue with you and asked you if you were guilty or not guilty, would it be best to ask to speak with the state so that you could help to settle any matter that the state might have with you?

Does it make sense that I could go to bob on the play ground and say that I am going to beat him up because sally said that bob put sally’s pigtails in ink?  Would it be best for bob to say- “Hey, could there be a mistake here?  I mean would it be best to get sally over here and make sure that all of the info that you are acting on is accurate and true? ”  What if sally had been talking about a different bob? Shit- what if maybe sally had lied?  Would it be best that bob get to face the actual accuser and cross examine her? Otherwise, where is the justice?  Otherwise is the system of justice being perverted?

So in the state vs joe blow, joe might get to talk to a prosecutor who would probably say that she represents the state. Fine, so the prosecutor is saying that she is acting, speaking on the behalf of the state- good for her, but when did she talk to the state last to get instructions or did she just get instructions from someone else who claims to represent the state who gets instructions from someone else who says that they represent the state? Where does the buck stop so to speak?  How can there be an accuser when the accuser never makes themselves known to the accused?

If you say something, you got to be able to prove it

He who makes a claim has the burden of proof.  Yet how can one prove anything other than by getting a sucker to believe in a story? If one believes a story, then I guess that the assertions made in the story are considered proven.  right? Where is truth other than when two or more agree, besides that could it be that all we have are the observations of perception?

So if you agree that the burden of proof falls on the accuser, would it be best to ask to speak to the accuser so that the accuser can have a chance to prove the accusations? And how can an accuser prove her accusations if the accuser never shows up to make a presentation? So, if someone makes a claim of loss or injury against joe, would it be best if the claimant came in to talk to joe and convince a jury that joe did what the claimant claims that joe did?

Now, if one agrees with a claim, the claim is as good as proven. How does one make it known that one agrees with the claim of another? Lets call a claim an offer, ok? What I mean is, if someone claims that the world is round, can we consider that claim as an offer looking for an acceptance? Let us say that one guy to the left claims (offers for your acceptance) that the world is flat and another guy on the right say that, claims, offers that the world is round, are any of the claimants right? We could ask them to prove their claims or we could simply just accept the assertion of one over the other without much perusal of the evidence.  We could say to the guy who says that the world is round that we agree with him and now we can consider his assertion as a proven matter for the moment, for purposes of further discussion. So we can accept an offer by saying, “ya, I agree.”  Could it be that another way to signify acceptance could be to simply remain silent to an offer? If someone says (claims) that the world is round and you don’t respond to the claim with a call for further evidence and you don’t call bullshit on the claim, could it be considered that the claim has been accepted as fact, that the offer has been accepted? Silence is tacit acceptance.  Could it be similar to a “russian” kid being told that he is a citizen of russia or an american kid being told that he is american?  Could it be that the kid is told such a thing often enough and that the kid never asks for proof and never denies the claim, that the kid has accepted the claim as true without ever having asked for proof?  Later when someone asks the kid if he is a citizen of his country, he could say that he knows for a fact that he is.  Could silence be tacit acceptance.  Could it be that he has accepted the offer of citizenship and is now a self professed citizen?

Does it follow that if one has to prove that which one claims that it would be best to refrain from making claims, saying shit, that you know nothing about? One need not speak of things which one knows not.  If you talk about shit that you don’t know about, could it be that you are an asshole?  And what does one know anyways? Could it be that the only thing that one can know is that which one experiences? How does one know what a word means?  How does one know what day it is?