[D-G] how to carry on discussions on O.F.S. ?

[.Sylvia_Jenepi.]

hi Dewey & Johnatan.

if one were to look for a groundwork, a shipyard of sort,
taking sound inspiration from your theory, that is,
on the bloody steak : encompassing their creation of Science 
Archi-Structure,
well, All that would certainly fit in well within an O.F.S. (orbital 
flat surfaces: come translated in French as
surfaces plates orbitales S.P.O.)
wherein with the board we can build graphic exchanges of our maps of 
Opinions taking shapes
(A Plant ain't but an ancient organic protein ambient in water, and air, 
whose mouth has definitely eaten too much of the Earth, of the clay, of 
the Adamic mud,
which tail looks at direct Sun Beams of Light) Yet it does not think it 
eats too much the way we do looking at the Plant. It multiplies its well 
being elsewhere in various directions. It is up to us to Connect the 
Plant to the Earth new Environment: the Accademic of Proteins-Concepts ( 
- - - dashes - - - )

the Cartography of various Shapes of lines drawings Opinions & Functions 
in the Accademic Architecture in Science:
the medias (today Erdogan's election got immediately contested) are full 
of Opinions & Options which do not yet get recorded into the Plastic 
Expression (multiplicity of stratas recorded by Data Banks undergrounds, 
eating the Planet)

these Opinions could indeed not necessarily be advancing in the sense of 
the increase of protein-concept exchanges between the Bloody Worms & 
Steaks.

Opinions instead, we believe so: could lead Accademia backwards, or 
forward, in displacement anyway: nomads are the neurons: and thus make 
us less welthy or more wealthy. Depends how we could finance our 
soundscapes experiments in Maps & their animated Philosophies.

Cartography of Opinions would be sooooo advantageous in that line of 
Respect: it would show us the Ex-Terre-Al variations in sizes and hues 
of Functions and Opinions:
essential components of the Bloody Steaks. the Bloody Steaks might get 
interested to see their proteines handled & partly rightly Expressed by 
handling correctly Strata in O.F.S. Let's build a way to record any 
opinion on this drift-line soon to become O.F.S. at first... share your 
opinions, the ones you collected, here and there, now...

They could help you choose a better path for Accademia among the hurdles 
of Chaoids, anyway...

Best,
Sylvia,
for Queen Id'Zabillya @ O.F.S.







On 24.06.2018 23:01, Dewey Dell wrote:
> would it be said that charles darwin said something to the effect of:
> 
> the proteins, helped by chromosomes, are tiny molecules, which variate 
> and
> spin on themselves,a bit like the few atoms in the water or the air
> molecules
> now, as they stand for mushrooms, or animals, or anorganic life, when
> charles darwin says that the variability takes shape in agreement
> with the environment, now if the environment is itself composed of
> variables, what you seems to ressent here,
> is the idea which says that evolution picks up the 'weakest' 
> (nietzsche) or
> the 'strongest' (darwin) variables, when they take shape.
> 
> that's indeed what spinoza criticized: the idea that the picked up item
> would stand for the perfection of a model, that the specie, either
> statistically, or in each singularity, expresses
> a natural evolution, that this model is perfectible.
> 
> i am sure if the climate changes, the environment and number of species 
> get
> so much destroyed,
> maybe by consequence some human get so intelligent, that they cannot
> compare themselves with birds anymore, and don't eat chicken, or 
> fishes.
> 
> that was just a bit of a fantastic theory, let's come back to 
> evolution:
> 
> so, not only man is evolving, according to darwin, but like said 
> nietzsche
> there was hope might be wrong:
> 
> actually since there's no objectivity, since there's no perfect model 
> to
> compare the various multiplicities of variables, with, probably let's 
> say:
> there simply is no way
> to draw any evolution line between the past and the future.
> 
> when you draw such a line, either because your into statistics, 
> employed by
> a Company, or because your an experimentalist, trying to
> compare two states of the spectrum of a particle,
> 
> you are basically drawing a function or an opinion, which is good, only 
> if
> you are a 'like you say, a bloody steak' which need to increase in 
> size.
> and share this increase with other proteins.
> 
> the only single important thing to do, then, when doing Sciences, is to
> increase the Beauty of Sciences. Something important is the Philosophy 
> of
> Sciences: that which looks at the Structure, the Architecture of Beauty
> created by bloody steaks.
> 
> it is not the objectivity, or the nerdy satisfaction of a mind tasty
> Concept: something looking too much in line with Evolution, as there is
> none.
> 
> what could be interesting aswell would be to accelerate the testpool, 
> to
> get more samples of variabilities, increase the chances to find new 
> living
> bloody steaks and their variants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 7:38 PM, Johnatan Petterson <
> internet.petterson at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> hi all.
>> 
>> i think discussion can be problema-tique to un-discontinue:
>> 
>> ruth chandler used to be spreading here, yet she resumed accademia
>> dr harald seems to be doing yoga-mathematics on his own
>> and clifford duffy has re-created valencies with minor characters on 
>> his
>> blogs
>> paul levy, inna, dan smith have become successful book accademics
>> 
>> may-be just discussing to me seems interesting because i like the 
>> written
>> word
>> 
>> 
>> yet i think web construction is money, job oriented, aswell 
>> intellectuals
>> in uni do this for good, not for experimentation. i don't know why, 
>> except
>> because humans like it better to join strifs in jobs, instead than 
>> everyone
>> building a general intellect which would be a singular intellect.
>> and ofs seems disorienting to many
>> lurkers: they don't know what to gain from creating a discussion.
>> 
>> 
>> at the moment, i think charles darwin and the theory that genes and
>> xromososomes
>> are obscurantist: : why should the genes be something which belongs to 
>> this
>> testpool,
>> why should there be this focus on such tiny elements.they sure belong 
>> to
>> the biological strata of proteine,and such. but should the behaviors 
>> be
>> seen as "expressions" of genes: like another
>> strata.besides i guess the expression in strata match with the 
>> plastic. but
>> i am not sure
>> the biological strata should fill the role of content. i think the
>> biological role to be 'essential'.
>> yet it's like a layer, a bit like the nerves in a steak.what is tasty, 
>> the
>> affects, and the actions, are driving the body.but the brains 
>> schizophrens
>> are directed by the dead concepts created by accademia.so the steak 
>> never
>> talk in ofs as a result. hopeless.
>> 
>> yet, to destroy the world of university, the death of philosophy since
>> the killing of Socrates, and subsequent creation of Accademia by 
>> Plato,
>> this was the end of the bare steak philosopher. since Platon and his
>> school, the philosopher needs to hide behind authority, seriousness 
>> and
>> ressentment:
>> philosophers are teachers of the nerves, of biology.
>> 
>> salute to everyone!!
>> johnatan