If i taste an orange and i have never experienced that nor know what it is, and i turn to someone holding an orange and a book, and ask "what is that i am tasting?" And they say "its bigfoot, that exists outside reality, creating flavors, and built the pyramid" i ask " based on what exactly and what the hell are you talking about?" they then turn to a book in their hands and say "it is in the book of oranges"...
Is the book nuts? And Being read by nutjob believers arguing with non believers? Or is the text something else, and they are both NOT EVEN WRONG? In regards to taste the orange.
If i wrote a book" i tasted the orange" what is the statisical likelyhood going to be l
, if, over 100 generations of reading arguing, intellectualizing, that what is understood is even related to the original writing or reality itself? I place the odds at zero chance of understanding what the orange tastes like or what it is even. thats modernity.
Thus mad max and thunderdome.... Kids in the airplane..... In context to the past.
Cargo cult works in two directions. Religion is proof.
assumptions are a funny thing.....
Is the book nuts? And Being read by nutjob believers arguing with non believers? Or is the text something else, and they are both NOT EVEN WRONG? In regards to taste the orange.
If i wrote a book" i tasted the orange" what is the statisical likelyhood going to be l
, if, over 100 generations of reading arguing, intellectualizing, that what is understood is even related to the original writing or reality itself? I place the odds at zero chance of understanding what the orange tastes like or what it is even. thats modernity.
Thus mad max and thunderdome.... Kids in the airplane..... In context to the past.
Cargo cult works in two directions. Religion is proof.
assumptions are a funny thing.....
Last edited: