Zaay,
Your refined critiques are deeply appreciated. I am considering very much everything you write.
And I'm deeply considering your commentaries as well. Forgive me if a) these posts are long and b) they take some time to complete. But, life intrudes, you know.
Zaay, now we are at the center of this argument. Yes, you're correct, skeptics do define unknown=false, that is how I pointed out 'or the 2, right?' Many skeptics define unknown as false, and many 'believers' define unknown=true. Both are making the same critical error.
Let's look at this closer.
The Skeptics argument. unknown=false
The Believers argument. unknown=true
Bubblefish's argument. unknown=unknown.
Semantically, they are [skeptic's and believer's argument] both obviously false, you may as well say x=y and never bother to define x and y.
Critical thinking is A=A. Subjective/Creative Thinking is A=B
Therefore, unknown=unknown, false=false, true=true, hence, the third value and the neccesity of critical thinking to be applied to one's personal philosophy.
But unknown is not a third value in a false/true scenario.
This is something that occured to me this morning, as I was contemplating ways to thaw my pipes. Unknown is itself one half of a dichotomy, diametrically opposed to known. Unknown does not relate directly to the true-false dichotomy.
That is to say, every statement is either true or false; AND every statement is either known or unknown. The first is objective; the second, subjective.
So in fact, we have a metastructure that consists of:
True known
True unknown
False known
False unknown
(A quick side-note: each of these exists within a framework which carries, as its basis, a fundamental assumption about the nature of reality. After all, the only absolute true-known statement is that experience is; beyond that, some assumptions must be made.)
An example of a true known would be something like 1+1=2 (in any base over binary), for our common definitions of each term.
An example of a true unknown would have been the existence of the dwarf planets, from a viewpoint several decades ago. Dwarf planets definitely existed, but were unknown.
An example of a false known would be astrology. We know that astrology exists, and we know its theories, conclusions, etc. are false.
An example of a false unknown would have been the belief people once had about the earth being the center of the universe, from their viewpoint.
However, you keep introducing a 'third value' in the true-false dichotomy, and declaring it 'mystery'. What does that actually mean? If it means 'unknown', then it's not part of this dichotomy, but the other; if it means 'true and false', it's a nonsensical paradox, and can be discarded as such.
There are no concepts or ideas that can be true and false simultaneously, without multiple referential frames. And any philosophy which attempts to apply a single value to an idea or concept accross varying and often competing referential frames fails to be useful or meaningful.
After all, if this is the case, then all concept is mystery.
But mystery is not, itself, a resolved value of veracity; rather, it is an unreduced quantity, an unanswered or unexamined question.
You can only get to unknown=false as a skeptic when you apply Occam's Razor or something similar. Occam's Razor is not logic, nor is it science, nor is it dialectic, but rather a heuristic. You can't determine anything with a heuristic, it's only a guide, it's not science, it's philosophy.
Actually, what a skeptic does is to select to deal with an unknown as tenetively false, until proven true; just as I tend to dealt with unknowns as tenetively true, until proven false. But application of such a heuristic bears oft practical results. No, it's not logic or science or whatever, but Occam's Razor is exceptionally useful.
compared to my point of view, they are useless, they dont determine anything, they are more likely to mislead. Those steps were guided by a philosophy with unscientifically determined assumptions.
But your point of view is, itself, fatally flawed. And considering that those steps are also part of what you introduced as part of the dialectic view, you're saying the dialectic view is also useless. Those steps won't mislead at all - they will, rather, eliminate the useless and false. Something that philosophies often dislike, because the results are usually strongly against their philosophies.
I stated a series of questions, not answers mind you, but questions that a dialectician would use. It is not the answer which always informs or enlightens, it's the question. A question itself is by default beholden of the third value. The question is proof of the mystery it seeks.
OK, we've got to remove the psychobabble in there first... beholden? Proof of the mystery?
Those are cult/religion/babble terms, Fish. Gotta try avoiding them.
The question is useless without the answer. An unanswered question is only as useful as the process one takes to seek the answer. Answers inform and enlighten, and lead to new questions.
Otherwise, a question would have no use at all.
if the skeptic is applying unknown=false to those answers, the skeptic is going to delude himself as much as the Christian believer, no?
No, because the skeptic is applying unknown=false unless proven true... meaning the skeptic remains open to changes in the situation.
The Christian believer, however, applies unknown=true, regardless of other info. That's a huge difference.
but it could possibly have to do with the biblical god in the sense that the biblical god was only an idea that perhaps was guided by some organizing princaple in either nature or the universe. the christian idea of jesus and the various belief systems around jesus provided society with some pretty critical components, very benificial social ethics were adopted into society due to those belief systems.
But that's not what's been asked. That's all side-commentary, and while it might be worth investigating on its own, is irrelevant to the original statement.
For here, you may consult atheist Isaac Azimov.
It's Asimov, and he's my favorite author, hands down. And his arguments about the benefits of religion is, once again, a misdirection in this case.
See, this is part of the woo behavior that pisses people off with you: you're faced with a question or statement, and instead of addressing it, you run off-topic on tangents that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. No one's saying that religion isn't beneficial to society to some degree; we just had a hypothetical discussion about the Biblical God's existence, period. And your dialectician is somewhere in left field, discussing Roman Catholic art and the benefits of the Nursing Schools, or something.
In other words, he's bsing.
Now, you suggest that asking questions regarding humanity's origins, purpose, or direction, or at least certain questions, is not an approach,
And it's not - as regards the question of whether or not the Biblical God exists.
and it essentialy is the only one, that's my argument. We want truth, right? we can't find the truth if we can't ask the question.
The question was asked - 'Does the Christian God exist?' - and the questions you would follow with have nothing to do with answering that question.
Hence, it's a very poor method of answering the question.
The question's may provide 1 or 2 values, but we must ask them, we cant go on 'hunch, which to me seems like you are doing at a critical level of your philosophy.
Where did you get that from? I mean, honestly, where are you pulling that from?
Mystery is nothing but a tangled hierarchy of true and false, and skeptics see mystery as false and believers as true.
Strawman noted. Skeptics see mystery as unknown, and tenetively false until proven otherwise. Believers as true, regardless of other information.
Now, you mention qi, you made some claims which I said were epistemological and philosophical. I dont understand why you responded with...meaning your making epistemological and philosophical claims based on your research, no?
No. Just making factual statements based on my research.
although I can't say I have been researching it for 20 years, I too have done similar research as yours as well as an actual hands on practice for over 10 years, I come to a different conclusion than you, so that is how I say I can't accept your statement as objectivly true and certain. It's a mysterious idea, your claim, from my point of view at this time.
And I suggest your personal experience is not what you believe it to be.
I say qi currently has one of two possibilities to consider based on my personal experience and research, I too am making an epistimenological claim.
Qi is possibly a peri-normal phenomena, or a phantasm of subjective experience that is non contradictory inside of a body of philosophy.
Fine, as a matter of faith, that works for me. Beyond faith, however, qi does not exist beyond concept.
I am determining niether, rather I am saying it reasonably could be one or the other at this stage, not both at once! (although it 'could' actually be both at once, but that is too complex a possibility to discuss at this time)
That's not what you said, though; you said it did not exist as a normal phenomenon. That makes any other statement contradictory.
Either a thing exists in matter, or in concept, or both. With qi, either the mechanism is material, or psychological (conceptual placeholder for what ever 'mind' mechanism creates results in 'placebo' effects)
The concept of a thing is not the thing itself, right? So the concept of qi is not the same as qi itself, right? So if the concept of qi exists, but qi does not exist, then all we have is the concept of qi, right?
The concept of dragons exists; that doesn't make winged lizards any more likely to be real.
Our awareness and knowledge of its existence is irrelevant, as regards such existence.
Absolutely. This means things either exist/are true, or they don't/are not true.
No mystery.
it's not a different discussion, it's the element of the 2 value, most indeed apart of this discussion.
Imagination exists in universe, it follows none of the laws of universe, it completly disregards them.
What?
No, actually, all mental activity follows universal laws. The experiences generated by imagination do not appear to follow universal laws, but they actually do, much the same way illusions or movies may seem impossible, but there is actually solid physics underlying it all.
It exists in 'conceptual' space. We can only verify it exists through personal experience, there is no proof of it's existence outside of this. Same as consciousness. We have absolutly no scientific evidence for the existence of consciousness other than direct experience of ' I Am, I think, I feel'.
Wrong. We also have communication of experiences and inferences. We have observation of behaviors and reactions. In fact, we have a whole lot of evidence about both consciousness and imagination.
It's not that mysterious, really.
Human beings are not ideas, yet human psychology argues against propositions and suggestions exactly as if they are.
Please explain and give examples, because I have no idea what you're saying here.
I am going to name a few names that I'm sure you have heard of.
Rupert Sheldrake
Dr. Shui Yin Lo
Alister Crowley
Ralph Abrams
The Dalai Lama
Adolph Hitler
Pope Benidict what's his name.
Now i am going to state the proposition from OS 0 1 2 you suggest is self evident.
Human Beings are not ideas.
Now, do you really believe the proposition "Human Beings are not Ideas" is self evident?
Of course I do. But that doesn't mean a human being cannot be so intimately connected to an idea, as to be in some way inseparable from them.
Take Crowley, for example: a very twisted, dark, and devious person whose theories, ideas, and teachings have been a tremendous setback to reasonable thinking for many decades. Yes, we can discusss Crowley the man, but we cannot do so without discussing ideas Crowley may have embraced or proposed, because so much of what he is about is built upon these ideas.
Crowley is not Witchcraft, but Witchcraft is very much a part of Crowley.
Dr. Shui Yin Lo is a friend of mine, so I have the benifit, by the way, of actually knowing the man.
And, given what I've read, both of your posts and of what others have posted about you, I'm not surprised. Like attracts like, in the world of social interaction.
Yes. However Doc Lo was not accused of fraud, they were.
You're right - he was accused of incompetance, and scientific ineptitude.
He resigned from that company after they ingored his report on some laundry ball thing.
Actually, he gave the laundry ball thing rave reviews. Of course, it was just another bit of quackery, like homeopathy (which he also supports).
This has caused him problems. That sucks for marketing himself, but that has nothing to do with his theory.
Actually, it clearly demonstrates that he lacks certain critical thinking skills, and tends towards sloppy research and tries to reinforce preconceived beliefs.
This is false and misleading. It wasnt a 'claim', it was a paper he published in Physics Letters B. No one has repeated his experiment.
Lie. Several attempts were made to replicate, as usually happens in proper science. Results were overwhelmingly negative.
There were a few online rebuttals that were not presented as formal arguments to Doc Lo, i.e. he wasnt given the respect of a resonse or rebuttal. As you know, stable water clustering is a very controversial topic in physics and chemistry.
No, stable water clustering is a favorite topic of certain scam artists and woo believers. In physics and chemistry, it's been nearly universally discarded as the result of poor experimentation and wishful thinking. It was tossed right out of proper science right along with Penta water, homeopathic remedies, and palmistry.
he could be a child molester, it would'nt effect his science. He has had a distinguished career, holding professorship and some pretty impressive universities in QM physics. I was at his wedding at cal tec two years ago, he seemed to have the respect of a large body of academia, the place was packed with them.
Yawn. Let me know when you're done with the uncritical appeals to popularity, etc.
it does not matter who it is, ideas are not people. If someone is a fraud or a sham, thier ideas can still be true, or false, or mystery, not false by default.
Yes, but someone who is a fraud or a sham must provide more perfect evidence to back their ideas, or they will be treated as if their ideas are false.
This is just good policy, all around.
Sure, Dr. Shui might well have turned over a new leaf and learned how to conduct science properly; but until we see some of these properly conducted, double-blind, placebo-controlled, peer-reviewed studies appear in respectable scientific journals, and see independent researchers properly duplicate the results... then his experiments will always be suspect.
Doc Lo is the classic absent minded professor IMHO. He is very naive and pure on one hand, and very eager to do almost anything that will advance his theories and experiments, on the other. he has the excitement of a young boy. He is also very easily misled.
Which makes him sound like an unscrupulous, unprofessional, and inept scientist, at best.
I defend him here because he deserves some defense.
Show us why he deserves defense...
He needs help there, he doesnt communicate very well at all, he actually sucks at it pretty bad.
How on earth did he become a scientist if he cannot communicate?
The man has 7 patents, over 25 papers he has written, some published, some not, and a whole body of quantum 'philosophy' he has developed from quantum theory. he is eccentric but only in the most charming of ways. he is a good man.
yawn. It doesn't take much to get patents. Papers tend to speak for themselves, but if he hasn't published them, they aren't worth much; and his published works get pretty heavily torn apart by real scientists. As for being 'good', I don't care if he beats nuns or takes care of starving orphans- his history has damned him so far.
No! Let's get BOTH logical and rational, and intuitive/creative. They work well together you know, and when they do, we are more rational and creative for it
Oh geez.
Creativity and intuition are great for STARTING points, or for brief jumps; but logic and reason are masters in critical thought.
Academia realizes this relationship; you should learn it.
It depends upon what you're being pragmatic about, that's what I mean. We can be pragmatic about having a divine experience that we cannot explain. We can be pragmatic about internal experiences where it 'feels' like energy is being moved and transformed throughout the body.
I may well be using the word 'pragmatic'. I am trying to mean, 'practical'.
I havent much familiarity with the term 'luminous ether', but a quick note about old ideas and concepts like qi or anything like that. Think about it. A long time ago there simply existed no pure objective language or method like science/logic/mathematics of today, no distinctions for things in the rational sense like we know it today. Metaphor, art, rich poetic description was the only option to describe subtle force/experience. That description could be misinterpreted as something meant to be objective. Alchemy is a perfect example. We assume alchemy was about turning lead into gold, and alchemy is a western 'internal art' like qi kung is to the east, more of a philosophical esoteric thing.
'We' who? I have always understood that alchemy was part of the search for immortal life. Conversion of elements was just a small part of the process.
We have powerful minds and we dont neccesarily know how to use them. The mind apparently can be self modeled in numerous ways, creativly or analyitically or both, and a psychological mechanism is just a belief system that produces a result, like placebo.
We'd know more about how to use them, if we didn't have to deal constantly with people making ridiculous claims, then falling back on placebo effect (which, like you, they don't understand) when their claims fail.
Consider, when placebos turn up a small percentage of healing in most case studies, how would that be shrugged off as irrelevant? the mind does the healing, but the person doesnt know how they did it. That's worth critically looking into, dont you think?
No, not at all. It tells me that you, like so many others, just don't know what the placebo effect really is.
It's a crutch of the true woo, whenever their other concepts are shown invalid, that they start talking about the 'placebo power', like it's some kind of mystic self-healing ability.
It's not.
links? refrences? studies? personal experiences?
Look for it yourself. After twenty years, I don't keep links around for stuff like that. I do know that body hardening is a part of special forces martial arts training; and they don't bother with nonsense like qi.
I dont see what difference that makes if true, and it was certainly used extensivly when I was trained in it.
That doesn't make it vital.
Tell me, how do you describe turning sexual jing and refining it into qi, and then into shen, without using qi as a placeholder?
Conception. Semen becomes life.
No qi involved, thanks.
have you experienced qi in the sense where you can move it around your body? have you felt electric or magnetic like polarity in the body? if so can you change the the polarity? can you generate heat? can you cause effect to your physical body structure simply by moving it along your spine?
I can honestly say, I've never experienced anything which I can call qi as a separate phenomenon from other previously identified phenomena. I have, in fact, felt electric charges in my body; I have, in fact, generated small amounts of static electricity, via meditation, in my body. I've completely reverse my spiritual polarity during ritual on three separate occasions, though I don't know that this relates to what you're discussing.
I can generate heat on demand from my hands, chest, face, feet, and genitals, and have had the ability to do so since I was a child. I can harden parts of my body and resist great damage with simple concentration. And I could do all this before I had ever heard of qi.
I ask that because I have, consistantly for years. It's not even a big deal to me, please dont think i say these things to impress anyone, it's natural to me. I dont place objective validity on the experience. those are actual impressions of not what it is, but what it feels like. I don't know what that is. Maybe qi is just our own bioelectrical energy, i still dont know. I call it energy because it moves and feels like energy.
If it is biioelectric energy, would you concede that qi is little more than a synonym for bioelectric energy? And, as such, is an irrelevant - or, should I say, redundant - term?
He has a scientific argument for it as a peri-normal phenomena. I'm a layman, I can't say his physics is correct or not, but I will trust the science when it comes out.
His science, or the replies of qualified scientists to his published papers?
So qi is either a physical or conceptual mechanism, that's is all I am saying. I can still do the same thing with it no matter what it is. My experience stays the same.
No, either qi is a physical mechanism, or the concept of qi accompanies a psychological mechanism. Not exactly the same, but you can delude yourself into thinking that the experience is the same.
your confusing my 0's for 1's.
No, I'm spotting an uncritical reference to a dualist concept.
I'm not sure what you mean here, i dont know. The mind is still a very mysterious thing to me, and the QM stuff is just plain weird.
If the mind is an emergent property of matter, then mind and matter are already one.
some statements I make are tongue in cheek, the epistemology of daisies throughout the history of the vatican was a funny image i count not resist. not a critical statement.
That's when I prefer to add a smiley, like this one
.
Irrelevant to what? Saying that the third value is irrelevant or meaningless does not make it so, that's magical thinking. It's your steps you have taken to get there that appear contradictory and circular, not your conclusion.
"ladies and Gentleman, may i introduce Barak Obama, the next president of the united states" is not an irrelevant idea.
It's also not mysterious. Either it's unknown false, or it's unknown true. No mystery there. As to relevance, yes, it's an irrelevant idea. Once the statement is resolved as true/false, it becomes relevant. There are other statements which relate to his presidency which are relevent, but they, too, have true-false values to them.
"WMD are being stored and manufactored in Iraq" was not an irrelevant idea in 2003.
No, it was an unknown false idea. It is also, by itself, irrelevant.
A statement related to this would be relevant (if it were true): "IF Iraq is manufacturing and storing WMDs, with an intent to attack American or allied troops, THEN the best course of action based on tactical analysis would be to invade Iraq, interrupt such manufacturing, and confiscate or destroy the stored WMDs."
This is a true known statement, and highly relevant, based upon the unknown and irrelevant statement you presented.
No idea exists in a vacuum; all ideas are connected to other ideas, and even an irrelevant idea may have relevant connected statements.
Now if this is not what you mean, how is it I arrive with these contradictions when you claim it is irrelevant? I really dont undestand here, this is where we are deadlocked. Both of us cannot possibly be objectivly true here, one of us is clearly mistaken.
Or, possilby, my piss-poor command of language is failing me.
That's far from agreed upon scientifically! It's not true, that's philosophy about consciousness, most likely supplied by Dennet, who leads the reductionism charge. I think to make a statement like that is magical thinking.
and you're also assuming that the objective mystery of consciousness, once solved, will solve the mystery of consciousness, and not so, the subjective side of consciousness will always be a mystery by it's very nature alone, unless you believe in a psi-future of mind readers.
No, it's not agreed upon, as of yet. But it is true that the mysteries of consciousness are being rapidly unravelled. It's also true that the notion of 'the subjective side of consciousness' - whatever portion of it remains unclarified by scientific research - is irrelevant. What matter is, what it feels like to experience red, as long as our reactions to the experience of that wavelength of light are still within norm? And the patterns of our experiences and their related behaviours ARE objectively observable.
you could have said "Bubblefish, what do you mean here?" and it would have been a more honest response and more accurate appraisal. Instead, you gave us personal opinion.
For if my phrase was purely meaningless, then I could not have possibly meant anything by it. And I can assure you I am very clear about the meaning I prescribe.
Yet you are completely unclear about communicating that meaning.
no, mystery is mystery. ignorance is ignorance, and ignorance means, in the objective sense, 'not knowing' or 'knowing not'. 'I know that I do not know" is the socratic appeal to the third value and ignorance. it does not mean stupidity, it is not shameful. It is delusional to assume we are not ignorant.
And it is shameful to choose to remain ignorant, if you can do anything about it.
magical thinking again, you just turned 'not knowing' into something like a monster, a bad thing to be avoided. now your telling me it's shameful to not know.
Yes, exactly.
If at all possible, ignorance is to be eschewed. All mystery exists to be unravelled, to be resolved into true statements and discarded ideas.
agreed, but that's not the point. one could argue that intuition was pre-cognitive.
One could, but why? Their arguments would reveal their lack of critical thought.
I only can understand you here if you mean Pragmatism in the philosophical sense, and if you are, it's applied to science, it's not comprehensive. It's specific to a point of view. That was the meaning of my joke, academio-centric. That's fine if that's your philosophy, sure, I just dont think it's as critical as it once was, i think the 21st century gives us too much novelty to consider pragmatism as the sole approach to truth, we need both rationality and intuition, creativity and technology
Typical woo answer, I'm afraid.
No, a search for what is practical, useful, and necessary is as valid today as ever it was. Yes, we need creativity, beauty, etc... but for purely practical, psychological reasons.
that's a pretty general statement, and could be interpretted many ways. You're simply saying human beings have consciousness, and since we can prove human beings exist, consciousness exists by default, and no one is arguing with that.
It's not the existence of consciousness that is the mystery, we know it exists simply by self reflection and being, it is the experience of consciousness that is the mystery. We dont understand consciousness yet, and consciousness is both subjective and objective, we cannot understand consciousness by science alone.
Sure we can.
So there was no mystery before commerce, is that what you're trying to pedal here?
This must be another time you needed a
...
Mystery is the inspiration for the scientist and the artist.
Blanket statements noted.
Zaay, your suggesting mystery = that thing in your head that your reacting to when you see the word 'mystery'. that's only the false side of mystery. the other side of mystery, we dont know. And in an almost infinite universe with an unknown number of possible points of view, the mystery is constant simply due to human nature alone.
It's still just ignorance.
You will have to bring that conclusion to my attention then, until then, please note we seem to be having a similar point of view of each other, that is my observation of you too.
Well, for one thing, you're assuming some form of dualism - that there exists both the material and the non-material. For another, you're assuming that mystery exists as a thing apart, rather than as a quality of a thing,
qi kung is certainly relevant to me and about a few million others.
yawn. Appeal to popularity noted.
You are confusing mystery with something else, that thing in your head. Mystery is difficult to comprehend by default, it's a tangled hierarchy of true and false.
No, it's just the unknown. Period.
I dont know what to tell you other than what I have here. I am stating nothing more than the law of identity, A=A. The map is not the territory. the menu is not the meal.
Where have I heard that before?
I dont think you have modeled my school of thought properly yet. When i say mystery, you see woo, yet when I see objective reality, I see mystery, not woo! Objective and common reality is far more mysterious to me than qi. I consider everything, dont judge me or this point of view by one set of considerations, you wont get a fair picture if you do.
... huh? Common reality is mysterious???
Now I KNOW you've got some problems.
I'm only interested in my experiences and the actual science when it becomes available for right now. this is not my life's work, qi or qi research, it's just a hobby of mine, a past time. I'm not attached to it.
Translation: I don't want to do research; it might prove me wrong.
OK.
please stop referring to him as a scam artist and fraud, that is libelous and misleading. He has a distinguished career in academia, is published, holds patents, listed in the 'who's who' numerous times, and works very very hard at his research. He may be wrong about some things, or he may be right, just like any other scientist. Your making the same error here as James Randi is about Steorn. I dont understand how someone needs to be a fraud or a scam artist for someone else to be right about thier philosophy.
No. He's either a fraud / scam artist, or he's incompetant.
Again, making an assertion does not make reality change for all of us, just yourself. if you can argue that succesfully, i will update OS 0 1 2 to include your terminology.
Mystery is a third value. It is true that somethings are unknown. If it wasnt a value, then it wouldnt be true that some things were unknown.
And unknown is not a value, compared to true/false. It is a value compared to known/unknown.
What you're arguing for is a four value system.
No, it's not arbitrary, it's precise. I understand that I should explain this number set in relationship to natural number as dividing number sets into three categories: the null set(0), non null finite set (1), and the infinite set(2), and that this number system is based on their respective cardinalities.
Then do so. Because so far, your selections appear completely arbitrary.
[quote[in this sense self refrential to it's claim, precise, a pefect mathematical fingerprint of these meta distinctions found in number.[/quote]
Define 'perfect'. So far, you're throwing out garbage buzz-words.
the three values of perceptible truth used in ordering and counting are:
0=mystery, 1=true, 2=false.
What is this supposed to mean?
It's not math how I use those numbers, at least as far as i know, it's just that those same exact distinctions we use in truth values, we also use to distinguish the basic sets of number in ordering and counting, i.e. common use.
What???
I'm afraid I have to snip out the remainder of your replies, as you appear to descend into nonsense discussions of numerology and woo-heavy wishful thinking. I can't even parse half of what you're saying... much of it is just poorly worded common sense (if everyone just talks about things honestly, they can see how they were mistaken! Well, duh.) and much of it is gibberish (like the values of 0, 1, and 2) gathered from numerology of one sort or another.
Please, use some critical thinking - and don't reply tired.
