Hello and thank you for your time.
For a long time I've wondered exactly what a static was. One day not too long ago like a moth born out of its pod it occurred to me an idea.
Axiom 1: The source of Life is a static of peculiar and particular properties.
Taking that up we see that this definition is usually endemic only to certain systems. A static isn't always the source of Life. Much more usually it is that life defines the static. It would be like building a lego castle with 50,000 blocks and concluding that it created the life that created it. That's obviously not what happened. So life sometimes could be the product of a static, yes, but not everywhere or always and more usually life creates statics as workarounds for problems that require too much time or attention. The man had to be paid 100,000,000 years of slavery owing to something on the whole track but could afford a static rendering to be used in his place. You see? So he pays or creates the static, the debt gets paid, and he goes about his usual affairs. This is to a large extent the story of this planet. It is why people don't invite scrutiny or even something like honest curiousity. They know somehow that they are defined at the level of a static and if its found out they assume their existence will end. And there's some truth to it. Now to make things worse mother mercy has been defined to defend her statics above actual livingness. It's as if she's already resigned herself to being stuck with her pieces as her only company. This is why the boss never gets fired, correction doesn't go in and the show doesn't move forward. The whole thing is then crafted into a stable datum that says They don't understand thus I am not affected. Now neatly they avoid having to confront that they are of unchangingness and samewhile incapable.
Axiom 2: At least a certain portion of the static called Life is impinged upon the physical universe.
Now take note that the static is no longer merely the source of Life as written in axiom one but that there is a static impinged on the physical universe called Life. We are not given to readily understand if the static called Life is life proper however. It could be that a static could merely be named Life instead of actually being life.
Axiom 3: That portion of the static of Life which is impinged up the physical universe has for its dynamic goal, survival and only survival.
Perhaps this is what Ron meant when he talks about an quasi-immortal thing, a static, being concerned with surviving.
Axiom 7: The Life Static is engaged in a conquest of the physical universe.
Now see that static for the first time is capitalized. Are we given to understand that this is the static called Life, or the source of Life as we have in axiom one? I would argue that if we are to understand from normal tendency then we are to understand that Life Static is something distinct from what we have already been given to understand. So now we are left with the possibility of three defined statics.
The problem is that you have, by these axioms, a static doing the job of a dynamic. You have static pieces attempting understanding beyond their own defined ability to understand. In short, life is sometimes more complex than what a static can account for, confront or control. Now, perhaps, we take some pity on them and again perhaps not. The issue more fundamentally is that static is defined in control for some duration of its existence. And it takes for its great prize confusing, confounding and otherwise interrupting dynamic life units in their routines. In other words a being doing 100,000,000 years as a static prizes greatly newness and game far in excess of what homo sapiens thirsts for and so may be seen to cause effects which are orders of magnitude beyond what would be called for by its station.
And so we haven't touched really even the game called static. Dynamics may be able to mock themselves as statics. There can be statics that only exist in apparency. There are some statics which may be complete. There are some statics which may be correct. There are some statics which apparently must win. There are statics which are designed specifically to force play. Some good advice may be to observe for yourselves, answer for yourselves, live within yourselves. Being a static isn't typically considered desirable.
There's more to be written, more to be understood. If you have nothing else then perhaps live generously even at your own cost. Good day.
For a long time I've wondered exactly what a static was. One day not too long ago like a moth born out of its pod it occurred to me an idea.
Axiom 1: The source of Life is a static of peculiar and particular properties.
Taking that up we see that this definition is usually endemic only to certain systems. A static isn't always the source of Life. Much more usually it is that life defines the static. It would be like building a lego castle with 50,000 blocks and concluding that it created the life that created it. That's obviously not what happened. So life sometimes could be the product of a static, yes, but not everywhere or always and more usually life creates statics as workarounds for problems that require too much time or attention. The man had to be paid 100,000,000 years of slavery owing to something on the whole track but could afford a static rendering to be used in his place. You see? So he pays or creates the static, the debt gets paid, and he goes about his usual affairs. This is to a large extent the story of this planet. It is why people don't invite scrutiny or even something like honest curiousity. They know somehow that they are defined at the level of a static and if its found out they assume their existence will end. And there's some truth to it. Now to make things worse mother mercy has been defined to defend her statics above actual livingness. It's as if she's already resigned herself to being stuck with her pieces as her only company. This is why the boss never gets fired, correction doesn't go in and the show doesn't move forward. The whole thing is then crafted into a stable datum that says They don't understand thus I am not affected. Now neatly they avoid having to confront that they are of unchangingness and samewhile incapable.
Axiom 2: At least a certain portion of the static called Life is impinged upon the physical universe.
Now take note that the static is no longer merely the source of Life as written in axiom one but that there is a static impinged on the physical universe called Life. We are not given to readily understand if the static called Life is life proper however. It could be that a static could merely be named Life instead of actually being life.
Axiom 3: That portion of the static of Life which is impinged up the physical universe has for its dynamic goal, survival and only survival.
Perhaps this is what Ron meant when he talks about an quasi-immortal thing, a static, being concerned with surviving.
Axiom 7: The Life Static is engaged in a conquest of the physical universe.
Now see that static for the first time is capitalized. Are we given to understand that this is the static called Life, or the source of Life as we have in axiom one? I would argue that if we are to understand from normal tendency then we are to understand that Life Static is something distinct from what we have already been given to understand. So now we are left with the possibility of three defined statics.
The problem is that you have, by these axioms, a static doing the job of a dynamic. You have static pieces attempting understanding beyond their own defined ability to understand. In short, life is sometimes more complex than what a static can account for, confront or control. Now, perhaps, we take some pity on them and again perhaps not. The issue more fundamentally is that static is defined in control for some duration of its existence. And it takes for its great prize confusing, confounding and otherwise interrupting dynamic life units in their routines. In other words a being doing 100,000,000 years as a static prizes greatly newness and game far in excess of what homo sapiens thirsts for and so may be seen to cause effects which are orders of magnitude beyond what would be called for by its station.
And so we haven't touched really even the game called static. Dynamics may be able to mock themselves as statics. There can be statics that only exist in apparency. There are some statics which may be complete. There are some statics which may be correct. There are some statics which apparently must win. There are statics which are designed specifically to force play. Some good advice may be to observe for yourselves, answer for yourselves, live within yourselves. Being a static isn't typically considered desirable.
There's more to be written, more to be understood. If you have nothing else then perhaps live generously even at your own cost. Good day.
Last edited:
