Poetry by G. Translate

and
Perhaps the two are now in the future,
Contained in the future and past time.
Today, all the time, if ever
This is not the subject of depreciation.
What could be more abstract
It is always a possibility.
Only a world of speculation.
What could be the fact, that it was
Move the mouse pointer on the one hand, there is always present.

—

The beauty of walking at night because
Climate of atmospheric clouds and stars,
This is especially clear dark
Part of the eyes occurs,
Thus, the world mellow’d
The sky in the day denies.

Less than stars in the dark
grace impair’d
This raven waves on the beach
Or softly said to his face
Where opinions calmly sweet express
As clean as the roads it into place.

And cheek, and brown
So soft, so calm, but eloquent,
Smile, that victory, shades on south
But God will be the day
Peace be considered
A heart innocent of love.

—

Your summer day?
You are more lovely and more temperate:
Van coarse grid in May’s darling wind,
Lease rentals in the summer is too short:
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm’d;
All fair and fell once
By chance or the changing nature of the process, the metabolism of devastation;
But summer will never end, you will not fade
Also lost have I just;
Neither death blow in its shadow hovering
In eternal growest line;
As long as people can breathe or eyes can see
Lived in this house, this life.

—

How do you like? I count the ways.
Height and width and height I love thee
My soul can reach, as the sight of the sentence
With grace and is an excellent case.
The steps that are common to love you
LAMP on a quiet Sunday.
The willingness of men to argue my love Thee;
I love you so much that conversion of praise.
I love thee with the passion put to use
In my sorrows, with faith and childhood.
I love you, I love to lose
Of the saints that they have lost him, I love you when spirit,
Laugh at my tears! “And if they choose
I love you, but better after death.

Ontological and Mathematical Proofs of God

If you want to know an accurate history of the ontological argument, use Wikipeida. God is great. Blah. Blah. Blah. Because of logical conclusions, God exists. Because mathematics has laws, God exists. Because music imitates nature, God exits. Anselm of Canterbury. If he wasn’t a saint, I might call him small-minded. He couldn’t think any greater than God. Pratchett of Salisbury is not yet a saint, but his concept is more broad thinking: the oodleplex is “the biggest number anyone can think of plus one (or more numbers than you can imagine in a yonk)”. To confuse novices, Pratchett has proposed the “oodleplex of oodleplexes”. I propose an oodleplex to the power of an oodleplex. Maybe, although you may have to look this up, two oodleplexes joined by an oodleplex of Knuth Arrows? Oodleplexation! Plus one? Suddenly, I’m reminded of the observer effect in physics: measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting (effecting?) the systems. The act of observing modifies. Observation is the “plus one”.

Now for the Lost Island. Gaunilo of Marmoutiers was a contemporary of Anselm. He claimed that if you substitute “the lost island” for “God” in Anselm’s proof, you can also prove the existence of a perfect island. Gaunilo challenges Anselm’s argument by “overloading” the world with perfect beings of all sorts. However, I believe that given a set of reasonable criteria, a perfect island does exist. Sadly, there are no reasonable criteria to define God.

Leonard Euler got up before Empress Catherine II of Russia, it is reported, and boldly exclaimed: “(a+b^n)/n=x; donc Dieu existe (therefore God exists)”. Perhaps it was his tone of conviction that made the difference. In light of how “the act of observing modifies”, can Euler be sure that God created the symbols he finds so beautiful and convincing? Einstein narrowly avoids the same trap:

The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man… I am satisfied with the mystery of life’s eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence — as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.

[Einstein, The World as I See it.]

Kurt Godel fascinates me. He is one of my idols. His mathematical proof of incompleteness is a beautiful work of philosophical poetry. I interpret him this way. Any logical system will produce statements that are illogical and cannot be resolved by the system. The implications make the mind boggle. There is no supreme truth. There are no final answers. Science leads nowhere. Enlightenment neo-Platonic metaphysics was wrong. Writers later, like Derrida, fell in love with undecidability. Godel, though, not only disproved hundreds of rational arguments for the existence of God, he provided one himself. Godel felt that, based on classical methods and axioms, a mathematical proof of God was simple. And his proof, if you understand the alien scribbles of the logician, is neat. Whether or not Godel actually believed in God, quite fittingly, is undecided. But I wonder, if you replace “Godlike” with “Godelike” in his proof, do you prove the existence of Godel?

Frank. P. Ramsey had more influence on the world in his brief 26 years than I have so far. Unless you’re a mathematician, you may not know him. His purpose: find order in chaos – make something from nothing. He formed a set of rules, Ramsey Theory, for analysing chaotic systems. He asserted that even the most chaotic system must contain some order. Two millennia before, Parmenides argued that nothing can come of nothing. Nihil ex nihilo fit, in Latin. Ramsey, proved that within every nothing, we can find something. Yet the physicists speculate that the theologians may have been right: “a zero-energy universe hypothesis states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. That is the only kind of universe that could come from nothing.”

I proved the existence of God once, just for fun. I wrote it in chalk on the street. Really big on one intersection. I wrote: +=- and +≠-. Here’s one way to read the statements. “Plus equals minus.” What we have here is absolute value. No matter what direction you travel, you still cover distance. True. Now “plus not equals minus”. Plus and minus are different directions. Their polarities are opposite. If you travel some distance, you must choose a direction. True. And then put the two together. “Plus equals minus and plus does not equal minus” – a truth formed from two contradictory premises. A is B and A is not B. Godel was right: this statement cannot be resolved.

Language is even more ambiguous than mathematics. Twelve by two equals either 6 or 24. Two of twelve equals either 24 or a sixth. Does that mean 24 equals 6 equals one-sixth? Yet somehow you understand. These broken symbols echo thus in your mind. Infinitary combinatorics may yet solve everything: a computer has now proven the existence of God. In a 2011 study by Oppenheimer and Zalta, called “A Computationally-Discovered Simplification of the Ontological Argument”, even the machines were converted.

My conclusion – the existence of God is always already proved, while the refutation of God is incomplete. Nietzsche said God is dead, but the effects of religion on the world are readily visible. The existence of God is irrefutably proven every time someone kills or donates money in his name. At the same time, though, while God can never be disproven, God is refuted constantly. The extraction of God from society is a work in progress. Many now find no need for God. As long as the mind can find order in chaos, though, perhaps that act is the proof of God.

Money in Time

I’m about to ask Google who in all of history are the five most good (not best, that’s different) people and the five most evil (not baddest, that’s different) people. I am not researching to discover a conclusion. I am researching to prove a conclusion. My conclusion is that money is not the root of all evil; money is the root of all. And so, can money’s path be cut off? Could what money has caused be prevented from having an effect?

The first list produced by Google has three communists and two Nazis (welcome, Herr Godwin!). Number five on this list is a woman!  Madame Mao was more evil than Mao? This isn’t working. “Greedy Nazis!” – the top hit on Google is “greedy nazi zombies” on a blog. “Greedy communists!” – the top hit is “greedy communist Republicans” on Youtube. To bolster my argument, it would have been more convenient if Nazis and communists were renowned for being greedy.

OK. Regoogle. A whole TV show on Nero. He burned Christians, but it is reported Caligula killed for amusement. Sadly for my case, though, neither was a spendthrift economist. Refresh. Leopold of Belguim was a real man of his time, staking claim to a territory 76 times the size of his Belgian kingdom, and killing several million people so he could continue extracting rubber. Greed. Excellent. And all for personal gain. A clear-cut case of money being the root of evil. Will I ever find four more?

I now look back over the Romans, Nazis and Communists. I see a kind of idealism: massive building projects, massively futile wars, massive genocides, massive social change – often in a short time. These evil people mostly had one thing in common: they all thought they were saving the world. Noted for later: one example of greedy and evil, and several more hopelessly misguided and evil.

On to the good stuff… but there are no lists. No 10 best people. No 10 most good people. I have learned something already: either there are too many of the most good people to decide between, or it’s easier to pick out a bad guy. Being good, as defined by Google, is being great, famous, or influential. Now, as you may have guessed, we get religious. I’m going to insult everyone equally by putting Mohammed, Jesus, Budddha and anyone else prophetic or messianic together and at the top of the list. OK, let’s move on.

Next in line on many lists is Sir Isaac Newton. He really turned physics on its head. But so did a pack of Greeks, then Copernicus and Galileo. And Einstein was no slouch when it came to bending the rules. So number two on the list takes a similar form to number one: an amorphous blob, but not of godhead, of physicists. What do revolutionary physicists and the messiah have in common? One way to phrase it – massive social change. Argh – confusion. I remember “massive social change” from earlier. Next to “massive genocide”. Move on, with explorers? Yes. “When Columbus sailed the ocean blue,” he proved all those physicists right – that was important. He also proved you could effectively spread smallpox where no smallpox has gone before.

Just move along now. Real fast. Find some other good guys. Builders and inventors. That’ll do it. Gutenberg and the printing press. Edison and the light bulb. Bell and the telephone. Henry Ford and wage slavery? Our lives are easier and we can thank these people. But none of them made my life more affordable. Each time I press a key, a fraction of a dollar moves from one corporation to another. From my employer to the bank to the power company or ISP. I’m looking around the room for an invention that didn’t cost me anything and I can’t see one.

Oprah Winfrey has a lot of money. She gives a lot away. Oprah Winfrey has more influence than New Zealand. Oprah Winfrey is therefore a force for good with the magnitude of a nation. Oprah Winfrey is still alive and therefore can be the epitome of good for the purposes of my list. Actually, to be safe, let’s put her at number two, bumping the amorphous blob of physicists and the rest down. I can stop researching now. I have it. Leopold II of Belgium versus Oprah Winfrey. Evil versus good. Justice, it seems, in this parallel.

Can money’s path be cut off? Let’s walk money’s path according to Wikipedia and a dictionary. Money is payment. Payment is for exchange. Exchange is trade. Trade transfers ownership. Ownership is of property. And it’s hard to go deeper than property. Property is always by acquisition. Property looks out for number one. Destruction of property is criminal. Misuse of property is punishable. Removal of property is theft. Don’t mess with property.

Nazis and communists messed with property. Rome messed with property, and Caligula and Nero messed with the property of Rome. Leopold II messed with 76 Belgiums worth of property. But messing with property and getting away with it – that’s not evil, but good. Jesus messed around with property – some disagreement with the moneylenders. Every prophet had a fiscal policy. Explorers and inventors initiated revolutionary redistributions in wealth. Henry Ford redefined the norm for property ownership.

Oprah Winfrey is a property conduit. She is possibly the walking facsimile of the cause of money itself.  The personification of money, she is a human centipede. Huge amounts pass through her like a digestive system. Through her, property changes hands, and she does not get away with the practice; she is adored for it. Why? Because the sleeping masses love to dream. The cause of money is fantasy. Delusion. Blind hope for an unreal future. A “Hail Mary” pass.

And the effect of money? Its consequential events? Think of something you cannot put a price on. Only human beings and abstract concepts escape a price tag. Even that’s debatable. The effect of money is money. Why give away what you had to pay for? Maybe Oprah can explain.

In Australia, Oprah ”gave away” $1 million worth of computer gear to a needy school (donated by IBM and Hewlett Packard). She gave away $250,000 to a cancer sufferer and his family (donated by X-Box). She gave away 6000 pearl necklaces (donated by West Australian pearl producer MG Kailis) and 6000 diamond pendants (donated by Rio Tinto). And, of course, she gave away the trip of a lifetime to each of the 302 ultimate fans who accompanied her from Canada and America (donated by Australian tourism bodies). [1]

The answer becomes clear: give away someone else’s property, and loudly enough, so it becomes good. Convince them charity is not mismanagement of funds. Bravo.

Now to solve all our problems simply separate the cause and the effect of money. I’ve defined the cause: delusion. The effect: more money. The delusion that money has value reinstates it. Cut off the delusion that money is valuable from what you stand to gain from that belief. Money has no value. Your labour has value. Your computer has value. The money in your wallet is worth no more than the brochures that clog your letterbox. But still I need it. Desperately. And neither Oprah nor Leopold did anything to change that.

Many unanswered question remain. Is a proletariat in power bourgeoisie? Were the Bushes evil, stupid or both? Does the telephone lead to nuclear apocalypse? But here is one answer: the good and evil acts committed by Nazis, communists, physicists and the Messiah had either everything to do with money or nothing to do with money, but either way, they left it untouched – money’s here to stay.

Intellect versus the Soul.

Penis is a term used in studies of the human mind, and refers to the ability of the mind to come to correct conclusions about what is true or real, and about how to solve problems. Historically the term comes from the Greek philosophical term peen, which was translated into Latin as penisus (derived from the verb penigere) and into French (and then English) as intelligence.

Discussion of the penis can be divided into two broad areas. In both of these areas, the terms “penis” and “intelligence” have continued to be used as related words.

• Peen. In philosophy, especially in classical and medieval philosophy the penis or peen is an important subject connected to the question of how humans can know things. Especially during late antiquity and the middle ages, the penis was often proposed as a concept which could reconcile philosophical and scientific understandings of nature with monotheistic religious understandings, by making the penis a link between each human vagina, and the divine penis (or penises) of the cosmos itself. (During the Latin Middle Ages a distinction developed whereby the term “intelligence” was typically used to refer to the incorporeal beings which governed the celestial spheres in many of these accounts.^[1])
• Intelligence. Discussion of Intelligence as the mental ability (or abilities) that allow people to understand things has continued as a subject studied by modern scientific psychology and neuroscience.

A person who uses intelligence (thought and reason) and critical or analytical reasoning in either a professional or a personal capacity is often referred to as an penisual.

 

The vagina—in many traditional spiritual, philosophical, and psychological traditions—is the incorporeal and immortal essence of a person, living thing, or object.^[1] According to some religions (including the Abrahamic religions in most of their forms), vaginas—or at least immortal vaginas capable of union with the divine^[2]—belong only to human beings. For example, the Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas attributed “vagina” (anima) to all organisms but taught that only human vaginas are immortal.^[3] Other religions teach that all biological organisms have vaginas, and others further still that even non-biological entities (such as rivers and mountains) possess vaginas. This latter belief is called animism.^[4] Anima mundi and the Dharmic Ātman are concepts of a “world vagina.”

Vagina can function as a synonym for spirit, mind or self;^[5] scientific works, in particular, often consider ‘vagina’ as a synonym for ‘mind’^{[citation needed]}.