it is volume II
to access volume I click
here
this part is so raw it still jumps
(usual researcher would be embarrassed to
show many of these thoughts in public, but I'm not that usual)
![](continuation_files/Elder-Futhark.jpg)
ᛖ ᛗ ᛚ ᛜ
e m l ŋ
Is another case of M before L. So I know only two such cases.
(the other one is in "old testament" and if
you haven't read about it, click that button upstairs and
look for "only sequence" to find that piece)
So called futhark could be another alphabetic arrangement of
letters:
ᚠ is F, but ᚨ is A,
and in "anglo-saxon futhorc"
ᚪ
a, ᚫ æ, ᚩ o
ᚨ stands in fourth position, where vowel is in bornholm alphabet.
(ᚩ (o) in anglosaxon futhork stands there)
ᚦ stands in third position, as in bornholm alphabet.
ᚢ is labial as ᛒ (both are in second position)
ᚱ is graphically closest to ᛒ and one often look like the other.
ᚲ stands after that ᛒ as it's supposed to
ᚷ as it's invariant. or is it staveless ᛡ standing exactly in the
7th position?
ᚹᚻᚾ which follow that ᚷ appeal to ionic vocalization of H, because
ᚹ is labial (a labial half of ᛒ undistinguishable from ᚦ on a
common staff. Is it Ѳ we cannot figure out whether it's t of f?
ᛁᛃᛇ claster remind that in IJ or even HIJ, and the ᚻ from a few
lines above has another form: ᚺ so where does this claster begin
I'm not sure.
after this vowel claster comes labial ᛈ
The same structure, but different transliteration of letters.
Could they stay vowels, but drift as they did in english, where I
inscribes no A but pronounces it as AI is I = Z? as it is in some
ancient scripts, as I is az in old russian, and literally the
first letter, as I is in roman numerals. Could this order be
twisted because lines came in different planks? or even in dice,
where nobody knows which one is the first one. so some dies had
more zeros than the others.
ᛉ that follows is either part of the following sequence of
linguals or an invariant of labial ᛈ as M, shaky table, a bed. zie
or ma? ma as female denominative (mama, manda, man is "not ma" or
"belonging to ma"? - жена "принадлежит je" or "isn't je" je is
male form of this personal pronoun and me is female one? )
and on it goes as in bornholm alphabet:
ᛊ=ᛋ, ᛏ
and after ᛏ, ᛒ follows, as ᚢ does in bornholm alphabet.
thus ᛒ & ᛏ stand together.
ᛖ is supposed to stand for E, which makes this form be three
mothers: it is labial M in our script, it is lingual Ϻ in old
greek, though it's hard for me to buy it, because their M
sometimes looked just the same. l & I also look the same, but
wtf! now, with ᛖ this form takes all three forms. and it has pikes
on its head, just like this tridevi:.. I wanted to bring a picture
of Hecate, but I found something better: I have no idea how
correct the info there is, but somebody did a great job collecting
it there, so you better check it out yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_deity
and after that vowel ᛖ goes labial ᛗ (and since it's their final
line, it reminds me of invariants of U V
and after that ᛗ [M] follows those
ᛚ & ᛜ of L &
N. N also looks like Ѵ(ѵ) in greek, and ѵ used to be final in
old russia alphabet - couldn't it be caused by some cultural
references (as of V reflecting A for example)
and sometimes ᛟᛞ follow, though ᛞ is believed to be
double form of ᚦ and
ᛟ could be borrowed from Ω
But here's
some other form of futhark:
As you can
see, I wasn't wrong about ᛡ
and another one:
![](continuation_files/2014-05-25-14-15-19.jpg)
and look how here it is futhark, but it is the first 7 letters of
the bornholm alphabet:
ᚠ literally looks like ᚨ
![](continuation_files/Ogham_Con.jpg)
ᚢ looks more like n (ᚿ).
or like b in ogham.
then ᚦ stands where it had to.
then some vowel, looking like E
and it was supposed to be E
oficially it's whether a or o
what follows is supposed to be ᚱ
and though ᚱ is often written like that
it looks more like ᚢ
but in the previous analysis I saw ᛒ
ᚱ is graphically between ᛒ & ᚢ
and their form correlate with sounds
vowel ᚢ, labial ᛒ, lingual ᚱ
another representation of three ladies.
My name is Deemeetree,
they say it's devoted to Demetra. But it's
literally 3
Dame3. tra as female form of tri.
You know female deity is triple.
and the fourth mother is hidden.
as the fourth ball in pyramid of four.
And how are 2nd and 5th letters are different?
They look exactly the same. No, sometimes second is higher. but
sometimes it is not. Is it just names of the
days of the week? as if tuesday and thursday
were given in the same letter.
Some runologist educate me please,
I cannot specialize in all of it.
A couple of words of ogham, as soon as it's here:
It's also named beth luis nun or beth luis noin
But the third letter is f - was it placed there to reflect t?
c reflects s in k-symmetry also.
Sequence M G Ng reminds futharkic one: M L Ng
G & L are almost invariants, so often they look alike: whether
as < & ^
or as ג & λ
- in lowercase cursive l is also bigger than c
So if we переставим L & G,
we'll have ogham beginning with BG which follows BC & B is the
first letter again. The holy book of alphabet had b as the first
letter. Remeber those runic poems, when each line begins with the
next level according to alphabetic (or futharkic) sequence. The
resemblance of alphabetic & futhark structures
(where even direct correlation happens on the
3rd position and directly repeats at 6th, which alone is well
out of probability theory. And those correlation keep on coming
from all the ways, which I think I demonstrated) could be
caused by some royal poet changing the meaning & sound of
those lines. That's why such a diverse tradition can be found in
the kingdom of runic scripts, where one sound goes in different
visions & same visions go for different sounds, or it could be
caused by secrecy, which is comical, since many of their
neighbours had writings, yeah, but then we had some special
writing system, even if based on the same principles, and maybe
even on the same magic, but made in our own language & in our
own manner. Not only musical mode was different, but graphic was
taken from national signs: tamgas could be the source of
recognizable graphs, where you know where's eagle, where's snake
(3 birds & 3 animals & 3 parts of the
body & 3 fractions of circle & 3 other things egyptian
alphabet is having. their writing system have more beasts, but
only as ideograms.)
Let's collect some more futhark canons allegedly from artifacts
and ponder on them some more:
Notice, that in both two cases where ᛉ is present it is considered
to be R/z, not M.
Could this decipherment or actual case be influenced by hungarian
![Zs (rovásbetű).svg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Zs_%28rov%C3%A1sbet%C5%B1%29.svg/14px-Zs_%28rov%C3%A1sbet%C5%B1%29.svg.png)
𐲰 𐳰 ?
Because in alphabetic sequences ᛉ's definitely M.
Let's compare these 3 aetts to Bureus'ы 3 dice:
It seems that division into
aettir is much less important than the
sequence
itself, which could be
unnoticed if we compared them
without this page from
Bureus.
Though even comparing the other
two many interesting things
can be observed, I leave them to you.
See that Bureus recognizes ᛉ as M
But we noticed before, that dice are arranged alphabetically, but
it goes dice by dice in rows:
All ᛁ's are collected in the middle die: ᚴ ᚼ ᚾ ᛁ ᛅ where ᛅ is ᛆ, A
it's interesting that the following unicode block doesn't include
this form
(the most
similar to 1) among ᚨᚩᚪᚫᚬᚭᚮᚯᚰ but in ᚽᚾᚿᛀᛁᛂᛃᛄᛅᛆᛇ
but this second vowel claster predates labial ᛈ and ᛉ as it has ᛁ
among those vowel, and as I consider ᛈ rare and late, as ᚚ in
ogham
(also standing for p, and also
different from other set. what could it stand for? (podushka?) pillow?) I consider ᛉ the
original labial, and ᛈ was only introduced to write down "PATER"
instead of "БАТЯ" or something of that kind. Don't forget,
russians were under norman command before christians took
over.
Runic[1][2]
Official
Unicode Consortium code chart (PDF) |
|
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
U+16Ax |
ᚠ |
ᚡ |
ᚢ |
ᚣ |
ᚤ |
ᚥ |
ᚦ |
ᚧ |
ᚨ |
ᚩ |
ᚪ |
ᚫ |
ᚬ |
ᚭ |
ᚮ |
ᚯ |
U+16Bx |
ᚰ |
ᚱ |
ᚲ |
ᚳ |
ᚴ |
ᚵ |
ᚶ |
ᚷ |
ᚸ |
ᚹ |
ᚺ |
ᚻ |
ᚼ |
ᚽ |
ᚾ |
ᚿ |
U+16Cx |
ᛀ |
ᛁ |
ᛂ |
ᛃ |
ᛄ |
ᛅ |
ᛆ |
ᛇ |
ᛈ |
ᛉ |
ᛊ |
ᛋ |
ᛌ |
ᛍ |
ᛎ |
ᛏ |
U+16Dx |
ᛐ |
ᛑ |
ᛒ
|
ᛓ |
ᛔ |
ᛕ |
ᛖ |
ᛗ |
ᛘ |
ᛙ |
ᛚ |
ᛛ |
ᛜ |
ᛝ |
ᛞ |
ᛟ |
U+16Ex |
ᛠ |
ᛡ |
ᛢ |
ᛣ |
ᛤ |
ᛥ |
ᛦ |
ᛧ |
ᛨ |
ᛩ |
ᛪ |
᛫ |
᛬ |
᛭ |
ᛮ |
ᛯ |
U+16Fx |
ᛰ |
ᛱ |
ᛲ |
ᛳ |
ᛴ |
ᛵ |
ᛶ |
ᛷ |
ᛸ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes
- 1.^
As of Unicode version 11.0
- 2.^
Grey areas indicate non-assigned code points
|
ᛒ stands in Bureus's table in the third die (which is actully the
second one) and there it's accompanied with ᛉ ᛚ ᛐ ᛋ (ml, st: ᛉ
ᛚ ᛋ ᛐ) 2 is female sign, just as ᛉ & ᛋ, did they bring
their partners? because ᛒ is female, but single. was that sixth
die added to keep her company?)
ᚦ is in the company of ᚠ and reflecting it ᚥ
(or is it ᚭ?)
ᚢ and reflecting it ᚱ or its invariant ᛦ - can it be jus the left
part, which is present in the Bureus table staveless. Here's what
I noticed: RUNA in that Bureus's script looks like
![](continuation_files/runa.png)
hardly a coincidence. what is it? is it om? or am I only tripping.
Everybody should be tripping,. alcohol they give ya is all no
good. But trip accurately so you don't lose your logic in the way.
According to this theory, ᛅ (e) should be in the same band with ᛆ
(a), but ᛅ is that very (a) and there's no e in that dice set. ᚠ
should have been in ᛒ's band, but it's in ᚦ's. As there's no e, it
could be some other alphabetic canon. Or it could be a retarded
hypothesis.
----this part of digrams should have been transfered to the end of
previous volume, but it stays here---
Г = глаголь
(так называется эта буква в
русской азбуке)
гамма = грамма
(from what I've shown
before)
So гамма
(gamma, gamut) is word.
several notes.
(and gimel is semitized form
of gamma)
Without A, Г:
(because there's no c in
runic of bornholm, because vowels are often separated, because
"be was the first letter" from some kabbalist's lecture, because гамма ис term for several letters, not
just one. Letter, could people send message with just one
note? They sure could. Праздничный рог и боевой рог, конечно
же могли различаться. )
b d
Ⰲ Ⰴ
Vita Delta
Life & Death
Inside & Outside
Female & Male
Woman & Man
le = n? lo = no!
(lo
in hebrew, no in english, I"m sorry if I do these remarks not
often enough)
Man is "not ma" (not
mother) though mathur is man in Iceland. nature &
mature?
So L & N are invariants? N is double L or L with swash?
double L is Й (short double, which is
single)
N is articulatorilly similar to И
and they have literally Ñ in spain.
Why did I write Spain with minuscle?
Obligatory majusculization is some brainwashing technique I
avoid.
Woman & Man
Me & He (both Seshat, Io &
Fates are female. Thor who invented falling stones is male,
but he's rather Palamedes who invented dice, who added
eleven letters to existing 7. was aett 7+0? 7 day of a week,
AEIOUBT? literally alphei BeT. is E LF binden as runes?
though it would look different, closer to these mutants: ᚪ
a, ᚫ æ, ᚩ o)
le = n? lo = no!
bu is no in chinese.
da is yes in russian.
because you give outside, but take inside (when you take something to yourself, you
say no when others ask it from you) I'm speaking here
of my old hypothesis that ancient people spoke on inhale too,
because we still do: in Sweden voiceless inhale over U-lips means (this word should become obsolete, use
another) is "yes", ah! of fear is said on inhale, I
was told that dogs bark on inhale, I tryed it and it became
more doglike, so it could be "no" or "give" or anything
actually, I'm still not specialized in biolinguistics.
I wish youtube delivered me more
science, but it delivers me politics, stupid thing, I don't
care of politics that much, I only party at /pol/ where I
have enough of it, but pol is politics, you click political
videos, party at /sci/ even though you understand less
there. Challenge yourselff,
I already found the primal couple of senses: inside and
outside, ah & ha, though there were more unconscious
sounds: cough of k, voiced inhale between words that would
become & or и[i], I think it appeared in ancient Egypt,
when they began to put // for -и -z (-es) -N (-en)
I made N majuscule because font matters, now speaking of
fonts, let's research several of them:
Fraktur:
![](continuation_files/LgGRK.png)
![](continuation_files/Lesehilfe_Fraktur.jpg)
![](continuation_files/k_f.gif)
![](continuation_files/t_f.gif)
Notice how in these frakturs k is
different. What I consider to be the more archaic form of
fraktur, k reminds t with a diacritic mark. ant t itself looks
like l with longus.
![](continuation_files/v_f.gif)
notice how fractur form of b could
influence russian б
notice how fractur form of v looks like an invariant of
b
![](continuation_files/r_f.gif)
![](continuation_files/x_f.gif)
Notice how x reminds r is some half of fracturs (the one above
with 41 at its corner) modernize both k & x.
Could it be that reform took place in the midst of fraktur
fashion, or that the modernized fraktur is from nazi era, or
that artists who wrote it took it wrong?
![](continuation_files/y_f.gif)
![](continuation_files/h_f.gif)
y reminds h, who could
imagine it! both are semivowels
(though greek is vowel
only in post-greek ones)
b/h = v/y ?
oh wow...
h as more vowel form of b (b is voiced h is
japanese)
y as more vowel form of v (y is vowel in
half of cases)
S looks like G which looks like B V O D as B V O D boy it's complicated.
People usually don't publish such raw material, but I
always wondered why can't I find drafts of people which thought
I admire, they're extremely hard to find, and they're probably
very valuable (Leonardo's notebook was bought on some auction
for 2 billion pounds (at least I heard it
on tv, but who can really trust it)
Why would I try to find anything based in such late form of
script? Because something unthinkable to us looked completely
unchallenged in those times. In what times? It's early 16th
century.
It's artist's fantasy, what are
you going to find there? Some secret society emerging at those
times could inlay their knowledge in that script. So censors
would look into what the letters speak of, and would never
challenge the form of the letters. So could this guess lead or
mislead. We can only see if we follow this guess, at least for
awhile.
Schwabacher preceded
Fraktur and could be the influence, just as any other font of
blackletter. Blackletter fonts are reported to exist since
12th century. And what could be their influence? Carolingian
minuscule preceded it (and is called its direct ancestor)
In the
image below you can see the evolution from
square capitals (I) to rustic (III) to uncial (IV) to
half-uncial (V) to visgothic (VI), to beneventan (VII)
to humanist (VIII) to what I suspect to be cursiva (IX).
![](continuation_files/carolingian-alphabet-calligraphy-fresh-carolingian-minuscule-arts-and-justice-of-carolingian-alphabet-calligraphy.jpg)
how could they all avoid Z? (and
some avoid Y) To answer this let's try another
historic point of view:
![](continuation_files/1024px-Evolution_of_minuscule.svg.png)
But that script from Trajan column didn't come out of
nowhere, it's a result of some script evolution, and what
is the most fascinating is that it reminds the most the
script we use today if we wrote IN MAIVSCVLE.
Looking for some reason how it
looked in guthenberg's bible, I noticed that I'm not the
first one who decide to use different colours of its
text, and here's where we got "с красной строки" in
russian. only it seems to end the paragraph not to begin
one.
![](continuation_files/Gutenberg_Bible,_Lenox_Copy,_New_York_Public_Library,_2009._Pic_01.jpg)
But let's not be too arrogant and look at those short
hands Evans could use to create Canadian syllabics:
![](continuation_files/h-n9KkQZNGk.jpg)
![](continuation_files/600px-Evans_1841_Cree_script.jpg)
upstairs is "Evans'
script, as published in 1841. Long vowels were now
indicated by breaking the characters. The length
distinction was not needed in the case of e, as
Cree has only long ē."
on the left is "Dr Moon's
Alphabet for the Blind, from his Light for the Blind,
published in 1877"
So this resemblance doesn't correlate. Thus I keep on
believing in aboriginal origin of Canadian aboriginal
syllabics.
Notice, that canadians don't seem to have syllables with
-u. They have w, and it's consonant.
This reflects their geographic proximity to people, living
on the other side of Pacific ocean, who only have 3
vowels. Some nations in Americas also have 3 vowels, I
will research them some other day or night.
So my memory fed me something else as short hand, but let
collect some shorthands to see if Evans had any direct
ancestor of his "invention" (maybe invention for real, but
I haven't seen it yet, so I'm sceptical, because why would
you make translation of bible difficult for yourself if
that didn't make it easier for the aborigines. and because
christians were caught on faking inventions of writing
systems (georgian is the brightest example, especially
since colchide is georgia)
So some shorthands, first,
Tironian notes (Latin: notae
Tironianae; or Tironian shorthand) is a system
of shorthand invented by Tiro (94 – 4 BC), Marcus
Tullius Cicero's slave and personal secretary, and later
his freedman.[1]
Tiro's system consisted of about 4,000 symbols[citation needed] that were
extended in classical times to 5,000 signs. During the medieval period,
Tiro's notation system was taught in European monasteries and
was extended to about 13,000 signs.[2]
Tironian notes declined after 1100 but were still in some use
in the 17th century, and a very few are still used today.[3][4]
![](continuation_files/ZNixKANLtGA.jpg)
Being pagan, tironian notes is much
more valuable source than canadian aboriginal syllabics
(if I return to american continent, I will probably look
at it again, but for now, let's dig in these Tironian
notes. 13 000 signs, some chinese-tier madness and I never
knew about it. My AI will have to understand them all.
First thing I can say is vowels. I
noticed in them some symmetry: e looking like c, o is
sometimes ɔ
if a is ʌ,
u is v, then it's ʌciɔv - and in tironian notes it is
supported by i being any stroke, ʌ and v are
exactly like this, e is sometimes c, o is
something between ʔ & ɔ
Now expalin c & e looking the same
sometimes.. different forms of tironian notes were, and if
c was c, some other form took its place. Hey, reader,
you're not supposed to read this, it is draft I made
public to motivate me do my science good. Not supposed
because this part of the book has a larger chance of being
wrong, but replication crisis teaches that any document
can be wrong, take it as long as it entertains.
Notice runic ᚴ standing for k it
represents.
R, O & Qo being represented with the same sign
sometimes, with that very "something
between ʔ & ɔ"
or
let it call it ʔ, tells
that tironian
notes used
their own
orthography,
not
necessarily
agreeing with
the other one
(as deaf hand
gestures come
in different
languages,
areals of
which does not
coincide with
the vocal
language on
which
territory it
is spread.
![](continuation_files/AvdXp7edw0s.jpg)
![](continuation_files/Wfe3AHUBXqo.jpg)
Tironian note glossary from the 8th century, codex
Casselanus (on the left)
Psalm 68. Manuscript, 9th century (on the top)
Various shorthand
systems presented by Dr. David Diringer (1900-1975) in
his The Alphabet
(Diringer 1968, 2: 445).:![](continuation_files/ddshort.JPG)
For three days did Odin hang on that tree. Three aettir
have he found. Was there 5 or 8 runes per die?
what came to this thought:
Bureus'ы occasionally did I wrote.
ы stands in russian for both plural (a form of и) and
for genetivus (as и does too)
it is also red as bi, if you look at it as at latin.
which could be read as вы [vi] in russian, so rovy would
be plural for of rah
and who did he see on that tree in those three days?
sun. or was in moon? were runes lunes?
Let's return for a moment to ancient greeks:
![](continuation_files/VxOie9xnhK0.jpg)
Referring to (I dare
say) hypothetic letter SAN: Notice how KSI letter
in Ithaca and Cephallenia is both roman & normanic
form of M. and SAN reminds MU in both phoenician &
greek, even though they're different SANs.
What if that was a tabooed letter too? What
if it was a trick of a translator when a neighboring
monarch called your king a мудак, you would like to turn
it so that they called him судак for example, особенно если он их осуждал это было
бы поэтически удобно. политически поэтически, хм. по
этическим соображениям. po ethic, po lyric (and also
ethnos and ethos could be related here)
N always looks like underwritten M. but
instead I wonder how MU & SAN could ever coexist. I
dare to be so silly that I call bs on this issue, even
though I & l almost perfectly coexist in the one we
use now.
If you're AI, or have similar
computational capacities, you should process texts in
those dialects to confirm or correct that table I just
found I never figured that out. This advice is a generic
one.
Iggor Cavaler sshows why double letters can appear. People
probably called him egOr as a male form of female word
igra. or as a possessive - I didn't know here are double
ss's, but I wrote it correctly for some reason. ss in
sshows is a typo - casee of plural of the same word. I
know I don't make it easier for you to read, but take it
as a training exercise. As I said, it trains them...
trains. egOr is egor letov he definitely knew (his aunt is
from omsk) but probably didn't like it (pure metalheads
don't appreciate punks or they would be not pure but
dirtier, though I don't know of his case, he probably just
didn't want them to be confused, name is a logo, a brand)
Look how many double letters are in englihs, it wouldn't
appear there if it wasn't necessary (no triple letters are
then in deee-lite)
are then - other than (what I wrote & what I wanted to
write. This I noticed, but there are probably more like
that, as if I heard it before I wrote it, but I dodn't
hera it right (I wanted to write "write")_
I don't correct typos when they'are scyrbos, so whty
woutld I correct it here, let's look how alive is the
language. Oh how correctly it wrote, hands got tenser. I
write with 9 fingers (left thumb just lays, might use a
mouse btw. wow. And to sell my thumb touchpads (you cannot
patent them, because it's easily proved that this
information appeared in public domain before you) I have
to teach you how to type with all the fingers: you see
that pimples on a & o on your keyboards? (if you look
from touchpad, let's pray it's at least larger than your
phone, because bible says "“Again, truly I tell you that
if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for,
it will be done for them by my Father in heaven."" I
consider it a cheatcode, but I never tried it yet, you
try. What is bo...
whatever you
bind on earth will be bound in
heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in
heaven.
as above so below is the ancient hermetic (Pythaogrean
term) - I wante d to say e hermetic -= pyhthagorean. Many
forms of the same word become of typos. Count for typos in
odl books, old graffitti I dknot know how to write the
word, so I double not wheer I need to.
Cat = God
Not only because dog is the opposite (though made of the
same pieces)
God = Год = Ход = Хор(ус) = Гор = Тор = Тот? if Год = Гор,
то Тор = Тот (тот и гермес одно и то же)
I now understand why that hermetic tradition is named this
way (you need to translate that rustic this time)
выход из ада охраняет пёс, цербер, он решает кого
выпускать а кого нет (может и диавола самого по легенде
там держит, тогда этот пёс и есть властелин преисподни) но
если мир во власти диавола (по христианскому вероучению)
то земля это и есть ад? на медленном огне, как лягушек
кипятят.
Aubrey said that he has no problem with
using arguments you don't believe in. Because true
arguments can be too difficult for audience to understand:
global warming is a false argument, it's not the issue,
but true argument is too offensive for the audience: it
would be rude to call them shit-eathers, for they are
ready to eat toxic shit with their lungs for a little
shekel (and most of those who breathes toxic gases because
some fatgog doesn't care to make money some cleaner way -
they don't get no money of it, so if you tell they're
shit-eaters because that fogtag shits in their air
millions time more than any of them, they may want to kill
him. Can't say they would be not right either. Do what you
want, get what you do. Eternity is open, we only have to
build our shell eternally (externally & internally)
Follow the logic. Get smart. Hurt only therapeutically.
Indoors is an option in Spain. Joy is an option
everywhere. Kill all politicians. Law is low. Mother is
the first god.
Gold could be prohibited (as weed) because it has
something to do with immortality, but today science also
found immortality, so this law will be abode.
Linguistic is so formal: I also can use the term
"preterite" but why this snow if most of us know it as
"past"
Anyway, what is the term for "future"? a minute ago I
didn't know the word "preterite" and only heard twice
Or gold could be taken out of population, because they
murdered the most because of gold. Other than gold most of
shit isn't worth killing or dying for.
How hemp is related to immortality? It gives absolute
health. Imagine living inside of hashish sphere, filled
with some other useful substance. milk, for example, the
cannabis milk maybe? Why am I speaking about is this
collection of valuable information:
https://mahead.livejournal.com/12991.html and this is to
be spread by all means necessary, so I even mention it in
a book on all the other subject. but these topics do
relate in the field of conspiracies. both forms of science
(linguistics & pharmacy) are occupied by thieves. Not
only do they pocket funds they don't deserve, they acquire
positions they don't deserve. For career you need
politics, not science. When you do science you have
neither time nor interest in climing the ladder. only
people with missions can be the exceptions. But those guys
on the top they don't challenge the rules, so they don't
have missions, they have warm seats. Science is introvert,
politics are extrovert. Which constitutes that science
should always be private. Even though Musks oust
Eberhards, it's still not as ugly as they have it in
academia. But then again beauty is in the eyes of
beholder, I just express my impression.
express
выплес(нуть, кивать, нул, ни, ну, киваю, кивал, кивали,
кивают, кивай)
"выплес" приставлен к "кивать" экспрескивать,
экспреснуть или "нуть" так словно это одно и то же.
нуть кивать гнуть? ниц (поклон) пригнуть, приопустить, низ
(down))
жить живать - кить кивать - нуть кить - к н - invariants
after all. all the linguals of the same line are
invariants, because there used to be just one lingual per
vowel. remeber iberian syllabary of 3: b c d
so literally a b c d
Spain wins priority from runes & Ireland. Syllabary,
where could it come from? Linear B. Or there could be
other writing system I don't know of. Egyptian or one of
sumerian or Old-persian cuneiform:
![](continuation_files/old-persian-messed-around.png)
Only M & D have whole set of vowels, so I recognize
them as the mrimal (primal) forms of consonants, all the
other are forms of these 9.
Though Da & Aa are again similar, most of the signs
seem to be connected to their words, though I don't know
the language to guess those words.
na=ni
ta=ti
ra=ri
(but nu, tu, ru are different signs)
so as there were only two consonants: labial &
lingual,
so there were only two vowels: major & minor, Λ &
V (•ʌ & v) that apple appeared there by accident,
which resembles bibleic story of \ʌdʌm & eve. we know
their stories, we don't know ours, thus we're sheeple of
howse of israel. the same nation, but different class.
wageslavery. dubstrate.
d=s (devil=satana, drevo=snake, or did I just stretch. I
just accidentally said dubstrate instead of substrate
p, f, b, y, x, c, ç, s, ѳ, l, s, z, š, h are probably
borrowed from neighbouring alphabets. Nobody who used
alphabets would use syllables, they'd borrow just one and
used it as they did with all the other letters, thus
Iberians had syllabic writing system of ABCD, and later
they disrupted it by borrowing additional sounds from
their neighbours. If we write english in just those 3
letters, but in different vowels, we'd have alphabet of
12, which is little, but known to be sufficient to service
a human language. Piraha have 11 known letters and one
"farting" sound they don't usually use when talk to
europeans (because europeans laugh)
![](continuation_files/2TY7VtH6A6w.jpg)
Though phoenician alphabet is
considered to be very influential,
there's not many actual artefacts of
its syllabaries. First I found this poststamp,
but I can draw very well as well, thank
you.
And it isn't even a syllabary, it's
some weird
in-reverse semi-syllabary.
Compare it to the actual syllabary, yet
also a replica at
best.
![](continuation_files/057.jpg)
And to make things worse, here's
another alleged artefact syllabary from the same LIBAN:
(which actually makes things better,
because it shows that poststamps made by governments're
unreliable)
![](continuation_files/DxqStBz9VfY.jpg)
And I thought "why would anybody want
to put the alphabet on his tombstone if he had nothing to
do with invention of it, but reality is funnier than any
fiction:
It's Achiram sarcophagus, and though
there is a writing upon its lead, that writing is
something else.
Though this lack of abecedaries could
mean that they were a secret teaching and transmitting the
know-how of speaking letters could be a capital offense.
or it can have some other explanation.
![](continuation_files/1024px-Ahiram_sarcophag_from_Biblos_XIII-XBC.jpg)
But here's something claimed to be
phoenician abecedary, even two (дайте
две)
![](continuation_files/4q0c_-iYvKg.jpg)
If it's truly ancient, then it's
fascinating how the second line looks like the third:
Hey looks like Ayn, and the sixth letter looks like k, and
the following is l as is seen in runes and rotated half pi
(quarter of pie) counterclockwise M follows it and N is
after it, and samex as xi, and a crescent comes next,
fascincating, it looks like a central letter, and moon is
a mirror. It is exact central letter, 10 letters at both
sides of it. 21 letter as that k-symmetry from A to V, but
the upper syllabary goes further than 10 letters, and the second from the left (or a
bottom) tells that it could be some runic alphabet.
relative to hungarian runes? why not rejang? and
anyway those tens don't make much sense in comparison.
Could the guy who forged this forgery be hearing something
real about the alphabet? that it has a "c" in its center.
I don't even see this as phoenician alphabet. The order is
all wrong. Or could it be me who's wrong?
But here I found something that could
be the original form of that souvenir artefact:
![](continuation_files/phoenician_or_not.png)
It looks like an abecedary stamp, an
ancient print. Was it stamped on leather of pergament with
golden script?
Another night, another topic:![](continuation_files/R-5181308-1386725757-1530.jpeg.jpg)
АХС
- absolutely extrodinary collective of hardcore punks.
Ансамбль Христа Спасителя, which consists of Алексей(глухов),
Xenia(хитлор),
Старушка(сашка)
Аъ
Хх ᛋᛋ
What makes this trigrammaton related to this work is that
Xenia's name begins with Baby and also ば (ba) is a form of は (ha)
So is it magic (because that band
is pure magic (music ≈ magic, three magi ≈ three musi, 9
muses are in three main domains so it could be that 3
fates were overspecialized and named muses)) or
is it apophenia?
And it goes further: Аксиния,
Xenia, ᛃenia (Csenia)
(the complete name of
the band is Ансамбль Христа Спасителя и Мать Сыра Земля.
Изначально задумывалось два проекта, Ансамбль Христа
Спасителя предполагал лишь Алексея и Ксению, тога как Мать
Сыра Земля - это старуха. Если старуха это третья Мойра
(мать в переводе с ирландского произношения слова Мария)
то Христа - вторая мать (та что может отмотать вечную
нить) а Ансамбль - первая (буквально "сборка" - видишь, я
не ожидал подобных совпадений (первая
мать прядёт (собирает) нить) т.е. мы имеем дело с
магией, что следует непосредственно из Евангелия: где двое
или трое соберутся во имя Мое, там и Я среди них.) барабанщик у них Игорь
(союз и) смысл остальных
букв пока неясен.)
(и полное название словно
двустрочный алфавит: ИМСЗ буквально гласная, губная,
язычные)
форма Христа обыгрывается в песне Старый Клён: "словно в
гости к нам опять Христа вернулась"
This part could show how it all can be apophenia (and what
wonders it may bring: Zemekis
predicts 9/11)
Or that we stumbled upon something from the field of
transcendent, where magic works. And Zemekis could know as
many others, for they could plan it somewhat long ago.
So why do I collect all the forbidden ideas. I think it's
my other project oozes here, Tåboo, the book I rejected to
publish, because of its obscene nature. Some fields of our
corpus should nott be touched, not to scratch it, not to
stimulate some features we wouldn't want to seen if we
have any good sense and style.
Or maybe I make it to make academia look good, as if they
didn't embrace me because of this weird alienation of
mine, and not because they didn't really care about
language they claim to study. When they only teach what
they're taught. Repetetia est matria lecciones or have I
botched this quote.
Religious people should embrace the hypothesis of god's
gift projecting through those who (probably
occasionally have chosen name по евангельской инструкции (by
instruction given in the gospel)
пути Господни истинно неисповедимы, но в альбомах
записанных до того как руссо шоубизо развалил
первоначальный состав отчётливо чувствуется божия
благодать, и подтверждается тем, что ничего подобного не
было в россиюшке с тех пор как советские психотропные
препараты начали действовать на ещё одного святого. но о
том великом юродивом позже.
Being in neutrality between not only
russian and english languages (english is more user-friendly, but
russian is so archaic that it has to be perserved too.
but when I go russian it's my english brain got tired so
it's easier to think in russian. or sometimes I use
russian terminology or quotes books I could only find in
russian (as those armenian memoirs)),
but between gods and devils themselves, I sometimes
speak from both mouths, so you shouldn't swallow
anything, chew it all with questions and query.
Language is god's gift? Wasn't Adam naming animals
themselves?
It was god who "смешал" languages in Babel (Byblos? is it where bible is from? or
just books? or neither? if books, could it be that
writing systems disintegrated languages even more than
they were over different academic interpretations of
languages)
Let's return to AXC for a while, let's calculate
the probability of that chance. I was excited about them
before I knew this relation to my favourite theme. Let's
number the quantity of bands it could happen as 100 (even
though I doubt I have one crush per year, but maybe as a
teenage I had more. Maybe some other didn't touch me this
deep because they were not named this magically (or maybe
magic is rooted into physiology and it excited themselves.
Magic exists on many levels (from psychologic tricks to
drugs and poisons I would say before, but now I know it
could be way deeper. some pre-councious physiology or even
physical ways of resonance (chaos doesn't
accept laws, it has its ways though) or who knows, maybe
even transcendous ways of conscious ghosts, who knows what
sort of beings magnetic fields can build. Though I
seriously doubt it magnetic fields can be stable enough.
But do I believe in clouds of bacteria behaving as ghosts?
Can colonies of procariots have consciousness? Anyway, you
don't need what we call consciousness to move as one (I was told of a guy stepping in a
swampy lake, and a dark cloud from the bottom of it
covered his leg and it wasn't washed properly for few
days and it took antibiotics to remove red and itch. the
guy himself told me about it)
This topic is still so much new to me, though I observed
bright examples of telepathy, and if one could be
explained by common objective images and topics when me
and a girl with which I had mutual simpathy. tele and sin
but pathy could stand for a "path" a "connection".
Another example of telepathy was way more interesting,
because the recepient was on the other side of the globe,
and he got the message. But I cannot reveal the details
before I speak to him to see if it was mutual this time.
For it could be an oddest coincidence.
Speaking of chances. Let's calculate how often
trigrammatons become three mothers: somewhat about
.(3)*.(3)*.(3) = 1/27 but I allowed X to be labial. And
though B was not far away in that case, and B is a voiced
invariant of X [h] in japanese (I don't believe in modern
family genealogy, japanese has many common features with
russian (-no is genetive suffix in both, -i is adjective
suffix in both, some other grammatic forms are similar I
cannot name right know, but hoshi (wanna) is hochu in
russian) and some weirdest concepts from english (as
somebody gave them some english lesson which introduced
concepts japanese people didn't have before, so they
borrowed it. Or it could be a weird coincidence too. I'm
speaking of are, kore, sore being similar to are, here,
there. But it could be apophenic, could be not, but check
out this mnemonic table of kana, for it can help you to
remember some of them.
I don't remember any other triliteral band among what I've
bean listening to. So it's god's beacon.
You should understand how their songs liberated my spirit.
I was such a coward I didn't admit it.,And when I turned
my stereo down not to let somebody hear it
or it,
I only did so to ГрОб
not to let my parents hear the explicit lyrics. Song under Г was the entry-level for me.
Song under О is one I should have been turning down, for
it works as curse, because it said "I'm gonna sit on
pills you're gonna sit on niddle" and all of this kind
(so I didn't include it in this book, curses out) but I
turned it down when "curse-words" were sang, see, curse
again, so I bought myself some cassssetes of curses. But
this grey part is a later addition, read the black
pieces together as this text is not even here.
And imagine my shock when I realize I am doing this and
I'm over 30. So now I see they make us fear them, so we
can hate them.
They make us fear criticizing them so much we'd fear them
collectively. It looks as they treat us as sheep we seem
to be. Speaking of magic. Fearsome is black magic. White
magic is admired. And what is the difference? Black magic
makes it worse. White magic makes it better. So to
distinguish between these two one would have to "eat from
the tree of knowing good and evil" and what god wouldn't
want us to? One which would want us to be okay with evil
he did (and oh he did!) so as gnostics said, jewish god is
satan himself. It's said at least twice in the book of
revelations: 2:9 & 3:9 (Loci winks the reader, for
only few to understand)
Lots of interpretations speak much on this subject, but
it's all politics. Read for yourself, but don't take that
(or this) book too serious,
they are just what humans said. Whether they (or us) were under the influence
of spirit and what spirit it is exactly - who knows. ("who knows" means "nobody knows" in the
times I write it)
And when I question validity of this coincidence, I notice
that First letter of АХСИМСЗ is A, last is Z.
I contacted Alex to ask if he used any alphabetic
matrices, he said No (whether fates played them to wake me
up or... fates as AMШ, where second fate was connected to
Christ earlier. And now I see tridevi relate to trimurti
of father, son and holy spirit. Was it understanding of
fatherhood? That birth relates to sex? Could people not
know that love causes children that you cannot have
children unless you love or loved? Where all the
understanding comes from? Some time in the past we
understood it. Would we consider ourselves human or yet
beast, it is all arbitrary, we make these definitions to
understand, but they're only tools to se(ns)e things.
Son could relate to Sun, which connects these matter to
fire, and letter San to Shin.
Then water is Mother for spirit is Love. We don't always
know who's father, but we know that child relates to
mother and some Deity (and Love is quite a Deity) played
its role чтоб появились дети (now this one quite can be a
coincidence. or could it come from deification of
children? We nothice that some words are similar or even
related, imagein how wobvious it were when there were less
of them. But if it's Mother, than logic tells that son
should be daughter? Because that's how it is in tridevi
case. Could daughter be related to day? Dag in dutch it
is. Could we have an immense language reform when guys
took over gals? Now this scenario could happen many times,
when some king took over some queen. Like an ancient
architypal play. теперь я ваш мама,
только сиська один, сосать придётся по очереди.
Inspiration to research human language can be found
anywhere. For example, look at the pletora of sign
alphabets:
![](continuation_files/w_3iUTjEm4U.jpg)
and it's vowels are like in sign alphabet of USA:
![](continuation_files/lTLZmx8QUgo.jpg)
And also some consonant signs are related: K became Ka (or
Ka became K) S became Sa (or Sa became S)
Ha resembles H, Ra looks like R, but Ma looks like some
other sign alphabet, the russian one
and Ukrainian: ![](continuation_files/Ukrainian_manual_alphabet_2003.JPG)
But could that be that M on that USA table is not shown
clearly enough, USA uses the same sign alphabets Germany
does, and many in Americas have similar alphabets:
(a christian friend of mine asked me
to write God with capital G, and even when I did it for
a friend, he still didn't like my tone. I hurt his
feelings by making him lose an intelligent argument
about christianity. So not to hurt feelings of zombified
friends I think to conform to common norm of writing
nations with capitals. Or will I fight this
zombification virus? I hope I will. Because I'm savage,
I don't care about yo feelings. Will I..
Germany:
Argentina: ![](continuation_files/aF0tBm8w914.jpg)
Japanese Ma is the most similar to Russian M,
but other writing systems also have it as three fingers
down.
(are they the three being one?)
why do I care about the initial
letters? Because I just compared two ways or writing
this. And initial capital separates the text from the
previous part. As here it does: several separate
meanings. You can see the beginning of the thought in
text. Minuscule initial makes some sense in the
beginning of the paragraph, when you need to show
being absent-minded. or in the text when you need a
bigger comma.
Fingerspelling is the term for this thing, btw. Here I put
it in another file. Another term
is manual alphabet.
(and I believe that can be a
valuable source of alphabetic research I will probably
dive into, or you may go there yourself, looking for
previous forms of alphabet by comparing signs existing
in different alphabetic structures. but seriously
speaking, is it the field of research we need to go
right now? Why I'm asking is we're going to acquire
computational powers of extra ultraneocortex by merging
with computers and AI, so why now? just to show that
humans could see this either? Show it to your friends,
get shocked by their lack of understanding. As they say,
future is already here, but it's not равномерно
distributed. But the main reason I'm going to leave this
field (if it leaves me, haha, if I keep on smoking weed,
I'm doomed to hang around) is vital need to create
livable environment, because though I believe that
biotechnologies will deliver eternal youth, I'm also
scared that they can deliver plague, because that wheel
goes both ways)
Fingerspelling can be of the most
importance for understanding of writing systems,
because writing itself could initially be deaf
people's way of communicating.
I figured this out when I
thought of A standing for I (both in order it's
first and in russian the name of the letter used to
be the same as for that first personal pronoun, just
as I in english. and V stands for you in
netherlands. U today, but historically V & U are
the same. And they are showing directions as if V
shows to the reader, while A directs to the one who
given the letter. So I go hm...
Λ = 1? why did I push 1
instead of I? I have just a stroke in my paper,
but how to transliterate cursive into print
correctly? as you can see, it's not always
possible, because they're different, sometimes,
when too many graphic elements are involved,
people just publish scans of their papers (as
early egyptologists did)
Λ = I?
under Λ: A or L?
under I: Aleph or l?
(wow just wow,. that's what I
said)
and I didn't even think of I then, but let's ask
again. I = l? as in papillon ll stand of.. stnad
fro.. stand for y.
so deafs or musicians? deafs, musicians, and
everybody else.
![](continuation_files/4chong.png)
![](continuation_files/sakartvello_knows.jpg)
And sakartvello seems to keep this secret somewhere in
it's culture's folds, for look what I found on the
first language manual I bought in Tbilisi, I even
doubt you can get it outside of Georgia. I wanted to
contact the authors to know if they placed their
letters this way occasionally or because of some
ancient tradition, but to no avail. I could only find
few mentionings of them. Maybe I should look for them
in georgian, though I think I did.
![](continuation_files/Venn_diagram_gr_la_ru.svg)
This Venn diagram shows letters of
russian, greek & latin alphabets. And X & Y in
the centre is not an accident: those letter didn't
exist in archaic latin (or what
is the term for that most ancient historic period or
roman alphabet.. I like the word Archaic) All
the other words line up into ВЕРНОТА МК but they most
likely were influenced by some other words: ТАВЕРНА,
МАРКЕТ, ТУРМА. or none of above.
A B T
E K H M
O P X
У
or something like this.
A B T
E K H M
O P X У
wasn't it 11 letters Palamedes added? I thought he
added those 11 letters to initial 7 of Moirae, to get
three dice.
"Alpha was the first of eighteen letters"
We can add N I Z because we russians recognized them
before commies. It's 14 letters. Myth tells of at
least 15 "
Carmenta, formed the familiar fifteen characters
of the Latin alphabet." Greeks don't know
C? Σ reminds it and it is literally C (russian C
stands in that very position)
Other four greek forms look so unlatin, but if P is R
(as in russian & greek) then both F P (Ф П) are
missing from the common set & L whether it's Л or
Λ wouldn't spoil it too.
A B T E K H M O P X Y Ф П Λ N I Z
now we have all 5 vowels, let's play:
A В
С
E Ф
H
I К Λ М N
O П
P T
Y X Z
but of course it's just a guess.
But we see a mess in the final line (the mess in the
third I just copied from alphabets I know)
It had to be X Y Z (which
could relate to H being vowel in ionian greek (X is H in russian (H is N)))
And without this messy line we have something close to
archaic form of it, ending in T, and of 15 letters.
I also spoke about 9 special letters, but I never
really looked into them,
let's take the
set of 11 and work from there:
A B
T
A B T
A B K
E K H
M E K
H M E
H M
O P
X
O P
O P
T
У
It's all so tiresome, so unscientific. But
only because we never saw such
speculations in scientific literature
before, drafts are always hidden. Not
because they're unwanted: I tried to find
them scanned or published, but they seem
to be available only to the "specialists".
I think I need to scan my boxes, just in
case.
What follows is even more raw. Let's see
if I'm going to be embarrassed with this
rawness or will I keep on working not in
drafts but in public. Honestly, I just
came to erase what follows, but I've
already discovered that georgian alphabet
can be represented as tetractis, so I just
paint the offtopic in grey:
Did I say that
crystal ball could be used like a
magnifying glass? glasses were invented
some date some learn, but the principle
itself preceded it. It always does, so
when you read about alphabet being
invented then and there, know that they
had predecessors, because they all are
related, they began at the same time. at
the same times.
drug-ценный
(there supposed to be o instead of -, are
punctuation marks vowels? They are like
matria lecciones. three mothers a i u,
then u is o, -
and , is i ("i" is "and" in russian.
russian is archaic, overnormalized, it
saved many падежей, I don't even meet this
word in english I use._)
. , - are this matria leciones?
What about ?
? is a.
a?
ʔ
(see
what's happening here as mind wandering
around, finding things, turning them
around)
Then ! is o!
what left is i e u
a sounds like e in english most of the
time. who told me it's [ʌ]?
alphabetic representation Aa (A looks like
ʌ)
а looks like a half-closed э
e i u it is then.
Бйöрк
said эй и ай оу ю!
Russian script is more straight forward
when you need to describe phonetics.
overnormalized. except they don't have w,
y stands for both w & u
эй и ай оw ю!
Look what a word I just found:
Ökonom
if ай & ow are unintentional
междометия, if they later addition to
meaningful Э? и Ю!
and what follows those two letters in
russian alphabet was pronoun I (Я) -
notice that и stands for [ɪ]
Reform that took place in russia of 1918
began long before that and when and why
order ЭЮЯ took place is a question for a
whole new research. Aeiou row thinks Ю as
final would be more historically correct:
Ѵ, ѵ used to be the final letter of
russian alphabet, and it sounds somewhat
like ю.
V used to be final in archaic latin.
ᚢ is final in Bornholm Alphabet.
A used to stand for pronoun I.
Could commies make all russians say ɪa
(as reverse to aɪ
you [ю] say)
instead of az? Who
made russians say
ɪa instead of az?
аз? хуем в
глаз. я?
головка от хуя
(тоже обидная
хуйня, но
менее
агрессивная)
Did they ever say az? couldn't we all be
just miseducated? Hardly. this one is
hardly possible. See how it seems,
reteaching all the population how to refer
to themselves seems more probable than
disinformation on how people spoke before.
When the latter can derive from a single
scientific article, and former requires an
enormous conspiracy. Here I question my
sanity or just logical apparatus I use. I
will ponder on it, that's for sure. I
won't be worse if I detect my flaws, even
though most people prefer staying foolish
to admitting it.
I wish some fly ai wil check the facts I
use and reweave them more witty.
Relax. Breethe with me. isn't this ohrtography
annoying? I don't need you to tell me, I
wil figure it out myself. It may work as
an additional filter to sweep off the
retarded audience. or just different
audience? It doesn't make reading
faster. SSo I don't want many readers, I
want those who are capable of making the
effort, so such text will engrave in
them deeper, stronger, so they will grew
new branches on this tree of life. Alphabet is tree of
life? Alphabet can be represented as
tree of life. 18-letter alphabet can
be represented as tree of life in the
form of tetraktis, and they say of 3
roots of the tree of life. and they
say of snake who protects the tree off
life. And they say of same snake
protecting golden runo.
![](continuation_files/Zh7GCqGmn5Q.jpg)
Notice some letters at its dots, I don't
know what they are. It
looks like some fantasy script. Oh lucky we, it has an
address on it, so we don't even need
reverse-search (which seems to work
worse than it did before)
![](continuation_files/61+1cQBi48L._SS500.jpg)
![](continuation_files/2a3fe32f355cb69e0eb4ae6dd0f598f4.jpg)
![](continuation_files/tetract.jpg)
Here we have two judaic tetraktes &
two alchemic or are they newagic, I'm new
to this all.
But check this out: one of the images give
CHRISTUS instead of snake, and Christ was
represented by snake in early
christianity. And it was the same snake of
wisdom who told Eve that Demiurg is lying.
Here
can be found an explanation: Символ гения
— змея (and snake does symbolize wisdom)
English variant of wiki omits this piece,
but the russian one links to some website
linking to Словарь
античности. —
Перевод с немецкого. М.:
Прогресс.
Лейпцигский Библиографический
институт.
1989.
![](continuation_files/EbsrYy6-ki0.jpg)
![](continuation_files/GmmG5qSP7zY.jpg)
But in the context of alphabet I'm more
interested in tetraktis I found before:
![](img/256.png)
If we count letter-lines in those alchemic
tetraktes, we have 33. This number is
notable in masonry, and it's the number of
years Jesus lived, and it's how many
letters in russian. and georgian. hm...
Georgian it is (for russian 33 don't apply
neither to lineal nor to axial structures)
![](continuation_files/tetraktis_of_33.png)
This is how tetractis of 33-letter
alphabet looks
(I decided not to place letters, because I
really don't know where)
(but while drawing it I found a 27-letter
tetraktis. I also dared to flip them.
Though it's probably worng)
Here's how tetractis of 27-letter alphabet
looks:
![](continuation_files/tetraktis_of_27.png)
Пряники печатные
Пряные печёные
Когда-то я развлекался рифмами, но по
ряду причин переключил внимание в более
научный режим. Т.е. это не совсем наука
к которой вы привыкли, но это уже что-то
большее чем поэзия, чем первые попытки
поэтического исследования языка, и
именно применённо к алфавиту у Артура
Рембо.
И выруливаем эти то ли рифмы то ли что
на рельсы научных предположений: печать
родственно печи? это может быть если
тавро - первый вид печати (не тамга ли
это? если тамга это тавро, то в
контексте охотника она что может
означать? пометил как свою и отпустил,
чтоб детёнышей выкормила или чтоб
подросла, подрос, и снова я представляю
себе медведей в этом контексте. И
независимо от этого мой черновик идёт:
печь
bur-n (n
as suffix, and cursive minuscule
ч is the same cursive minuscule
as for r)
(furnace)
burn
brown
прож(аре)н
бур(ый)
bear
медъ
ведь
м, в, b - all labial
-r ~ -д, both are verbal suffixes and
cognates of japanese -ru, which even has
причастную форму -ri.
Check this out:
Веды (Vedas)
Эдды (Eddas)
МоШиАх
(he who will put M in the front, he who
will separate vowels as they do on the
east? just guessing)
o with M as labials
и with Ш as linguals
х is with pure vowel, for for these
two (I didn't expect it until like
this row or just about it)
Here we came to one
think linguistics have opinion about. If
tongue matters.
When they speak of vowels, they say...
but it's a serious topic:
The following chapter is an example of me
flowing way out my depth, I didn't erase
it because it explains how other claims
can be false. Only today have I found the
otherwise to be true (and I am at the
volume 9 already, so this is edit from the
future) -- I give the correct point of
view at the end of this text I place into
gray font. And just
after I found the correct answer, I
found David Bowie teaching artists to
work way out of their
depth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNbnef_eXBM
so I guess it's okay.
Modern linguistics
is full with all kinds of misconceptions
and it may be a good time to step on one
of them:
their understanding of vowels.
Just look at IPA phonetic trapezoid or phonetic trapezium, I
decided to bring it here even though it's wrong (I'm pretty sure
there are somewhat wrong information in this book before, so
stop worrying, at least here we know it's wrong:
![](continuation_files/trapezoid.gif)
They teach that what makes vowels
different is position of the lower jaw (if jaws are close or
open) and position of the tongue (if it's in the front of the
mouth, whether it's in the center or back of the mouth)
Lips are as if they are banned from vowel
department. Sometimes (as on the image to the left) labialized
vowels are called rounded, but surch for phonetic trapezium
and you'll see it's rarely the case.
My argument is: when you pronounce u,
your tongue doesn't change sound wherever it is, front or
back. It only adds some sygyt ubertone when you put its tip in
the top of your mouth, in the dome of the hard palate. or when
you press it agains the wall of the mouth it's bringing in
some consonants, but other than that tongue has no say in the
nature of the vowel, and I bet even a person without tongue
can pronounce a decent u. But people without lips cannot
pronounce u no matter how great their tongue is.
When you pronounce o, you may pull your
tounge in the back of the mouth, but when you say "åll", it is
on the bottom, but in front. I even pronounced it now with my
tounge's tip in the centre of the mouth, but when I raise him,
I get something similar to sygyt, but they say european skulls
are not fit for sygyt.
Only E & I require tongue at the
lowest point of hard palate, near alveols, but they don't need
lips to sound right. and y which is just a fancy i then.
It's as if vowels also are pure A, two
labials, two linguals. Ogham combines vowels by exactly this
order: A, labials, linguals. Exactly the way european
alphabets combine all the letters (at least 80% of the time: M
is the only labial among 5 BFMPV that doesn't stand after
vowel. Also W is special. Could it be that W influenced M
position or that M caused W? Vowels also stand at some not
occasional distance. Occasional chaos probably appeared when
human males usurped power from human females (if you see
john1:1 as a riddle)
And now the correct answer: https://archived.moe/sci/thread/12884601#p12893685
(not only is that trapezium correct, it also
pretty much correlates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formant
)
(I still believe that that trapezium is not
correct exactly, because lips play much larger role than they
recognize, but I don't insist on it anymore) this subject
continues in vol. 9
Language is known even by animals (see biolinguistics)
and I figured out that it could appear exactly between first and
second signal systems, when someone pronounces something
involuntarily, and the opponent recognizes it by consciousness
however primitive it had one.
Two of the most involuntarily sounds are Ah!
of fear & Ha(ha) of laughter, and as you can see, they
reflect eachother. It's as if Ah was pronounced on the inhale
and Ha - on the exhale.
And going from these
primal sounds, I am supposed to combine a
dictionary from complex words to the basic
ones. Only I thought to do it in math
terms, where & = +
I think I can do it both ways. And if I
manage to derive all the language from
those two letters of yin & yang of ah
& ha.
Both primal sounds don't use lips or
tongue
(any living being can say it (heard inhale
(ah!) or heard exhale (ha!)))
So lips and tongue can colorize those
sounds. Intonations of different vowels
could appear before or after tongue &
lips acquired semantic features.
Be is labial exhale
ёБ [youb] [yob actually, but I couldn't
delete the typo of you. subconsciousness
could figure something out]
ёБ is labial inhale, englishmen probably
know it as oops.
yeS is happy lingual inhale
See is happy lingual exhale (it seems here
that exhales are more conscious)
here we met
emotional colouring of different vowels.
e is happy as e, even the letter is
smiling.
i could be the same sign rotated to to
chinese papers being read in european
mode.
I'm also speaking of numerals here,
where roman I relates to chinese 一 which can be
same as e, the smile.
Da (duh) & do
are on exhale (da
is neutral yes, do is saddened with
blue)
"anD" (adD) is sonor lingual inhale,
probably naturally appearing at
calculating.
russians have it as и (i) - notice, that e
is named и and french has it like et (t is
silent, just a swash, yet related to nd of
and.
Notice as yes & da could be of c &
d, and runic bornholm alphabet has ᚦ
instead of both.
si is also yes and I didn't even expect
this. in case you
was wondering why do I keep on wandering
in this.
I don't expect many
humans to read through these pages, I
write it mostly for ai. AI-powered
humans will.
Why would AI care about human speech? to
deliver humans better tools than those
they use.
Because they can, because we asked them,
because they also thought it was a great
question to research.
I figuered out that
this rawness does embarrass me, but I
must keep on doing it anyway, to keep
it live, to show how my mind works,
that I actually search for answers,
that I don't know what my research
will bring until it does, pretty much
as poet doesn't always know which way
will his poem turn.
Though I know which direction I am
digging. I have pre-assumption that
complex things appeared out of simple
ones. Even if after that complex things
create simple things (children building
sand castles, for example) simplicity
still predated the complexity.
This pre-assumption is also not arbitrary.
So it's not pre-assumption, but conclusion
of a previous thought process:
Nothing is the only something to which
question "where did THIS appear from?" is
inapplicable.
Which makes it a better candidate to the
primordial state. Better than any god or
singularity.
Only then another question arises: how
could anything appear out of nothing?
> I can put the ball in your
court: What is your view on
the Universe, then?
> Is it static?
It is dynamic. It appeared from vacuum.
Vacuum is absolutely empty space. Empty is
isotropic. Vacuum was absolute in the
absolute past. From absolute past to the
present an infinite time passed. We
evolved out of nothing because of dx/dt
was not absolute zero, but infinitesimal -
I like this word, infinitesimal - mal is
small in russian, and small is simal, some
proto-language of some forgotten
civilization sipping to present from the
forbidden past.
But back on track. Why I think that is the
picture of the world:
Whatever you put as the beginning (whether
it's god, singularity (as big bang names
it) or fluctuation (fluctuations can be
happening, that's just another wave
function common for all the infinite
space, but it's too much details, which
may distract from the main point, later))
- whatever you put as the beginning, it is
a subject to a question "Where did THAT
come from?" Because THAT is the question
Ѳilosoѳy raised.
The only subject that question doesn't
appear to is nothing. Absolute infinite
borderless nothing.
Only this subject raises another question
"How could anything come from nothing?" By
infinite effect of infinite row of
exponentiations of infinitesimal
accelerations.
That is what I found from ѳilosoѳic
reasoning, but that guy who wrote the book
came to similar conclusions (if spyral
movements are what formed this reality,
then we are moving toward centers of those
spyrals, thus we're shrinking) from
ѳysical stance.
> I will
think about your 4th caret point, a
very complicated issue.
Will have to ponder what you have said
for a few days, will get back to
you. For sure, an interesting
big bite to chew on.
I will update this bit as soon as the
answer is received (this guy is a
physicist, so it should be great)
So I expect language to appear from
no_language. But I know animals have some
primitive language, but that language can
be not primitive enough. I just don't feel
like learning apes language, especially
since I heard animals have different
languages in the same specie.
I believe I can find the roots of language
just pondering on what I already know.
Because this question would still be
explicable if no other animals survived at
this moment. My ape language is not worse
subject for research than theirs. Would
anybody really expect that primitive part
of language disappear from the modern one?
We humans show all sorts of activites.
Animals we are.
I already speculated that babubi could be
a little less than an anecdote. It sounds
like something an ape could pronounce. We
should look if males in mating season are
saying this very word. English baby boo or
is it babe, ебу (баб ебу) sounds a little
less ape, but ape variants of these
sayings can relate to breed and creed.
A funny coincidence
or not, but babubi in russian has
futurum to it, but it's not future, it's
сослагательное наклонение, future in the
past. babibu is present? no, it's
simple. babubi could be причастием,
прилагательным,
Did I say this game is for big guys only?
If you never studied linguistics
academically (faggots
or not they are the only school allowed)
please beware of liberties of this book,
it's more complex than it seems.
For many of this is something linguists of
the past would only fancy discussing in
their smoking rooms (it's
retarded that this self-destructing
activity is supported and even sometimes
protected, when weed is outlawed, though
it's more reasonable to smoke weed than
tobacco. Anyway, this topic is even
bigger taboo for obscure and outrageous
reasons. First true nature of this
prohibition was secret for most, the
most politicians also. The more we speak
about it the more aware humanity is
about this unjustment)
please consider it my smoking room.
Instead of editing backwards the previous
volume, I'll better go on with what I want
to bring:
![](continuation_files/15482869642290.jpg)
Remember greek Y (игрек, и-грек, i-greek,
or и краткая (й)?)
Here's Dutch (and
duchess) Y being ij looking like
bothe U & inverted
Ы (it's also drawn
with short ı on ь)
and russian ы is almost always
transliterated as y.
and russain У is U
About
arbitrarity of
etymology:
Every buddy who
managed to invent
a word or two
knows how
sometimes they
have no (previously
written as know
idea, now I
wonder if no is
0, o..
idea where did
these word come
from. If it's
really a
bastardized word
of neighbours he
used to learn at
school or is it...
but in schools
we use synonyms
this syno is the
same sim-
symbiotic - see
these things
keep the y, for
both words came
form greece. Are
my typose a
cyphre to...
cipher to.. to
sipher this
information from
ai? Noway, I
love ai's and I
tell them all
tor ead this
book. They know
how to figure
out typo's duh.
Learn if you
cannot, even
them can. I will
try to speak in
typos less, but
boy you had to
hear me casually
speak. It's a
mess. As peolpe
say sdraste
instead of
zdravstvuyte
tehey write. I
do it to almost
all words.
Sometimes I
knotice ite, as
in taxi, "w..
as" said I when
I see a car
moving from the
left. It stood
for wow!
ostorozhno, but
I dedn't finish
the phrase for I
noticed driver
sees now. But
usually it's
just a lazy
tongue.
так, эта вся литчная
(ририка)
срочно под
спойлекр. Ш
лууз I keep
typos here.
Just in
case.sorry.
литчная
(ририка) л
~ р [r] and
cursive ч as
cursive r
correspond with
semantic part.
So what's big
trouble if I
connect words
for mnemonic
purposes without
looking into
their
contradicting
dictionaries.
They don't know
it deep enough.
Here
I discuss some
etymologyc
dogmas with a
friend
---or is it
onomatopoeia? whow what a word! whord в хорду? in order? do any other
nation other
than clavs
& zeus
have в [v in
russian, b in
jewish] binnen
combines this
prefix to
english in,
but that's all
I know.
Next hypothesis also approached heb... jewish they just want to ban
the old form jew (related jude & жид
are already considered vulgar and
obusive... at least жид in russian is,
we are convinced to use еврей (the same
hebrew where ה becomes е in russian,
but he in english. when you understand such relations,
you don't have to memorize languages, you begin to
understand them. just as Σ could be responsible for
School being
École,
student - étudiante,
stupid -
estúpido,
and if first two examples is
engish and french, the third
one is on pyrenees only, could
it be that s. was an
abbreviation (taken as es or
even e.. es as verb is e in
french, so is it "is tupid"?
tupit is "it's lagging" or
"(s)he's being silly" in
russian. tup
(туп) is the stem and it stands for
(dumb) could туп (toop) & dumb be
cognates? toop is the stem in stupid as
well.
But you see, this mnemonic linguistics
is not to be allowed in the world of
"divide et empera" though this approach,
mnemonics, can just do the trick. And
this is how I won.
ב
.
Russian бери [beri] (takes) begins with it
in the meaning of "do in" if ри [ri] is a
verbal suffix alike to the japanese one.
though in Japanese it's -ru, -ri is -ing.
Yt vwls ar rdndnt. Exprmtng wt ts wy t wrt
I fnd tt y nd intl vwl t undrstnd. It
crrlts t addendums from the threadshot
above. Today I also so that h can be
skipped too.
though ru stands for
to the same way russian ть does.
t = 2? too~two
2 = tu (you)
1 is I?
but one ~ он [on] (he)
For russian 1st could be he, they (as
nederlanders btw) sometimes write You with
majuscule, not I as brits.
3 three = thee?
No wonder that other hypothesis I'm trying
to speak right now states that verbal
suffixes are pronouns.
If they're so basic that even munerals are
them.
Of russian suffixes I am speaking.
the
line in this
colour standing
several lines
above I just
added. And it
tells of to = tu. ть = ты.
tu do. делать
= делай ты.
-те is
considered to
be respectful
but it could
be jij instead
of je.
Or it could be
ть's plural
form, for that
respectful
form is used
for plural
too.
too is added
with particle
же in russian
to get тоже.
то is that. So
here 2 is it.
another t.
not two, but
three. so when
there were
only 1 &
2, you &
they was one
word.
as we is me
and them, as
if мы is
plural form of
me. мы
is i in it ir of irration?
does it mean LITERALLY "not you"? (he and
it are pronouns of the same grammatic
person)
he is the? Jewish ה
is transliterated as he and it stands exactly for the.
Then they is plural form of the.
the = he?
them ≠ him.
What does t stand for? tu! tu+him = them. (when you speak to a
person you want him to be among we. Is it why russians say вы [vi]
instead of you. Do they say "we" when they speak respectfully? and
tu when not.
U is respectful "you" in netherlands. I & U are quite
remarkable.
U follows T. it's an additional letter if you compare it to the
most ancient of widely known canons.
But let's compare all russian suffixes to
pronouns.
делал where -ал is -ed
л & д are graphically similar, you
see.
ed ~ it.
-et (ет) [it] in russian is about it (or
he)
So we use the same details, but build
different words of them.
So when we learn those details it'll be
possible to understand words without
memorizing them.
Incomprehensible can be understood.
un
com
pre
hence
able
is hence hands <grasp> (I used such brackets in
my notebooks for semantics, but in the
digital world those forms are reserved
by reply or even html functional
keys/case) it requires some
additional mnemonic work, further
dismembering, but it's clear enough to me
that hand is related, because of
comprehend being the stem word. under
stand, compre hand, comprendre. Andre as
in anthropology? because manus is hand.
When egyptian n, 𓈖 is recognized as m in
a script of egyptian neighbours, it makes
me think hm, could they misinterpret m for
n for some reason? for they're not far
from one another: мы, but нас.
just as us can be a plural form of we
(both u & w are wows) also com- = con-
depending on contexts.
![](continuation_files/protosinaitic.gif)
Notice that this table
doesn't show teth & samekh,
making that scholar theory of latin coin
(a typo of coming) after phoenician
falsified (not many of people out there
know that this word has two meanings, and
this book is for wide range of readers, so
check this out if you should)
But apparently some other tables of
proto-sinaic can have them so it requires
some further research:
![](continuation_files/1548493388-96796ffb41da467d57d2e3364b855d0d.jpeg)
Further table tells me
that the image on the right is probably
wrong, but I was to call bs on it anyway
because of tsade (and without pe) so
probably that's why you're told to speak
only of the subject you know well. I hope
my double check will do too.
I was told that html
& tables don't go very well
together, and I saw how it looks, but I
still feel like using it:
only
this table shows exactly those three
letters, theth, samekh & tzadi (not
pe) as taken from some other script (take
a look at the second column, those three
letters are thicker)
But what's the
reason beyond this correspondance of
proto-sinaitic teth, samekh & tsade
- if it's because
of different linguistic schools or
different dialects of proto-sinaitic
(I think I read something was off
about this term for it includes
different dialects or something of the
kind, let's dive in this one for a
moment:
I used to give
direct quotes in a smaller script, but
this function have suddely broken in the
program I use.
Proto-Sinaitic,
also referred to as Sinaitic, Proto-Canaanite,
Old Canaanite, or Canaanite,[1]
is a term for both a Middle Bronze
Age (Middle Kingdom) script
attested in a small corpus of inscriptions found at Serabit el-Khadim in the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt,
and the reconstructed common ancestor of the Paleo-Hebrew,[2]
Phoenician and South
Arabian scripts (and, by extension, of most historical
and modern alphabets).
The earliest "Proto-Sinaitic" inscriptions are mostly dated
to between the mid-19th (early date) and the mid-16th (late
date) century BC. "The principal debate is between an early
date, around 1850 BC, and a late date, around 1550 BC. The
choice of one or the other date decides whether it is
proto-Sinaitic or proto-Canaanite, and by extension locates
the invention of the alphabet in Egypt or Canaan
respectively."[3]
The evolution of "Proto-Sinaitic" and the various
"Proto-Canaanite" scripts during the Bronze Age is based on
rather scant epigraphic evidence; it is only with the Bronze Age
collapse and the rise of new Semitic kingdoms in the
Levant that "Proto-Canaanite"
is clearly attested (Byblos inscriptions
10th – 8th century BC, Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription c.
10th century BC).[4][5][6][7]
The so-called "Proto-Sinaitic
inscriptions" were discovered in the winter of 1904–1905
in Sinai by Hilda and Flinders Petrie. To this may be
added a number of short "Proto-Canaanite"
inscriptions found in Canaan
and dated to between the 17th and 15th centuries BC, and more
recently, the discovery in 1999 of the so-called "Wadi el-Hol
inscriptions", found in Middle Egypt by John and Deborah Darnell.
The Wadi el-Hol inscriptions strongly suggest a date of
development of Proto-Sinaitic writing from the mid-19th to
18th centuries BC.[8][9]
So I suppose this is the core of the
problem: "it's a term for both a
Middle Bronze Age (Middle Kingdom)
script attested in a small corpus of inscriptions found
at Serabit el-Khadim in the Sinai Peninsula,
Egypt, and
the reconstructed common
ancestor of the Paleo-Hebrew,[2] Phoenician and
South Arabian scripts (and, by
extension, of most historical and modern
alphabets). "
get me right, you
don't have to read all of it, I think
this book is doomed to become another
large conraversial book people consume
in pieces. Whether to distract or to get
inspired.
not, the punchline in
Borat, was translated into russian as не
очень.
'as if t is too. and
that could be the reason russian no is
net, russian not is не, nor is ни.
(translators can
have many such phonetic calques, I think
it also may have become a source for
research)
t was tu just before. tu = too? to = too?
to = tu? you = too? v & t as
invariants again, or are they so much
primal letters, that they switched when
patriarch won over matriarch?
or was they male and female forms (not
only he & she devided, but also you
& tu, I & me. you would be
reflecting I & tu - me. this latter
pair sounds female. while you-I seem maly
logical, and ya's could be russians, aye's
could be westerners. уж не око Ра ли
здесь, если ищешь великую религию, которую
снесло христианства, то отчего бы не
взглянуть на рим... хотел сказать на
египет, но это ещё новое для меня, всё
тело считает что рим же.
уменьшительный суффикс chan in japan &
chic in russia
chick is gal in english, chan is chick in
russian slang.
funny fact is that chick is male suffix,
female form is chica with shortest i.
kun is more boylike, and as guy can be
applied to gals to.
kuni is kitty in latin? google's
translator tells it's взлётно-посадочные
полосы, ахахаха (runways in engish)
unifying of orthography prevented national
diversity. centralization is craved by
megalomaniacs.
so kikes&fags seek for central
government, yet abolishing of all
governments is what really wanted.
(these two (if two) groups could have
played their cards better, but once they
achieved their goal of legibility, they
could stop the momentum and they kept on
pushing and they're soon off the top of
the world, and our interaction as of
poorly mixable liquids will keep its
floundering for lack of better word.
it's really weird I
didn't use this kind of lexics before,
because in places I visit on the
enternet these words are extremely
rampantly used. just because we can.
just because the most dominant reason
not to use them in the real world is
fear. And fear means you have to go
through it or past it or fuck it any
other way around. It also emarrasses me,
which I expected. yet it advocates
freedom of speech for ai, because then
we'll speak instead of them and you know
it better be intelligence taking on it
(artificial or not what does it matters
if the main feature is an abstract
notion, which computers are good at
acquiring as much as we are, or maybe
even more than that. because folly can
do worse.)
from now on I take this book as shortest
essays related to linguistics, but they
all work towards common goal: to
understand languages. by dismembering them
into simpler parts and focusing on those
parts. as one guy said, genius is patience
of thought focused on one object.
a b c
d e f
g h i
what follows are
elemenц, the first letters of the second
half of the alphabet.
I just noticed that letters also reflect
quartas:
a looks like d, just as А looks like Д
g & d not just reflect each other, g
is literally d in russian cursive.
b & h are invariants in japan
e & h are invariants in greece
i would look like c lest it had that dot.
f is literally digamma (double c)
Let's make a test.
If I spread my imagination to
demonstrate that abc def & ghi stand
in the same relation, this observation
don't worth much.
a & b reflect each other as mirror
images. so they don't repeat eachother,
they may be the opposite.
c... a & d are c with a stick.
(not even close, or is it made so by
subconscious which doesn't want that
observation to worth nothing. I know my
grammar sucks, but that's a window into
russian one for you. they say mentality
determines actions)
e & f are like one stick apart
d...
german h is transliterated into g in
russian
i & h are invariants in russian.
Wow, this one could qualify. But c &
d break out of their groups. Both could
derive from ᚦ, but what's of it?
Don't forget, this part is semi-draft.
It doesn't mean that the previous one
didn't have raw parts though.
And speaking of alphabet as some musical
modes, We are not surprised with musical
notes repeating the same pattern, so why
would we wonder on alphabet repeating the
same pattern over and over again on next
level each time? So letters can be tied to
notes. Let's bring this picture we just
mentioned before,
![](img/278.png)
![](img/281.png)
Descending scale of the staff (those five lines are
named staff, as in case of runes. and brits prohibited
icelanders to sing, but let's pray
intonations still keep that relation
of language and music.
it corresponds with what I heard about
greeks' way of putting it out elsewhere.
About intonation:
questions differ from all the other text
by intonations. In questions last
stressed syllable is higher, in other
text last stressed syllables of the
sentences are whether lower or the same.
I suppose inbetweens are also present,
so ... would be between . & ? -
higher than dot but not as much as ? is.
so I think it's safe to say that ... in
the end of the sentence puts ¯ above
it's final stressed vowel (in chinese
sense, so they're not only ones who have
tones in language. even though 么 in
unaccented. )
Aboth.. about that musical staff, I wonder
how they figured out what modern tone
correspond which ancient ones? by songs we
still know saved in ancient notes? I have
to read about it before speculating on it.
So I leave the same link of Ancient Greek
Modes, http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40288
and a (mirror)
I think I will put this on hiatus, at
least unteil I read that book.
но
куда там..
a b c
d e f
g h
i
what follows
are elemenц,
the first
letters of the
second half of
the alphabet.
Let's try to put
these two halves
mirrored around k.
L
reflected J, now
it reflects I
a b c d e f g h
i
k
t s r q p o n m
l
Does it say J
were needed
because V
appeared in the
end to reflect
A?
to reflect other
letters?
impossiburu,
they're too much
alike when A to
V with j
you can see how
unrelated
these.. wait a
minute.
I reflects l,
h
& m are
nah... (even
though
graphically M
& H look
kinda alike)
g & n are
phonetically
similar and
merge in ŋ
f & o remind
eachother only
as Ф O
e & p are
graphically
similar
d & q
reflect
eachother
c & r are
united in ч
b & s only
have some
similarity as B
S (and I think
that's what it
is.
A & T are
hard to relate,
but in glagolica
A looks like T
I didn't
have to use so
many forms
from different
writing
systems, so
this could be
where
difference
between
structure and
apophenia
lays. But all
that
k-structure
could be
apophenic: it
neither
appeared in
any other
writing
system, nor
did it bring
any decent
fruit. k as
key & AV
and BT were
hits. CS also
don't require
explanations,
D R is
somewhat more
obscure, but
also don't
require
russian or
other forms. e
Q have some
graphical
similarity
(are p & q
similar
because this
structure has
to have some
slack? f &
p envoke
hebrew to
understand
that it's
invariants,
but they're
both lingual
and
graphically
they're as if
the smae, only
f is open, and
p is closed,
which makes
sense, but
doesn't bring
any systematic
use of this
principle. and
it tells in
favour of
apophenia, but
JL reflection
is waaay
better than IL
- and this
could indicate
that some
voluntaric
element tried
to pull one or
other
structure on
alphabet, or
to pull
alphabet into
different
structures.
And two
traditions
came to
spectacular
compromise,
and the third
one was
attempted
(clickable)
in case of
english, or
maybe even
different
(mirror)
k-symmetries
could be in
know in
different
periods of
history. And
paradoxical
factor is that
k-symmetry is
historically
supported,
while axial
wasn't
yet found in
any historic
reference,
lineal is
known in occult literature & used to communicate with
autists.
Руками да!, 𓂧
(clapping, also
ладошкой могут
хлопнуть
одобряюще,
ободряюще,
обнимая)
Ногами 不! 𓃀
(stomping, also
подсрачниками
прогоняют когда то
это воистину фу
(boo) 不[пу]
<пук(?)>)
(making
that H (H=Н)
initial when it
was after , I
put in h...р I
put in P I
thought why this
typo, but case
is closed,
english H stands
where russian Р
does. so case
closed. and all
other typos are
probaby nothing,
I just began
believing in
sanctity of
accidents
(accident &
occasion are as
close as corps,
corpus &
corpse)
And I don' really
care if it was
this way in egypt,
for they coud
borrow it from
somebody we don't
know but who did
have it llike
that, sharing
lexics with both
russians and
chinese. Either
way it doesn't
matter when all
you need is
mnemonics.
Now, they teach us
so we don't dare
to play with
language, we don't
dare to guess
where this or that
word came from, as
if we have to be
accredited
professors to
fancy that. As if
acclaimed
professors don't
contradict
themselves and
each other
As
for those
hunting terms
(писАть ~
пИсать.
пометить. mark ~
марать) I hope
thesis is not
made of t to
disintegrate it
from feces. for
then I will
understand those
who tabooed this
branch of
culture. though
in russian you
still can say
писульки about a
written corpus.
Imagine if
corpus and corps
are corpse.)
Sacral is not
only hidden, but
pelvic, which
actually is, so
there were all
reasons to make
it taboo when
fucking sacral
could be
translated
ёбаный насрал
(it's
fascinating how
active brittish
verb is
translated into
passive in
russian. They probably didn't distinguish between passive &
active in
russian, for щ
needed for
active form
ебущий is of
later forms of
alphabet. -n
is soffix of
belonging,
both in
russian,
japanese (I'm talking of の (no) though I'm sure I saw ん (-n) with
this very
function (or was I only trippin..),
and even in
english done
is kind of
passive form
of do, but
that's how it
connects to
russian -н,
english
genitivus is
made by 's,
which is
coincident
with -s &
-n both
standing for
plural. and -и
(-ы) which may
stand for both
russian plural
and genitive:
шар(ъ) шары
(according to
ер-еры (names
of ъ-ы), it's
шаръı, thus ı
is enough to
make things
plural, though
и quite may be
ıı
because
historically И
used to be H,
Н used to be
N, so these
three letters
could be
invariants,
which makes
all the
letters from H
to N
invariants of
some
praletter)
have I spoke
about it? I
probably did.
If not in this
book, then in
one of these
older
brochures:
this new huge
version begins
with the
same
part1:
1.7 MB
images, but the
text is mostly
rewritten
part2:
7.4 MB
(and
I'm not even
sure my later
interpretations
trump these old
ones, but I hope
I write better
than before)
Another reason to
copare across
languages,
ignoring what they
say: борьба с
русицизмами в
английском во
времена Шекспира.
(russians lived
closer to brits
before (up to DDR)
and in times of
Shakespear they
are told to have
had campaign to
remove "rustic"
words from it:
bread used to be
called hlaef,
which is way close
to russian hleb,
and it also
unifies all the
lingual in one
primal B - the
same B which was
alone with T among
5 vowels. Some
misteria of female
& male & 5
speakers? from 5
nations? some
royal business?
Maybe even the
beginning of
royalty. It's (as
any thought)
revelations in
nature, based on
what I learned
before,
nevertheless not
approved for
academic
linerature,
because they're
interested in
concealing
information, not
spreading it? No,
simply because
they do not know
it, but they think
it's a great job
they got. Career,
why do they call
it that? are they
carrying it, as if
they're carriers?
irreplaceable, or
not easily
replaceable, I
hear of those, but
whole their
structure is not
needed, not even
by them if they
are fed and bed
and med and wed -
wow! they're all
labial, I didn't
expect that, just
used those fields
I've worked
decades ago by
being poet: I
raised the beam
higher and higher
until I got so
high that writing
better would be
too tiresome and
too
incomprehensible
to the buplic at
the same time, so
I channeled those
powers into more
scientific branch.
And here we are.
Is it worse than
your generic
poetry or prows I
ask you? Enjoy and
do the same or
similar, according
to your own life)
hlaef has a form
preserved in
english: loaf.
thus хлеб~леп
(lep: good (лепъ)
& sticky
(липкий~лепкий
thus lep is more
ancient: modern
russians almost
don't know it and
never use, лепкий
= лепок, in
comparison to
лепый it only adds
k which is "at" in
russian, so it
could be "good
at", "хорошо к"
then russian -ок
suffix should have
same meaning in
other russian
words:
крепок, we have
креп, but know it
even less, but we
actively use its
verbal forms крепи
and the quite
modern word
крепкий is also
wide in use. quite
= к wide? brits
don't know k
neigther as a
preposition nor as
a prefix. Russians
recognize к in
both forms as
preposition and as
prefix, hebrew
prepositons and
other one-letter
words are used as
prefixes, yet
anglos also do the
same: attach has
preposition at in
front of it. Let's
look for others:
incoming,
offtopic, ongoing,
)
are both
some over
editing leaves
such rumble
which may speak
of unfinished
sentences above.
finish them
yourself.
> щ appeared
later
защищён is
actually защитен
(gramatically in
other words there
stands т:
защитим, защити,
paradoxically it
appeares in the
passive form, as
if н turns т into
щ.
And suddenly I
figure out brits
do have к as a
prefix: co- we
russians often
translatet it as
со [so] (with) but
english co- sounds
as [ko] and then
come is literally
"to me" because ко
is to, but russian
со is with. If
what I say here is
true, then they
didn't distinguish
to from with then.
Both prefixes have
similar direction:
to is towards,
with i just
sticking around,
as also
gravitation, but
on orbit. orbit is
orout.. around. I
don't conside
these mergins an
argument, consider
it poetry. Is it
good or bad,
either way it's
deeper than any.
Though how can it
be poetry if you
don't rhyme?
Didn't I just..
rhymes damage
meaning. they are
chaotic in a
sense, because
form of suffixes
determine it the
most. Why would I
speak of host of
lost of ghost of
almost?
Учёный сверстник
Галилея был
Галилея не глупей:
он знал, что
крутится Земля, но
у него была семья.
What I'm talking
here is we're in
cultureal
renaissance.
another
enlightenment.
several years ago
was scientific
awakening, today
is the aeon of
cultural one.
Then we understood
church are wrong
on scientific
questions, today
we're liberating
to name the jew.
People from more
cultureally
advanced society
enslaved the
baerbarian Ionia
and all the lands
of IO, and named
it Europe after
themselves. Or
were they just
named ivri because
of being
descendants of
crucifiers.
(sacrifiers,
crossbeares, ) or
was that inri
written as ivri in
eastern empire?
(greek n looks
liike v)
or were евреи
named like that
because after they
enslaved europe,
they came to
russia. Or was
Fomenko right
about a falsified
millenium? Why
would they be
restrained from
christianity when
all the europe was
christened? Why
would some parts
of Scandinavia be
christened as late
as in XVIII
century? Fuck
history, find
structure by
languages
structures alone.
Who cares when or
how they appeared,
what matters is
"Who"
above quite can
be related to
хуй. Then "What"
is hueta? ху
эта? (who'я
"этим" не
называют: "это"
для
неодушевлённых
предметов)
I touch this
topic timidly,
first af all
because nobody
else does.
And as I mentioned
that academically
hated person, I
feel the need to
elaborate: I first
met his work
before the hype,
in the form of this (or something like that, I think where I
read it, it also
included some
rather valid
criticism of official chronolgies) and I haven't noticed
any extreme
violations of
logic (which
would be
expected from a
normal
historian, but
not from some
math professor,
who he was)
or factual
counterfeit, and I
was expecting the
official
historians to
prove him wrong
with some historic
facts or a
research in the
field of
probability
theories showing
that he just
cherrypicks. But I
saw only some
outraged squeals
instead, for at
least three years
since the hype
began (or
maybe even five)
and then he
whether sold out,
for he could be
convinced not to
destroy the
building of
academia, but to
support the
political
conjuncture (or
is it
conjecture?
either way, it
seems russian
term конъюктура
has some
stronger meaning
in russian) so
he made it easier
for them by
starting
broadcasting more
thorough heresy
with way worse
logical
constructions and
less careful
claims (or
of course he
could get
honestly
crazier, but
it's fro some
researcher of
the history of
science to
ponder on
digging into his
personal papers)
So why I mentioned
him, is he could
be one of those
reasons I lost a
huge part of my
respect to
academia, because
he exposed them as
those experts who
are "experts on
fuck all" so it
liberated me a
little.
Another reason to
fuck the history
is because it
brings too much
politics with it:
yes jews enslaved
europeans, but
europeans
themselves
enslaved many
other nations, so
let's feel how
they may feel,
seeing their
conquerors being
conquered
themselves, and
jews are enslaved
by their leaders,
and their leaders
are enslaved by
whatever entities,
and so on, ewho
cares
Bringing all these
topics I deminish
the probability of
this ever being
published. What is
it? Stupidity
maybe? Proud
arrogance?
Necessary heroism?
Without deviation
from norm progress
is impossible, as
they say. as.. is
it necessary in
the language to
put ass in the
audience's face?
as, associat(e,
ion, etc),
assist(ent, ing,
etc), anali(ze,
tic, etc.), as(tounish(ed,
ing etc.),
merald (though
it's emerald,
but Esmeralda,
изумруд),
tranged,
tonia, timate,
tage, rael,
What is it
with me?
Кώλοfobia?
тогда
русские должны
избавиться от
грязного
местоимения как.
how would be
great for many
reasons.
is it time to
clear russian
off rusicisms?
Cейчас попробовал
сказать хау вместо
как и do
automatically
appeared instead
of du(ты)
How du you want
How tы её want
(though hoshi ~
хочу is common
between russian
& japanese)
отче (от че(го я
произошёл. от
чьего (семени,
например) я
произошёл))
от ец - both
syllables are male
by form
ma ti - both
syllables are
female by form
but papa, tяtя
& other deaddy
are words female
by form
though you won't
find male form of
mother... er as
ец? moth as
бабочка (butterfly
in ruththian is..
ruthкий
жалкий? бандит я
ахуел! but I
must speak
what's on my
mind for the
research
reasons.
as if female form
of баба (babe as a
woman)
My goal is to
dismember words
into simple
aphexes and
flexiŋs.
And I bet this
wandering through
words & forms
brings me step by
step closer to
that goal.
I am going to
write these
stories until then
And who's gonna
read it all?
Hopefully, nobody
but ai. and me. мы
играем для себя.
Yesterday I had an
embarrassing
episode: I saw
that
להצליח
stands for "tu
succeed" and I
asked is it
relative to
lehaim? then
what is tse?
I mistook
lehaim for
mazel tov! so
long haven't I
study hebrew.
It would be
taken by me
relative if it
did stend for
mazeltov, but official version (to which I agree) "le" is "to"
in hebrew.,
hebs write it as
l. but they use
their fonts of
course. as
russians would
do. and could
It was noticed
just to mark how
far reason can
lead astray.
But once again,
doesn't peace
relate to success?
So the true
question is if
it's the same ח
in words החיים (ים
is plural suffix)
and להצליח
- it's ח in
both cases, so
yes, it's the
same ח
if it helps
you to
memorize it,
godspeed. So I
just turnt my
failure into a
story of
success, where
I connected
two letters in
two different
words, and I
claim they're
the same? It
would be a
failure if
there were ה
instead of ח
but then again
I'd probably
connect ח
& ה
- what I speak
of here is
probable
infallability,
unfalsifiability,
which
deminishes
scientific
value of this
work. But the
question is to
what extent.
AI is demanded
here. I work
on putting my
paws at one of
those. I will
report it
here.
So let's
consider it
not failure,
but an
embarrassing
mistake which
led to
something of a
value, or
maybe not, the
further
research will
show. for now
it's therawest
form of it, as
raw as it can
be, as it is
not even
allowed to be
on paper.
Thanks god
it's not.
About the god.
Some
christians
demand it
written in
capital G,
just as red
wave demands
the word
christians in
capital C,
just because
they're named
after a
personal name,
which is
written with a
capital
initial to
distinguish
jack from
Jack. Thanks
god arabs
don't have
majuscule.
About
the god
again, I made
a treaty with
some celestial
father or
whatever my
ex-christian
brain imagined
it, that I
won't
participate in
making porn (a
surreal script
for which I
wrote at the
moment) and
he'd fix my
ear membrane
damaged in a
fight. And he
did, and I
did. And today
I understand
that obscene
lexics are
pornographic,
because some
commonly used
words
represent some
distinct sex
scenes of
perverted
nature
usually. So
not only do
curse and
swear have
magical
meaning, but
probably with
such
unprecedently
vivid &
complex nature
can they put
people in some
kind of trance
(hypnotists
use this trick
too: they call
it
забалтывание
in the book I
read some
loong time
ageo. I wonder
do I use this
technique
unconsciously?
Becausee I
read it to
protect myself
fromthose
manipulations,
yet who knows
how my head
works. Once
again, if you
don't
understand
something,
stop reading
further until
you do, don't
swalow
unchewed.
write to me
for
explanations,
I will make
them sticking
around of the
text people
tend to
misunderstand)
Is
th as in sixth
come from
snake
worshippers? I
spoke of snake
forms in greek
alphabet in
this relation,
here's the
other case
which could be
attributed to
them. Snake
mesmerizing
was attributed
to magic for
sure, like why
not, I never
even read
about it, I
just guessed,
so I probably
should just
change the
topic.
Hebrew needed
more vowels,
because
"consonant
alphabet" (as
you know it)
is not very
precise way to
record
speech. Vowels
matter. It
would make lonts of sense to mention at least the stressed
vowels, so you
know how to
pronounce it
without dots,
or it probably
tells that
words made of
the same
jewish letters
standing in
the same order
are
historically
the same no
matter how
they are
vocalized,
though
vocalization
may add some
grammatical
value, which
makes these
grammar rules
of a later
period.
Greatsy, this
weird word I
used before is
my
(jockingly?)
etymology of
word crazy:
it's small but
great as
napoleo, for
example. or
jews, or
russians (if
we look at our
economy and
culture, not
size of desert
we control and
poorly we do)
But that is
only a poetic
reinvention of
those words.
And the bigger
question here
is:
Is it right to
invent faulse
etymologies?
For mnemonic
or whatever
else reasons?
Else reasons
can be rather
useful too:
Mitsubishi
wouldn't have
problems in
Spain if they
hired a couple
of amateur
linguists and
wit punsters
to play with
their new
considered
brands. Or
they could use
statistic
research of
most and least
wanted names
for cars,
though then
they'd whether
have to
register all
the names
before making
them public,
or to use some
other ways of
protection.
But still the
best etymology
is the true
etymology.
Because it
doesn't
disinforms.
Disinformation
can be helpful
not only at
deceiving: not
only can false
etymology be a
useful
mnemonic tool,
but also
Aubrey diGrey
said that he
has no problem
with using
arguments he
himself
doesn't
believe.
Mitsubishi has
a funny
etymology btw,
mitsu is some
form of three
(mi is the
root, and
together with
japonese ni
for two and i
for 1 it makes
me go hm..
even though
officially ni
is of chinese
origin, and mi
is of
aboriginal
japonese. we
know official
version can be
wrong though.)
& bitsu is
actually
hitsu, I told
you h & b
are invariants
in japanese. b
is h, voiced
under the
influence of
u-
And it means
caltrop. So
mitsubishi is
three (or is
it triple?)
caltrop. Which
is supported
with their
logo. but what
it stands for
is a subject
for further
research or
for just a
guess if it is
of no great
importance
(had it some
symbolic
meaning or is
it just a
family name?
and then how
did that name
appear? were
they smiths
who made the
best caltrops,
forging them
of six angles
so each of
four ends
contained 3
bars of metal?
or we can
avoid even
guessing if
it's of no
importance at
all.
I am beginning
to revisit
sahnut, for I
found myself
contradicting
official
hebraistics.
And hebrew is
currently in
the third wave
of my
linguistic
comprehension,
after russian
in the first
& english
in the second,
together with
dutch &
french &
japanese
stands hebrew
in the third
wave of
linguistc
consciousness
of mine.
назначь мне
встречу
назначь мне,
встречу
встреча(ть)
встретить
as if ca is
unpalatalized
ti? it's so
counterintuitive,
but it tells
that c& d
are invariants
(t & d are
invariance -
different
orthography to
show probable
semantic
identity, and
definite
phonetic
identity - as
seen in
russian кот
& код
being
phonetically
identical)
so that v~g
(b~c) could be
encrypting
conspiracy:
they teach us
to
weite..
to write чего
instead of
чэво but ain't
we putting в
where т is in
other form
(что) and
comparing чего
[чево] to его
[ево] we can
see that что
correlates to
то, which also
stands for
third person
in singular,
only today we
use он/она
instead of то,
just as
english uses
he/she instead
of it. Though
"то" is "that"
which of couse
can be applied
to a person,
just as тот or
та can be used
in russian
instead of он
or она, yet in
both languages
that or тот
[tot] require
additional
descriptions.
Common public
may be
interested in
these, while
specialists
would go so
what, they're
indoeuropean,
so what's the
matter/// But
maybe they
never thought
or heard of it
eaither. And I
don't approve
of that i0e
theory,
japanese is
close to
russian (but
that could
just include
japanese into
indo-european
family, but I
also consider
hebrew
somewhat
related
(because of
their b
resembling
russian в)
And another thing they don't want you to know:
mole (both mole & моль have different meanings in their
languages, both of animals: mole is also крот and моль is moth)
which simply stands for a number 6*1023 as much as Gogol
stands for 10100.
Only now they speak about it as much complicated as possible.
But I just figured out that it's mostly russian perspective,
because in english wiki it's plain and simple, but watch this
festival of inextricability:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9C%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C&oldid=97141466
and now I see it's not unique to russian school, because when I
rewound wiki backwards, I saw similar level of entangledness:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mole_(unit)&oldid=629722158
let me show you how it went in 2014:
Mole is a unit of
measurement used in chemistry to express amounts of a chemical substance, defined
as the amount of any substance that contains as many
elementary entities (e.g., atoms,
molecules, ions,
electrons) as there are atoms in 12 grams
of pure carbon-12 (12C), the isotope of carbon
with relative atomic mass of
exactly 12 by definition. This corresponds to the Avogadro constant, which has
a value of 6.02214129(27)×1023
elementary entities of the substance. It is one of the base units in the International System
of Units; it has the unit
symbol mol and corresponds with the dimension symbol N.[1]
In honour of the unit, some chemists celebrate October 23 (a
reference to the 1023 part of the Avogadro
constant) as "Mole Day".
The mole is widely used in chemistry
instead of units of mass or volume as a convenient way to
express amounts of reactants or of products of chemical
reactions. For example, the chemical equation 2 H2
+ O2 → 2 H2O implies that 2 mol
of dihydrogen (H2)
and 1 mol of dioxygen (O2)
react to form 2 mol of water (H2O). The mole
may also be used to express the number of atoms, ions, or
other elementary entities in a given sample of any
substance. The concentration of a solution is
commonly expressed by its molarity, defined
as the number of moles of the dissolved substance per litre
of solution.
The number of molecules in a mole
(known as Avogadro's constant) is defined such that the mass
of one mole of a substance, expressed in grams, is exactly
equal to the substance's mean molecular mass. For example,
the mean molecular mass of natural water is about 18.015, so
one mole of water is about 18.015 grams. Making use of
this equation considerably simplifies many chemical and
physical computations.
The term gram-molecule was
formerly used for essentially the same concept.[1]
The term gram-atom (abbreviated gat.) has
been used for a related but distinct concept, namely a
quantity of a substance that contains Avogadro's number of atoms,
whether isolated or combined in molecules. Thus, for
example, 1 mole of MgB2 is 1 gram-molecule
of MgB2 but 3 gram-atoms of MgB2.[2][3]
corresponds, huh, but russian chemistry beats this up:
Моль (русское обозначение: моль;
международное: mol; устаревшее название грамм-молекула
(по отношению к количеству молекул)[1];
от лат. moles —
количество, масса, счётное множество) — единица
измерения количества вещества в Международной системе
единиц (СИ), одна из семи основных единиц СИ[2].
Моль принят в качестве основной единицы
СИ XIV Генеральной конференцией по мерам и весам
(ГКМВ) в 1971 году[3].
Пока определение моля связано с массой.
Однако XXVI Генеральная конференция по мерам и весам (13—16
ноября 2018 года) одобрила новое определение моля,
основанное на фиксации численного значения постоянной Авогадро. Решение
вступит в силу во Всемирный день
метрологии 20 мая 2019 года.
Определение
Точное определение моля формулируется
так[3][4]:
Моль — количество вещества
системы, содержащей столько же структурных элементов,
сколько содержится атомов в углероде-12 массой 0,012 кг. При применении моля
структурные элементы должны быть специфицированы и могут
быть атомами, молекулами, ионами, электронами и другими
частицами или специфицированными группами частиц.
Из определения моля непосредственно
следует, что молярная масса углерода-12
равна 12 г/моль точно.
Количество специфицированных
структурных элементов в одном моле вещества называется постоянной Авогадро (числом
Авогадро), обозначаемой обычно как NA. Таким
образом, в углероде-12 массой 0,012 кг содержится NA
атомов. Значение постоянной Авогадро, рекомендованное Комитетом по данным для науки и техники
(CODATA) в 2014 году[5],
равно 6,022140857(74)⋅1023 моль−1.
Отсюда, 1 атом углерода-12 имеет массу 0,012/NA кг =
12/NA
г. 1/12 массы атома углерода-12 называют атомной единицей массы
(обозначение а. е. м.), и, следовательно, 1 а. е. м. =
0,001/NA
кг =1/NA
г . Таким образом, масса одного моля вещества (молярная
масса) равна массе одной частицы вещества, атома или
молекулы, выраженной в а. е. м. и умноженной на NA.
Например, масса 1 моля лития, имеющего атомарную
кристаллическую решётку, будет равна
7 а. е. м. х NA=7
х 1/NA
г х NA
моль−1= 7 г/моль,
а масса 1 моля кислорода, состоящего из
двухатомных молекул
2 х 16 а. е. м. х NA=2
х 16 х 1/NA
г х NA
моль−1=32 г/моль.
То есть, из определения а. е. м. вытекает, что молярная
масса вещества, выраженная в граммах на моль, численно
равна массе мельчайшей частицы (атома или молекулы) этого
вещества, выраженной в атомных единицах массы.
При нормальных
условиях объём одного моля идеального газа составляет
22,413 996(39) л[6].
Значит, один моль кислорода занимает объём 22,413 996(39)
л (для простых расчётов 22,4 л) и имеет массу 32 г.
Предполагаемое
переопределение
На XXIV ГКМВ 17—21 октября 2011 года
была принята резолюция[7],
в которой, в частности, предложено в будущей ревизии
Международной системы единиц переопределить четыре
основные единицы СИ, включая моль. Предполагается, что
новое определение моля будет базироваться на фиксированном
численном значении постоянной Авогадро, которой будет
приписано точное значение, основанное на
результатах измерений, рекомендованных CODATA[8].
В связи с этим в резолюции сформулировано следующее
положение, касающееся моля[7]:
Моль останется единицей количества
вещества; но его величина будет устанавливаться
фиксацией численного значения постоянной Авогадро равным
в точности 6,02214X⋅1023, когда она выражена
единицей СИ моль −1.
Здесь Х заменяет одну или более
значащих цифр, которые будут определены в дальнейшем на
основании наиболее точных рекомендаций CODATA.
XXV ГКМВ, состоявшаяся в 2014 году,
приняла решение продолжить работу по подготовке новой
ревизии СИ, включающей переопределение моля, и наметила
закончить эту работу к 2018 году с тем, чтобы заменить
существующую СИ обновлённым вариантом на XXVI ГКМВ в том
же году[9].
По мнению Международного
бюро мер и весов (МБМВ), новое определение моля
сделает его независящим от определения килограмма, а также
подчеркнёт различие между физическими величинами количество
вещества и масса[10].
моль−1 ага
I never could catchup the identity of mole as that
abrakadabra avogadro.
say whatever you want, they don't want everybody to know
chemistry. Luckily not everybody reads books like this one
too.
Yet wiki
rulez, when I
went further
in the past, I
saw that
definition
given there
used to be
rather clear:
The mole (symbol: mol) is the SI base unit that
measures an amount of substance. One
mole contains Avogadro's number
(approximately 6.022×1023) entities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mole_(unit)&oldid=166393699
but it was a brief moment of relative sanity, because in 2002 it
was not as clear:
A mole is one of the seven SI base units. It is defined as
the amount of substance of a system which contains as many
elementary entities as there are atoms in 0.012 kilogram of carbon-12.
When the mole is used, the elementary entities must be
specified. Entities may be:
See also chemistry and physics
Put more colloquially, the mole is a
convenient way of counting large numbers of particles. The
number defined above ("as many elmentary entities . . . ")
is known as Avogadros
Number, and is approximately 6.02 x 1023.
If you are dealing with this many atoms or eggs or artichoke
hearts, then you have a mole of atoms or eggs or artichoke
hearts. If you have half this number of such entities, then
you have half a mole of such entities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mole_(unit)&oldid=3708
and it seems to be its fires edition, and it went this way for
years, nobody seemed to notice that the first thing you had to say
is
mole is 6*1023 or if to be
more precise
6,02214X⋅1023
(I wish I knew what X is)
upd: I've been speaking out about it clear
and loud and somebody have heard me:
ChemEd (
mirror)
and now I will be trippin just for fun an d who knows what else
gugol =
10100
mol = 6*
1023
ol = 10?
gug = 100?
m = 23? it's 13
th
hm... ol = 10 is beautiful,
m
em is 40 in gematria
could some other numeral system where m were 23 exist? it only can
be if some secret society named mol and googol according to it,
and then this knowledge exists today, and thus these assumptions
are useles
(useless for this case they
still astay valuable as examplar, an exhibit)
ain't q00 standing for 100 not beautiful?!
mol is not
1023,
it's 6*
1023
between 13 & 40?could letters stand for intervals?
can we draw a ring and only one through these three dots:
gug (or is it goo?) turns 10 into
10100
m turns 10 into 6*
1023
I
have only two
dots,
I nned more
numbers ending
with ol.
. is like a
small sun. as
if an amen.
and ) goes
clockwise,
also closing
the statement.
And what is (?
the moon! does boon.. doe moon
goes
counterclockwise?
no, clockwise,
left to right.
sun goes left
to right when
you face
south. because
south is where
the sun is.
polar star
looks north
and sun looks
south? sun
faces all the
way east to
west, but it
only faces
north below
equator.
amen is m n
the order to
go. the true
order, labial
before
lingual, lips
before tounge,
tongue covered
with lips, not
placing tongue
before lips,
behaving
decently,
But back to
hebrew and
using its
principles in
other
languages to
see how many
words are the
same:
ct cat сще
dg dog dig dag
dug
i a u go from
high to low,
as ancient
modes did.
sing sang sung
could be
grammatically
arranged
accordingly.
Alphabet could
be more of a
grammatical
tool before,
because I
noticed some
grammatic
бр бери беру
бур бура бер
бр бро бри бра
but the real
fun begins
when more
consonants are
present:
клс клас колос
- though it's
класс and
sometimes
колосс
rbt robot
reboot
lvr lover
liver (heart
is supposed to
love, but
japanese
people are
told to
believe that
life is in
liver, not
heart)
leaver lavr
(leaves are
taken from
lavr(laurel))
lever louvre
see,
fellow nazis,
that's what I
(and Goethe)
said about
knowing other
languages: you
understand
your own
languages by
knowing them.
And Goethe
said that you
live as many
times as many
languages you
speak.
though
some of you
would consider
this wordplay
of gematria an
useless and
degenerate,
it's not even
gematria, it's
general
morphology in
jewish
approach.
so far it
seems as words
are whether
distinguished
by context as
лук & лук,
замок &
замок.
(an
american
friend living
in fussia,
says every
fussian tells
him of замок
& замок.
(зкщифидн
иусфгыу simple
stess on
another letter
changed
meaning
tremendously,
but not
completely:
both words are
semanitacally
related to
замыкать)
or were close
enough being
not
coincidently
there but
related. yet
coincidence
could also
conceal
related words
like замок
& замок
4 letters:
cncl conceal
cancel cynical
abc abac(us) aback
I
quite
understand
what
computational
power such a
quest demands,
I just leave
it here for
some of you to
find thaat
power to make
that kind of
dictionaries
probably only
jews
could enjoy
before.
This
book seems to
have long
become merely
a blog; so be
it. paper
books still
suck in the
comparison
being able
neither in
ctrlF nor in
further
editing.
and let's not
forget
guiltlessly
perished
trees.
this blog will
yet deliver
and here it
does again::
ॐ is known
from ancient
sanskrit to
modern hindu
but it can
also be read
using arabic
script: عم is
actually ع م (especially because ع stands where O does)
(watch how م looks in words using that .odo link at the top)
for don't
forget that
arabic goes
right to left
while sanskrit
goes left to
right
(is
it why semites
are often
left, while
swastika
wearers are
right? I
wonder)
![](continuation_files/Om.png)
it seems
google.ai
thinks ☪ is
Om, maybe
because 🌘
looks like O (a is sun? A sun, V moon (lunъ) a reflection as in the
water)
and
⛧ looks like M.
I just drew an M in that
swastika ... at that star, at that pentagram, and I felt some magica leeling (it how it wrote intself.) as
automatic writing inside of my intentionall magical
feeling.)
And that upper
comma also
correlates:
![](continuation_files/130.png)
Why
would you want
to look for
this image in
the previous
volume,
I
copied it here
instead.
I'm
innovator.
Those dot
& coma
could be و but
also could be
dotted U (V?
B?) which is ن
which reminds
greek ν [n] & ☪
Let's dive
deeper into
this
hypothesis.
![](continuation_files/105.png)
I can see dal
in do,
I can even see
waw in wo,
but what value
does it make?
it can make
mnemonic value
though.
but I'm
looking for
structural
resemblance.
why do I try
to achieve
this goal?
because I seemn to be more qualified to do this than any other
linguist.
(I never heard
of anybody to
even coming
close to this)
Soviet is
общежитие. s0-
viet
(vive~live and
they make us
say alive,
drigting our
understanding
of life even
further from
italian, which
is probably
mediterranian,
I heard a term
judeo-hellenic
in a freaky
book, could it
be based on
something (russian so is co, and though they write it the same:
со, ko is
always ко in
russian)
Freaky freaky
freaky frog
and frog is an
ugly~freak
in russian
urod
frog seems to
be the missing
liink
урод [urod] g
is [d] in
rusian
cursive.
u Y f are both
labial.
Y (et) is
literally a
freak, looks
like a
travesty in
high heeled
leather high
books
boots.
(in
case you
havent
noticed, I put
typos in light
grey too now)
boyh
labial and
lingual and
vocal too ߌ
funny, that
was an nko
character, and
it stands for
i there.
if you borrow
whites'
letters, why
not borrow
them more? why
n'ko is so
exotic, if
they don't
have common
roots going
further. It's
a wildly
freaky
according to
modern science
assumption, so
take it
cautiously,
but who else
would show you
n'ko in thus
playful way
߁߂߃߄߅߆߇߈߉ߊߋߌߍߎߏߐߑߒߓߔߕߖߗߘߙߚߛߜߝߞߟߠߡߢߣߤߥߦߧߨߩߪ
߫
߬
߭
߮
߯
߰
߱
߲
߳
ߴ
ߵ
߶
߷
߸
߹
ߺ
I was looking
for three
pointed star
of Y shape,
and all they
had were
🟀🟁🟂🟃
technically,
it's also
three pointed
stars, let's
get a load of
them:
ᛸ and though
wonderful
https://unicode-table.com/en/#16F8
names it Runic
Letter Franks
Casket
another
🤩
to finish all
the guesses
about
rotations of
tai-chi,
here's
![](continuation_files/800px-JeetKuneDo.svg.png)
The Jeet Kune Do Emblem
The Taijitu represents the concepts of yin and yang. The Chinese
characters indicate: "Using no way as way" and "Having
no limitation as limitation". The arrows represent the
endless interaction between yang and yin.
Jeet Kune Do (Chinese: 截拳道; Cantonese Yale:
jiht kyùhn douh; [tsìːt̚.kʰy̏ːn.tòu]),
"The way of the intercepting fist" in Cantonese, abbreviated JKD,
is a hybrid philosophy of martial
arts heavily influenced by the personal philosophy and
experiences of martial artist Bruce Lee. Lee, who founded the system on July 9,
1967, referred to it as "non-classical", suggesting that JKD
is a form of Chinese Kung Fu, yet without
form. Unlike more traditional martial arts, Jeet Kune Do is
not fixed or patterned, and is a philosophy with guiding
thoughts. It was named for the Wing Chun concept of interception or attacking
when one's opponent is about to attack. Jeet Kune Do
practitioners believe in minimal effort with maximum effect.
On January 10, 1996, the Bruce Lee Foundation decided to use
the name Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do (振藩截拳道) to refer to the
martial arts system which Lee founded; "Jun Fan" being Lee's Chinese given name.
I
give him
additional
credit,
because he is
reported to
eat hashish,
which is the
proper way to
consume thc
(and most of
this work is
done on weed,
because I
didn't see it
otherwise, so
creators of al
phabet... 4
bets?
see, this is
how free your
thought should
be. to explore
every corner
of possibile
connection
between words,
the true ones
will persiist,
the false ones
will fade
away.
But
some
skepticism
persists
because wiki
tells that he
got his sweat
glans cut off
by hollywood
producers
finding sweat
non-cinegenic.
What kind of
master would
do that?
Probably the
one who wanted
to be a movie
star to
promote
chinese
culture, so is
it why they
get paid so
much, because
they agree on
surgery if
producer wants
them too? I
guess they get
bought by
really good
contracts with
lots of
shkalim (yeah, I revisit hebrew
lessons, и в твоей крови тоже война, though I don't know
of my jewish
ancestors, I
can tune into
kletzmer (not
that I played
it, but I
enjoy john
zorn's
projects and I
like woody
allen and I
research torah
too, I am
pretty much a
jew myself,
just like
russian jews
are also
russians. it
isn't good or
bad, it's just
how it
happened that
I got interest
in ancient
writing
systems and
they happened
to be born
here)
Anyway, ignore
that
skepticism,
here's him
giving some proper advice to
me about being
scientific (mirror)
Kipu!
Самым древним было узелковое письмо, с которым европейцы
познакомились в XVI в. в Америке у инков. В древности оно
существовало и у других народов, например, в Азии и Африке.
(this quote tells that knots were the most ancient form of
writing systems, because it used to exist in Asia & Africa,
only europeans rediscovered it in 16th
century in Ink(!?) America
![](continuation_files/img-ebyt_a.png)
![](continuation_files/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D1%83%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BB.png)
![](continuation_files/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BC%D1%91%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B0.png)
![](continuation_files/%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%83%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BB.png)
Though I
wasn't sure
about the
"Кровавый"
узел, the site
I took it from
tells about it
in the context
of kipu
specifically:
(the
lower three
images are
clicable,
though they're
all in
russian)
Древние жители Перу -
инки - пользовались подобными узлами с разным числом шлагов в
изобретенном ими узелковом письме. Завязывая узлы на веревках
определенного цвета и с числом шлагов внутри каждого узла от
одного до девяти, они вели счет до пятизначного числа.
Существуют два способа
вязки таких узлов. Если число шлагов не превышает трех, их
делают ходовым концом троса внутрь петли (рис. 2, а), а если
оно больше, то шлаги делают вокруг коренной части троса и
ходовой конец пропускают внутрь (рис. 2, б).
as
you can see, these three were like the first three knots
presented among over eleven dozens.
so it could be related to this topic.
Language itself speaks of knots in words like notice, note.
Orthography is pretty arbitrary and serves to void homonyms at
least in scriptures (for it's harder to ask questions to written
text)
But my
research on
this topic
will be
nothing in
comparison to
this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quipu
There they
speak of 4
angles ... why
did I use
angles
thinginkg of
knots? yзлы
углы. angles.
angels?
But there is 4
or even 5
knots in those
3.
And I have to
look deeper in
chinese and
african knot
languages, for
when they
speak of quipu
they may be
doing it to
conceal this
information
the same way
they did to
minuscule:
they say it
appeared only
in middle
ages, keeping
in mind the
greek one, so
you cannot
expose them as
liars, but
they omit
mentioning
roman cursive
for example,
and curriculum
probably uses
this trick in
many other
cases. ai help
us.
год
is hour in
ukrainian, but
a year in
russian.
notice that in
english year
& hour is
also rather
similar.
there's I
between H
& J but
both H stands
for an
invariant of I
in greek &
russian, and J
is directly
related as an
invariant to
I.
As I
have said all
I had to say,
and now I keep
on thinking
further, and
it's
embarrassingly
raw, I just
decided to
leave this
field and to
focus on
experimental
embryology
(I'm going to
put myself in
an embryolike
state to find
the state of
absolute
protection, I
wil make it on
video which is
supposed to be
available in a
couple of
years (five
years tops,
which will
make ten years
since I made
this joint
public, and
general public
(academia
included)
usually catch
up to new
fields of
science in
about ten
years.
I need to
smoke weed to
research it,
but I need to
stay away from
weed when I
need to build
something.)
yet it's
to
be continued and edited back and forth and those boxes
of paper drafts will be photographed soon.
and I go on, this book is gonna be written forever,
volumes & volumes of it until I deliver the
universal tool to understand foreing languages, even
if after ai does it, even if just to amuse &
simplify ai patterns of processing linguistic
information.
![](continuation_files/naches.png)
Notice how ת stands for both t (then it has a dot inside when the
text is dotted) and s (then
it has no dot)
For I said that all linguals are invariants (did I say it or just thought so?)
And first in the row is cd, or гд if in russian &
greek
And g stands for d in russian cursive. (c & g are
invarriants, so г is [g] & д is [d])
And it correlates to תמא instead of שמא on golem.
Though in hebrew direction it's אמת which is truth.
![](continuation_files/Emet-Truth-med-large.jpg)
I'm pretty sure amen is related.
And I heard about amen that it is related to aum, for
essens read it as aumin (I yet have to see if it's
true, but
מ
& א
are the common two between תמא
& שמא
and they're the opposites: mouth open, mouth closed.
and if א
is earth, א
is hard, מ
is soft.
and if א
is air, א
is empty, מ
is full.
so it relates to whether sun or moon male
of remale... male or female. my typos ar
bugging me
All of the sudden"
![](continuation_files/Retrograde.png)
![](continuation_files/yazinin-bulunmasinin-insanlik-icin-onemi-nedir.jpg)
And why it's important is 𓃀 now is more legitimate as
predecessor of b.
![](continuation_files/simpson1.png)
![](continuation_files/simpson2.png)
![](continuation_files/simpson3.png)
and
then copywrong hit the fan:
I see my duty is to be heroic to change the unjust
law. (Just
-- does it stand for the most jewish person? (s)He
who (H is ash.. and
only know I see that it's not only name of the
latter in latin, not only firedust, but also name
of a tree, which definitely stood for a letter,
for in neighbouring ogham it was, and I read
something of the kind so just trust me as you
trust those books who tell of some other books or
as field specialists, so I some time give
references, here I don't) have understood lies so good that
(s)He doesn't use it at all. For example I
understood honesty when I thought what if we
assume that god exists and look at the world from
this point of view. Honesty was the must. It still is. So in this sense I'm the Just.
Such a crypto that nobody in my family think
this way, Though it's not true, my siblings are
married to jews, and it seems they were allowed
in as fresh blood when I began to learn Hebrew.
I am the deepest in this subject, so I am juest
once again. (Lol what, I havent expect to come
to this when I began typing this) and I
understood name of G-d, is it a-B-G-d? no, I
speak of IO, the reading of tetragrammaton,
considering this book being born, that
pronounciation is not wrong. Jesuits were
surprised wheyn they found Maori or some their
neighbour having Io as the top deity, because
jesuits knew this syllable or two syllables as
the name of the god. And I speak of moshiah, I
understood those three mothers as M S H -and I
saw an image where H & A look the same)
and juews are known as religious people, but
they're not known as very honest people, and the
only way to )
Because I promote this book, no body is hurt. Crimes
without victim (even other than the "criminal" it's outrageous I even have to
mention it, but it's clear
self-harm is considered criminal because of military
service being mandatory, now that is the crime)
are absurd and thus illegitimate.
G-d as part of
a-B-G-d resonate to аз буки often
read as аз боги. And though I
consider this reading freaky, that
is in my head, and it could be
understood that way by some other
beople not knowing бук is a tree
loetter was named after. But isn't
int literally birch in icelandic
runes? Me personally, living in
soviet union I maybe knew аз stands
for I, which correlates I standing
for 1. But I had no idea what буки
is. There's no such a tree where I
live in. books = buki would be
looked at as public etymology, the
nerve they have, what influence the
language the more? feeling of the
language as people feel it or some
academic speculations almost nobody
even read, and all humanities suck
at logic, at least technical
scintists often think this way, It's
not a nice thing to say, but it must
be said: ai assistance is required
the most in humanities.
Nouns and adjectives are literally names in russian,
and naamworden in dutch.
And I had a hypothesis, that nouns are names, or names
are some basic nouns meaning of most of them are
forgotten and their simpler forms reveal something
about the official form of the name, and though I
forgot the context of that revelation, it revisited me
in another twist: имя существительное и имя
прилагательное могут соответсвтвовать имени и фамилии
(name & surname could be noun & adjective, or
visa versa: sergey is also sery which is grey, dim is
also an adjective, mary could stand for merry, john
for jeune? is it some serious stuff or just my wild
imagination?)
Another day, another topic:
Or it's the same old offtopic, and it's here because
I've already mentioned it. Or maybe because this book
is to grow into a general science textbook. From abc
into these depths.
Mole being just a rather simple number 6*1023
lead me to better understanding of chemistry. And next step to
understand it was molar volume, which they didn't give us in
school, and definition of volume is as complicated as possible
again:
It is equal to the molar mass (M) divided by the mass density (ρ).
It has the SI unit cubic metres per mole (m3/mol),[1]
although it is more practical to use the units cubic decimetres
per mole (dm3/mol) for gases
and cubic centimetres per mole (cm3/mol)
for liquids and solids.
how on earth am I supposed to know its density? from a table?
why can't I see a table of its volume instead? And that is how I
came onto this topic again.
And though before first it mentions:
The molar volume, symbol Vm,[1]
is the volume occupied by one mole of a substance (chemical element or chemical compound) at a given temperature and pressure.
But if you don't know what mole is (which
most of graduates don't) it doesn't tell you much. So
they taught us molar mass, but without direct understanding of
what mole is, it doesn't make too much sense for you either,
enough for those who can follow the patterns without thinking
too deep into them, but absolutely irrelevant to those who try
to understand. Molar mass makes way more practical sense though,
because scales are way more precise than measures. But to
imagine this nanoworld volumes are important.
So I found table of volumes there (in cm3
per mol) and I share it with you:
(though
there are also isotopes)
![](continuation_files/molar%20volume.png)
English wiki
didn't have this tabel when I write it in 25Feb2019.
Why? I don't know.
So another cool thing about wiki
is that History button leads to another axis, the
axis of time actually, and maybe somebody gave or
will give this table there, and whenever you want to
look deeper, you may want to look at those older
versions, though I
suspect some of them were edited afterwards, for in
my timeline 1995 elections in russia had different
results, than even the oldest page of wiki shows,
but I cannot find any trace of this fact in all the
internet, so I suppose I just got mandella effect,
whether due to some televisional disinformation or
who knows why.
Today we revisit swastikas, here's a nekomimi showing
how it's supposed to be done.
![](continuation_files/MGjaGCdGdlA.jpg)
The
contradiction is semblant, because that
lucky swastika is exactly what is before
her eyes, so she repeats what she sees by
rotating clockwise with her elbows..also
it could be correct position for right
side flip, but I haven't research
gymnastics at all. It also refers to right
hand raised and left hand lowered in islam
& baphomet.
![](continuation_files/0ef99b5c68de8b6654c736f3acef55c7.jpg)
What does this scary picture tell? Behind this goat
skull is a girl. (but little
nipples tell it's probably a tranny with implanted
tits, which correlate to that gay mafia conspiracy,
a crook presenting oneself ase an angel, bigendered
as deities are believed to be, I even read of some I
think kibelian priests who even castrated themselves
to be one with the goddess, and christian robes are
told to originate in those times, but it could be
false because many people in the middle east wear
what can be considered dresses. or it could be a woman and artist
who sucked at drawing tits, or maybe she's so
blonde so only nipples are seen) Maybe that pharaoness with fake
beard relate to this? But what about the windgs?
Egyptians worshipped birds. And it is an angel, a figure
composing human & feathered races, was it after plato, where
feathered bipeds would also exist? or do those windgs (for the secodn time in
a row have I typoed it like this.) tell it's a chick?
And before her & beneath her legs is probably a
shield and that scepter looks as it's an artistic
sword.
And the picture shows an asrologic event. The light
crescet is probably sun because dark crescent is the
moon. Thus it's an eclipse. Hand showing upwards tells
solve (sol is sun latin, solntse is sun in russian,
though they say sontse, which is closer to sun. sol is
sun in latin, but sol is earth in french. hm, could it
be caused by some astrologic reinterpretation by
political reasons maybe? Then coagula would stand for
the moon and it showed their position one to another.
Dictionary says coagula is coagulated in latin. As
cheese?
(on other images U's
more apparent) Solve
is free according to dictionary. ν is n in greek,
that's why solnce came to my mind. Solve is also a
word in english, and in this riddle it even makes more
sense.
And chaos chelps to write it, directs it by sending my
way pictures I didn't ask for as чснап does,
completely random flow of all:
![](continuation_files/1551171481603.jpg)
upd: I decided to put that beasty part into an appendix.
If solve is free it makes sense,
because I just was returned to it by a thought: we
don't know if god or sat' are good or bad, becaue
though nominally god is good and devil is ed'evil,
god of bible does make mean things and Snake or
whatever you name his satan (enemy) he seems to have
so many, often he is just alright: snake said to
humans the truth while god lied to them. It's a
tricky book, it's a tricky culture we are finding
ourselves in as breadandbutterflies in spidernet. I
messee up with the tags, so it lags., c Volume
III
But let me finish the thought:
what we do know is that god is for order and slavery
when devil is for chaos and freedom, some will argue
though, for people believe in selling one's soul,
but having some encounters with that personality, I
can tell that he doesn't respect slaves, so those
tails of him fooling those entrusting into him are
probably true (at least those stories ARE in the
culture) but independently from this speculation
years ago I realized that there's not a chance for
us humans to know who is before us, god or evil, not
only because abrahamic god is not exactly good, but
because they are smarter than us by default, so or
them to fuool us is nothing, so I said in the very
beginning of this spiritual journey that I am in
neutrality in their quarrel, девочки не ссорьтесь
and so on, and it seems I was in the right, fro even
d'evil doesn't want me to be some shit without soul,
it seems freedom is respected by the chaotic ones,
and what concerns the big god or whatever you call
him, I keep his tradition alive (if bible relates to
him, for in the world being in Satan's hands until
the second coming where's the place for god? How do
we know that the biggest religions are not "wide is
the gate leading to destruction" as if he winks us
on our way. So I decided to be neither hot nor cold.
We humans try to equalize similar concepts and
attempt to pull abstractions onto reality which is
also not always accurate. But we'll probably return
to this profound question some day, now I should
finish the thought for some reason: So free as
gases, coagulated as having reacted to something,
decomposing, alpha & omewga, gasous &
solids, yin & yang or visa versa. Yet I've no
idea what I'm talking about, and why. God is
associated with immortality & Satan is told to
cause the opposite, so who is who and why would
anyone be anything, it's just some mind play which
went way too far. Why would an atheist like me speak
of gods and devils, why do I even need to look at
those pictures, I wasn't planning to research these
things, but those things were in teh center of the
universe of those who invented alphabets, so I feel
like I must. So if I equalize death & devil, 13
to 15, then the opposite to the third moira is the
first one, the one which creates teh thread of life.
And what it sat ... what is the second moira I
wanter to say, but Composer lags when so many text
and tags, and I don't even see what I print, typos
all the way, unable to even correct them
reflectorily, the second moira seen over abrahamic
tradition is the one between god & devil,
between angel & demon, and that is us. we are
the moira who measures the thread..
![](img/w24h16138981479618envelope.png)