February 9th 2011
I have never been one - who thought about cheating my self into being mocked at. When you think about this - in terms of bringing out your inner fears. We come to understand ourselves best - through such insecurity we rather moot ourselves - before standing up to give and take notice of ourselves in the mirror.
Even more curious still - is that kind of scared mob mentality that so few often realize they may encounter. I'm speaking of a fear based moniker - that we face on every level of experience.
My idea of living the good life, takes on all comers.
The same truth I apply to reason, or as Pascal pointed out - is of the internalized will of 'the many.'
Part of a problem much larger than that of exponential variability, is the concentration of our own self attrition. How it happens is still further from explanation.
The reality of thinking of extra terrestrial, or lunar speak, is often not equated let alone related to consciousness. More random than such, is painting a picture - much affiliated in the confusion of altered states of community based relationships.
Lost in all of this - is the translation of internalized will, a combination of thoughts, to involve the part of ones inner working.
Part of my own fantasy, does not require a dossier of exquisite physique, or the search of how fear based intimidation should fall at the hands of those incredulous. To achieve the same thing, without so much to gain, is seen as inferior of myself standing next to those in spite of my own image (such as is the case of body building.)
In fact, so much is true of myself concept, I feel vindicated of my true inner beauty. So this in itself is what Pascal related back (toward you) (a) that falsely internalized will, (b) which makes us appear despondent to (c) natural mannerisms of a cerebral nature.
We might call it psychological or social cues, ideological signals which we find in the world around us, we only want to make ourselves react.
That can only be human in notation;
the latter part of associative internalized will, are dogma, that insatiable need to think about where we are at every given moment. Probably, my most Canadian view of myself, is the fact I think. As Pascal then says: that will of the majority independent and good of itself,
may as well believe in god
. That way - I can believe what I
must
.
To make such observations at the most intellectual part of your human instinct, will never be convinced of that part of the population.
==============
In defense of steroid use #2
If the most fundamental aspect(s) of Pascal-ian logic, the internalized will, the false intention, the ad hoc conscious shifts taking place (dogmatic thinking) as we speak. Those are all non-contributers to the cause surrounding internal suffering of a genuine nature, which is, to go with the nature of depression or non-emotive language. This kind of thinking, as Pascal would have it:
(a) you are not a subject of gods will, everyone else seems inept at it as well.
(b) if the majority exists, a belief in god, I may as well do so.
(c) this is the integral part of Pascal-ian logic, for it to be completely understood, is if you internalize something which is false but can also be true (follows) you accept to think for yourself - not others. However, if you intend on thinking on others behalf, you may as well believe in god, because if you do believe in god, you rather not think for yourself.
--------------------------
The above is quantifiable for many which reasons:
Everything that carries with it a false intention (not reason), does not require thinking. It in fact requires nothing whatsoever.
If everything were internalized as gods will, then the entire structure of the universe as we know it is, would in fact require nothing whatsoever.
That in every living thing known to man, her will, her will can only benefit from - therefore, nothing else is required from her.
-------------------------
These are limited to the inclusion of Pascal's Wager. He in fact knew, if you were to accept things as they are, you have automatically implied gods will as if you were to believe she exists. On the other hand, the minute you reject a thought of gods will, you are no longer internalizing the world around you, because you think that what you can or cannot accept shall be your choice.
The common misconception people mistook Pascal's Wager, was in principle of reward, that if you believed in something, it could be related to anything, but because you chose not question it, you've subscribed to it's power over you. In fact, Pascal is saying to do the opposite as if you think for yourself you KNOW everyone else around YOU believes god exists. Therein lay the relativity as the principle should it be applied.
I know this of plenty of people, in my opinion, that even if they choose not to accept what they read here, or any of my own personal beliefs, habitually they were outright rejecting me as a PERSON. When in fact, the truth is much simpler than that, it is that I am to be recognized as a PERSON, that people internally struggle without
completely rejecting their belief in something greater.
My challenge (thinking based) would be next to impossible, if I were to uncover how my internalizing someone else's (non-thinking based) false belief. Pascal is presuming your innocence, that your internalized will based on another persons - is one in the same - as if you were supplied your very one make-up kit to believe in god. Thus, a false internal struggle emerges, that your conscious takes in part of.
