Greatest I am wrote:

Did the builders of the Pyramids get instructed at regular periods in Time?

No answer as I do not know what a meaningful reality is.

Regards
DL[/quote]


Thus I react and slavishly, I trust, for I also believe that yours was a contrived Action of language. I note the language was meaningful in disrespect rather than understanding. We are at last at familiar ideas for the Meaningful M/S.

Also, I (and, also for the value of whole self-consciousness done, You) determine the meaning. [/quote]

Thanks for wasting my time yet again.

Regards
DL[/quote]

Disrespect is a form of understanding. It evolves the consciousness of the Law in its most fundamental application. The soul hides the disguised Substance: I am now master. And masters are realized without the blood of Christ.

I'll give a guess. I disrespect you too.

Greatest I am wrote:
Plotin wrote:
What is the meaningful reality of serving? Is it language whereby mere Action and Reaction is the definition for deduction of the rule in Experience? Is it desire of recognition in the culturally excepted way whereby the law determines the work of the situation, and the slave actually changes the Law first (the master decides the fact and reality of getting It Done)?


Did the builders of the Pyramids get instructed at regular periods in Time?

No answer as I do not know what a meaningful reality is.

Regards
DL


A meaningful reality must be neither concrete nor abstract. We must act is plausibly to the subject at hand of serving IN DOUBT to me. It stems also from the concepts of the Chilean priest representing his ideals at the dictator Pinochet in around 1982. The conference wished to present the case of human rights from a rather asserted materialist perspective of property existing in advance of the owner of the property; the person's individuality existing in advance of the body/mind distinction by his understanding of property. Nevertheless, the property decidedly was represented radically RIGHT for the concerns of human rights through the knowledge of the Governments handling of suits of property conflicts.

In this way the theologian priest stated the case that we have a right to our bodies apart of imposition by the Other encroaching at your livelihood; we also have a right to our property apart of the encroaching at your livelihood of dealing wealth. Thereby, the infamous priest was able to transcend the golden rule for the worth of HUMAN RIGHTS.

In a practical court settlement we cannot be assured when these events occurred, but we can always beyond the concrete/abstract distinction posit the the difference for the various values in the sensitive transaction of humans at their capitally recognized EQUALITY.

"Who is to serve who between God and man"? Do you, GREATEST I AM, mean the essential property evaluated context of human contact, or the the matter of threat to life and death in the case of misunderstanding one's another deal in LIfe?

I don't know.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:
I don't know.

Regards
DL

I rule you on the Right way of action and reaction to the undecided difference. But if Wrong we also need the Wronging of one another for... hey, legal or illegal then and there.

Let me know when you stop talking to yourself.

Regards
DL

Self-consciousness is really decided to commit to the Other self-consciousness apart as to 'Who serves who?' wholly without any mystical judgements in OR outside me. It once was more mystifying for the certainty of achievement , and self-help. Nowadays, we need to understand the Virtue issue for mystics of the way of the World.


Or conquering Vice with Virtue. I (who am certain with my equipment now that 'I=I'), will find that the proof for that was not in owning the equipment, was supposed to be in mystifying beyond any reasonable appearance of screens in the 'vista' of sequences in who it was, who I believe I am thrust upon; my old friends they said; new political action groups, but I insist against other's so-called Sartr' to be in the overlapping unfulfilled world. Self-certainty at the fourth chapter of Hegel's phenomenology of Spirit is really less mystical. HE NEVER SAID THAT PRIOR TO REASON and AFTER the presence of THIS BEING that self-certainty couldn't be the non-mystical. In the contrary it should perhaps be in chapter 10: Virtue and the way of the World; that Hegel was concerning himself to be mystical.

We reason when we mystify and that occurs for the reduction of the immediate presence of the Object: this is towards the other beyond me, indeterminate of negativity for the way of the World. Reason itself is the enemy. To write this is self-denial for committed action, but the other offered up commitment for service (not anything responsible; responsibility occurred at the level of the ideal unfulfilled world requiring Self for the thereby unfulfilled ego of being by oneself, being-for-an-other). Being by myself is surely a tendency to misunderstand the Object at hand and find need for It, the being as Matter-at-hand, which is the threat to be serving without a cause of the meaningful Being,

Matter-at-hand progresses the virtuous Server served, and He is at first from the way of the World conquering Vice. Things are needed for development, for wealthy exchange to advance the talented into their fields of reasonable influence on the tasks which truly are our individuality to BE.

Computers are for individuality. They exist that way in design of unlimited self-control with respect to the central processing evaluation. at tasks they are at two forms of evaluation: the Work which is responsible task, directed from survival conscience and Economics; and at Play which is custom driven individual behaviour founded upon tasks directed primarily from Our Culture.

What does God have to do with that? In task he will not direct the project to completion. In failing the environmental completely (Theatre in the Raw) God does direct the mystification to the reasoned Values of the End of cultural expectation.