relativity [Theme] Page 1

“Cause” and “action” should not be reified, as naturalists (and those who now follow their manner of thinking) do according to the prevailing mechanistic stupidity, forcing cause to push and push until it “activates”. "Cause" and "action" should be used as pure concepts, that is, as generally accepted fictions, for the purpose of designation, agreement, and not explanation. In the "essence of things" (An-sich) there is no "causal connection", "necessity", "psychological lack of freedom": there "action" does not follow "the cause", no "law" reigns there. It is we, only we have invented reasons, sequence, interconnection, relativity, compulsion, number, law, freedom, foundation, purpose; and if we conceive, mix with things this world of signs as something "in itself", then we act again as we have always done, namely, mythologically.

It is convenient to think that everything is relative... Especially if you don't have a clear answer.

Everything is relative, relativity itself is relative. There is nothing whole, because a whole begins with the whole. Creating a cycle of infinity. Infinity is the beginning and the end because it is relative. The beginning and end of the relative where the beginning and the end. This is the beginning not the end, but it is a cycle.
So what is not relative? Only what affects the reality, the time. Time is what creates reality. Time controls everything.
However, time could not exist by itself.
The time is a sign of action. Time is the first sign.
Actions need to matter. Matter is not a unit because it is relative. For actions you need energy. Energy is infinity because it does not disappear but changes form from one to another. The action itself is not, if it cannot be fixed. Because everything is nothing and nothing is everything. Light is what reflects reality. If there is matter and energy then light is one and the other. Next is gravity, it is not relative because there is no one. She sets things in motion because she this action.
What is truly infinite? The infinite invisible. Infinite only noticeable. Infinite then scrise. Endless over time and that creates time.

Love is absolute, good is relative.

Yeah, yeah, baby, you're cool, let's just diaper change and sopelki will podotreme... And just do not think that all around the condom, and you're a balloon!

What is in common time and morality? Relativity. And then something to do with your experience.
(That time and morality have in common? Relativity. They are both linked to your experience).
What do time and morality have in common? Relativity. They're both relative to your experience.

When the water comes, fish eat ants; when the water subsides, the ants eat fish.

Over time, even this moment will become like a gentle memory.
In time you will remember even this moment with fondness.

The unreliable narrator! The unreliable narrator is like the author's admission, right? Rhetorical question, Yes? But literary critics it is usually bypassed because it is something serious. Canterbury tales, those, Yes, mention. But there is a literary monument. And, basically, the narrator is, in cheap detective stories and movies. Agatha Christie there, "Suspicious person". My idea is that every narrator is unreliable by definition. Because who would be the kind of story not told, the story itself is one thing, but the story is quite another. Therefore, all the existing stories come from unreliable narrators. Theoretically, the narrator could rely on, turn around his story in front of us, but this is clearly impossible. And that means what? Seems like the only reliable narrator is life itself. But life itself, as the narrator, unreliable nowhere, because it gets us somewhere, then I'm putting us in situations when it is impossible to understand what will happen next. Life is the most unreliable narrator!
Unreliable narrator! Unreliable narrators are considered a device, right? Don't answer. They are. They are and they don't get a lot of literary analysis because it's a gimmick. It's a trick. I mean "Canterbury Tales" gets a shoutout because, you know, it's good but typically it's used for popcorn crime novels and thriller movies. Agatha Christie, "Usual Suspects", so on and so forth. But I'm going to argue that every narrator by its very definition is unreliable because when you tell a story there's always an essential distance between the story itself and the telling of said story, right? So therefore every story that has ever been told has an unreliable narrator. The only truly reliable narrator would be someone hypothetically telling a story that unfolds before our very eyes which is obviously very impossible. So what does that tell us? That the only truly reliable narrator is life itself. But life itself is also completely unreliable because it is constantly misdirecting and misleading us and taking us on this journey where it is literally impossible to predict where it is going to go next. Life as the ultimate unreliable narrator!

The unreliable narrator! The unreliable narrator is like the author's admission, right? Rhetorical question, Yes? But literary critics it is usually bypassed because it is something serious. Canterbury tales, those, Yes, mention. But there is a literary monument. And, basically, the narrator is, in cheap detective stories and movies. Agatha Christie there, "Suspicious person". My idea is that every narrator is unreliable by definition. Because who would be the kind of story not told, the story itself is one thing, but the story is quite another. Therefore, all the existing stories come from unreliable narrators. Theoretically, the narrator could rely on, turn around his story in front of us, but this is clearly impossible. And that means what? Seems like the only reliable narrator is life itself. But life itself, as the narrator, unreliable nowhere, because it gets us somewhere, then I'm putting us in situations when it is impossible to understand what will happen next. Life is the most unreliable narrator!
Unreliable narrator! Unreliable narrators are considered a device, right? Don't answer. They are. They are and they don't get a lot of literary analysis because it's a gimmick. It's a trick. I mean "Canterbury Tales" gets a shoutout because, you know, it's good but typically it's used for popcorn crime novels and thriller movies. Agatha Christie, "Usual Suspects", so on and so forth. But I'm going to argue that every narrator by its very definition is unreliable because when you tell a story there's always an essential distance between the story itself and the telling of said story, right? So therefore every story that has ever been told has an unreliable narrator. The only truly reliable narrator would be someone hypothetically telling a story that unfolds before our very eyes which is obviously very impossible. So what does that tell us? That the only truly reliable narrator is life itself. But life itself is also completely unreliable because it is constantly misdirecting and misleading us and taking us on this journey where it is literally impossible to predict where it is going to go next. Life as the ultimate unreliable narrator!

The human mind is by nature capable to give and gives us the absolute truth, which is the sum of relative truths.

Everything wrong lobe, approximately and relatively.

The strangest thing about marriage is that sometimes I think that it took 35 years. Or 25. Or 10. And sometimes it seems like yesterday.
Marriage... sometimes it seems it's been 35 years. Or 25 or 10, but I sometimes feel like it was yesterday. You back for seconds.

We Einstein explained it sensibly
That is not an absolute result.
And sometimes a polite word
A lot worse than the usual Mat.