Stable Topic research
Normally when I write I don't begin with introductions or greeting, because I count on impressive post names. I do so because I am more reliable with fast generating of verbal rementalizable constructions. I am not quite able to explain how does this method works, because it is like I already know what I want to say, but only find words for it. Can this be scientifically possible? Are we living in the world of words or are those ongoing process which we dare to name? Basically every law of nature is a simple word and as we move deeper into description of for example confrontation of two nature laws, words are getting more complex. Therefore it is clear that the beginning is always genially easy.
This seems like a law already. Our world chooses the most simple way out of all possible ways. How to put it on more clearly, so that it will become wise to speak about? What stops us are moments of further definitions. If world chooses something, then who is this world? I think this question is very misleading to the depths of mental hell. But the question now is do I have to go with the answer, or am I supposed to step back? It seems like every new thesis on this question is more misleading, but maybe that is actually only a defence for us to not step in something we are not ready to know. This seems like an answer, if there is a God, we will find out, if there isn't we won't. Well then if it is so simple I assume that I am the God in that case as well as therefore in every other. But I can not stand in position of God, because it is a taboo in almost every culture. Why is it so? Is there a reason for this, or is it just a sign of our greed?
I assume once again as I am still in position of a God, that it is more complex when reaching for lower power of existence. Lower, because this world does not require any new conscious decisions of how to behave. In other worlds we assume that everything that can happen will never reach the level of chaos or unpredictability.
Let's try for a hypothetical reach onto this construction.
World was created. - It is clear. The question is how world was created. This prequestion shows us that we want to make sure, who was the creator, so that we will know. - The answer is God. Because we presume that it was "who" the most right version sounds like it was God. But when we imagine God, we see him as the product of the process. As the highest and the smartest. I tell's me this is not quite right. The problem is that we can only assume, because we are not in that position when we create ourselves. Therefore any word God will sooner or later reach this position of not being in the position of knowing. Of course if we will not stand somehow else looking on what we are.
God may be the highest but may be a never reaching his highest level. This means two things. God is still creating himself just like a child and it means that I am god too. I am god... I am only small part of the whole universe but can you part a being? Or does being always remain beingself?
This post is really about many things, I want to find a stable topic of what t think and talk about but as well, I am answering my own inner questions as every creation ask the creator. Who is Creator? I know I have Ego. Is ego a creation? It seems logical that ego has a desire to be something because it is a result. But what else makes me myself?
I would like to finish this article, but sadly I do not really have any more time, so if you have any Ideas how you would imagine the way of a solution of what I was speaking about, please take that role of God and tell me a creation as I ask.
