Words and languages -and their guaranteed failure

The precise material facts, transformations, static objects that we perceive or apperceive as clear as crystal - have no

-words
-symbols
-images
-communicative tools of any kind,

but those of experts studying the mind, brain and behavior related disciplines.

A physicist or health care professional has actually no idea whether he thinks at a thing or is directly connected with the phenomenon itself, or both. All experts are drowning in a billion dualities, their brain has no clue what's real and what's virtual, their brains are mudded in NOTECHNIQUE of IDENTIFICATION and their entire power gets sucked into "feeling" your own errors, be certain "that's what's going on!"; the actual brain process for a single "identity and act" piece is about a few tenths of times the needed size (when it's working flawlessly). They are fucking idiots!

I can't express not even one of the thousands of distinctions that I make in a particular time without introducing the need to understand a thousand more.

The specialized vocabularies for communicating the clear, distinct, "touchable" mind processes are primitive. It's like watching Borat. I mean if it is "just work" then it's fine for the specialist, he's sober and doesn't care. He confuses the sobriety of work with painful lack of mind tools.

WHY THE FUCK DO WE NEED SHAKESPEARE TO EXPRESS THINGS? The greatest art, the only way of seeing things right - we need better tools.


Language, gestures, the entire art, theater of communication is dull. The world's languages are faithful to the things in themselves like the imbecile to the moral duty. There's no fucking way of directly communicating some shit. SOME SHIT would translate to UNDEFINED, KNOWN NOUMENAL OBJECT.

WHO THE FUCK USES DISTINCTIONS LIKE "UNDEFINED, KNOWN NOUMENAL OBJECT"? Is there a common word in some language that implies the particular relation of the communicator with the object that he does not define by his communication?

I've done some bad shit. 18 letters.

I am in a state of relations to some specific arbiters that could, and it ethically should, but it's still, under the particular circumstances defined by <>, moral they wouldn't punish me, because the gravity of facts is obviously not enough for them to assume their fake role of authorities to the maximum extent, the gravity is just more than half needed for them to reach out to that role, while their selves they are just as about a third guilty of this crime compared to me, and while the crime itself has an ethic gravity of only less than half than your ordinary crime, and, my crime, of course, we know that it should be, in a correctly functioning society a slight more than a grave crime, they should not punish me, but let me go, because a. their correctness is not big enough to inspire them play the theatrics of justice in an self-artistically-motivating way, as rhetorically fighting my great evil, nor great enough to play it out of belief of it's definite constructive effect, and b. they do not believe my crime is big enough for punishment, 1. because they do it 33% too and so their inner moral imperative really prevents them to consider it truly dirty, and 2. because they, in their inner self accept this current state of moral/immoral equilibrium in society, just like us; and alll this big thing while my inner sense of guilt tells me that I should <>, and I want to <> and I decide to <>, and in addition, not connected to the former said, but completely distinct, I am suggesting you <>, those things I do not define to you in this moment, should continue/transform their course by applying to them the following <>, and by suggesting to you this solution you now understand more or less exactly what are those things that I am talking about, that I did.


Let me tell YOU something: when "I've done some bad shit." gives the common individual the power to express so much, then WE, the "superior", the defined and refined, the cultivated, etc. WE ARE IN DEEP SHIT.

Language DUMBS DOWN people. True intellectuals, and true to the bone people communicate and act by the rule of slang and shit down`the streets as a last resort to "keep it real".

[IDIOT PROOF REMARK]
[No, idiot, school's not just a game that gives you access to society, correspondent to your ability to get grades. It's ALL MEANT and it's right. All pedantry is exactly how it should be, but it sucks ONLY because it's faked, mashed up and so "it's not keeping real".]


There are no languages and communication tools to express "EXACTLY, ACCURATE TO THE LAST DETAIL" some SHIT (noumenal, rather defined, but undefined object) that we experience.

I make clear, sharp distinctions between the thought in itself and it's communication symbol.
I want to make a definitive map of empiric noumenal reality and always have the exact identity of whatever materialization I am into.(or is it IT into me? or maybe we share the same location? or maybe... aah fuck it)

We learn to communicate everything thorough symbols. We never ever directly actually "TRANSFER" a thought, we just point out it's symbols and use fingers to point it in front of us or miles away.
This is not communication, it's a circus of babbling, anointed with our art flows in order to transmit the actual thing.

Thing in itself -> Percepted thing in itself -> Apperceptual proprietary image of the thing ->

-> Communication ->

Word symbols from the thing -> Cultural selection, encasing, etc. -> Oral modulation of sound, gesture encasing, etc.

This is all just a circus.

-We DON'T have 1 on 1 words on anything and it would be insane to have a map of words to a repetitive and empirically small world.

-We DON'T have STANDARDS for communicating exactly the state of something, like this PRIMORDIALLY IMPORTANT state: MATERIAL-ACTION - POSSIBLE/PRESENT - ABERRANT/METAPHYSICALLY_EXISTENT - MIND<->OUTER_REALITY - MIND-OBJECT - MIND-SYMBOL, MATERIALLY_ABERRANT-BUT(!)_METAPHYSICALLY_EXISTENT.

They don't teach everybody this in schools. (I mean everyone, so that one minus would be a problem, not like they teach 5 from 100, and more than 5, maybe 20 would be nice. Like Jesus himself once said: "But all is not well.")


Shit man, science scholars are still arguing about the difference between metaphysically possible, materially possible, mentally possible; or if the mind is virtual (as mind=virtual matter) or if it is real (should this be that mind is actually matter? like we have some real, actual shits inside our brains?) The problem of the virtuality of the mind steps on my toes; I'd virtually like to smash their heads with a real hammer from time to time, all the rats playing it Bogart in the media with their idiotic uncertainties and specific, narrow expertise. Just like you would be a medic and become an expert in the left foot.

"It is noted that the chicken has two parallel feet, especially the left one."


I want to develop a scientific and absolutely error-proof scheme that reduces a huge amount of text into something "instant". Just watch it and it's there, with all the details, easy, error-proof and fast.