using “words”
If words carry energy (which I believe they do).
This is how it works :
how much weight your words carry refers to the “mass” of your words.
the “speed of light” (c2) refers to the power of your words.
Energy “abstractly speaking”, when speaking, writing words, expressing yourself is equal to a “mix” between the weight your words carry and the power they have.
Where both are force, but not the same.
One is force by attraction, the other is force by control.
Master both, and you only master how to control energy according to your will.
NOT what energy “is” and NOT what “force” “is”.
It’s so damn simple, but so damn hard to put into words…
This is it, not me.
What is it?
Embedding disabled by request …. cunt
anyway, here’s a link
and here’s another
Site Title 
“There are four conditions required for life to form. You need water; you need an energy source – so the ice can become liquid; you need the right chemistry – nitrogen, carbon, hydrogen; and the fourth thing you need is stability – a length of time that allows life to form.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17917102
Do this right :
1. Fire and Ice (metaphorically : creativity, passion mixed with discipline)
(forges metal –> Lanthanide and Actinide)
Symbolically, in card games, this is traditionally represented by “Spades”.
2. Energy (mc2, see above)
Symbolically, “Hearts”.
3. Chemistry (with 3 fundamental chemistry elements)
Symbolically, “Clubs”.
4. Stability (not order, not structure, not immobility) simply “resiliance” through time.
“Diamonds”.
and you get :
harmony between creativity and order, chaos and structure, peace, life, and evolution.
But that’s just life, that’s only the beginning, we’re not even getting into consciousness at this point 😉
Still, fundamental principles of anything at all, if everything is related, fundamentally work in similar if not identical ways. “in principle”.
Know what I mean ? 😉
Also, once stability (peace) is reached, as I heard through the grapevine, it’s time to prepare for war. By the way, why?
LikeLike
“chemistry” => the mix ==> “this information is a weapon of mass destruction”
1.(liquid) Mercury and/or Bromine
Bromine -> is a reddish-brown liquid with suffocating, irritating fumes that gives off poisonous vapour. It is a oxidizer that causes severe burns.
Mercury -> is a heavy, silver-white metal, liquid at ordinary temperatures, stable in air and water. Mercury is unreactive with alkalis and most acids. It gives off poisonous vapour that has a chronic cumulative effect. Mercury rarely occurs free in nature.
2. (solid) Carbon :
Carbon has three forms: graphite, diamond and C60. Graphite form of carbon is a black, odourless, slippery solid and sublimes at 3825 °C. Diamond form is a clear or coloured; an extremely hard solid. C60 is Buckminsterfullerine (the largest matter to have been shown to exhibit wave–particle duality.[6] Its discovery led to the exploration of a new field of chemistry, involving the study of fullerenes.).
3. (gaz) Nitrogen :
is a colourless, odourless, generally inert gas, minimally reactive at room temperature.
Abstractly / metaphorically :
1. love (not lust), 2. confidence (not arrogance or vanity) and 3. trust (not devotion)
and/or
1. anger (not hate), 2. strength (not pride), and 3. faith (not denial)
stuff like that
where
1. = liquid
2. = solid
3. = gas
(like 3 sides to a triangle, except that that is in 2 dimensions. How do you make a 2 dimensional triangle 3D?, you “square” it (wink wink, nudge nudge)
LikeLike
that’s maybe how you make “colour” from “black and white” 😉
“light shining through a crystal clear diamond”
LikeLike
“interesting” website (for further reading)
http://www.periodni.com/
LikeLike
FYI
A non-contact force is a force applied to an object by another body that is not in direct contact with it. The most familiar example of a non-contact force is gravity. In contrast a contact force is a force applied to a body by another body that is in contact with it.
However it is to be noted that the origin of all contact forces (such as, for example, friction) can be traced to non-contact forces.
The four known fundamental interactions are all non-contact forces:
Gravity, the force of attraction that exists among all bodies that have mass. The force exerted on each body by the other through weight is proportional to the mass of the first body times the mass of the second body divided by the square of the distance between them.
Electromagnetism is the force that causes the interaction between electrically charged particles; the areas in which this happens are called electromagnetic fields. Examples of this force include: electricity, magnetism, radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, X-rays and gamma rays. Electromagnetism mediates all chemical, biological, electrical and electronic processes
Strong nuclear force: Unlike Gravity and electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force is a short distance force that takes place between fundamental particles within a nucleus. It is charge independent and acts equally between a proton and a proton, a neutron and a neutron, and a proton and a neutron. The strong nuclear force is the strongest force in nature; however, its range is small (acting only over distances of the order of 10?15 m). The strong nuclear force mediates both nuclear fission and fusion reactions.
Weak nuclear force: The weak nuclear force mediates the ? decay of a proton, in which the proton decays into a neutron and in the process emits a ? particle and an uncharged particle called a neutrino. As a result of mediating the ? decay process, the Weak nuclear force plays a key role in Supernova. Both the strong and weak forces form an important part of quantum mechanics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-contact_force
LikeLike
“non contact force” ===> female principle (receptive, dark, force by attraction)
which makes me think of a “Queen” (like a Queen Mother)
“contact force” ===> male principle (penetrating, light, force by ???? well. What does light “do”? It shines, it “penetrates” the darkness. How would you call that “force”?)
Like a “King Father”
(ps not insinuating that men and women are one or the other, pretty much sure both have both to varying degrees, however “in general”, it works out :p)
LikeLike
when both “connect” (talk) without “rejecting” each other (as would magnetic polar opposites), you allow for the release of “the power of our imagination” in a “spherical” harmony
like this :
(try taking that picture, copying it, turning it upside down, then pasting it back underneath)
like this :
what does that look like? what does it make you think of?
A molecule? 2 bubbles? Kind of like H2O?
A diamond?
A diamond whithin a molecule? What? 🙂
(cash money —> richness, “money for this art”, value, worth etc.)
But that’s not the shape of my heart 😉
LikeLike
now.
What happens when, instead of connecting, these two “parts” merge?
“fusion”
and this, is what I (personally, and I could be wrong) would call “The Philosopher’s Stone”.
LikeLike
The way I see it, whatever our “consciousness” “is”, “does” and so on, if it exists within the universe we know and are aware of (which (duh) it obviously does) :
THEN –> it should follow that the basic, fundamental principles that “govern” how the universe works should be found within our consciousness as well.
It’s even likely that they play an important role in “governing” how our consciousness works as well.
Fact is though, until we manage (and I’ve never heard of anyone at all, at any point in time managing to do this yet) to absolutely define consciousness, what it is, what is is made of, and how it works, objectively describe it in its totality, and “prove” it all, the only way to find those kind of answers are precisely by using the “gift” or whatever you want to call it that we, as human beings, have : self awareness, self reflection, self consciousness.
Because this allows us to “explore” ourselves, but there’s only 2 ways I know of doing this.
1. alone (subjectively), which is basically meditation and thinking, reasoning and reflection, experiencing and remembering and so on.
2. together (linking two subjects), which (until proven otherwise) requires, mandatorally, tautologically, that we share our subjectivity, that we share what we experience, think, and feel.
Whether one path works better than the other or not, it feels pretty obvious that “the best” path would be a mixture of both, wouldn’t you say?
Smile, all we have to do, is make sure, we keep talking. 🙂
LikeLike