Dicktates Moral Law




the question is...what do we "know" about self-creation, moral make-up, knowledge and moral culpability?  


Self-creation is the root of your point of view, you have given birth to very real and very tangible ideas communicated through your one voiced expression with words. You’ve answered your own questions by virtue of expressing your own beliefs and your own moral understandings that you and only you have manufactured for yourself very real and very true beliefs and questions, sure I benefit as well, but there’s no doubt the meaning of your points of view both have life and are alive, the ability to move and change as well as influence others to do the same is proof positive. Clearly a self-caused, self-manifested feeling, that causality effected in a very real manner, that was propositioned and put into words, by and for the designated source, that of which is human in origin.  A human’s belief can self-create other life. And belief is all the knowledge it requires, just as belief and knowledge are not fact, they are feelings that are "justifiably true" in essence and in entity.


In terms of reproduction there are countless amounts of life forms that asexually reproduce and create new life, creating the new life in the image of their own, their own characteristics and splendor resonate from prehistoric genetic genes.  the same type of human traits lend themselves to the innate ability to interpret and feel belief worthwhile.  

The interpretation of “my opinion” shows a singular narration, as can be seen with “is my opinions” or “are my opinions” both  in terms of narration alone; therefore it is my opinion and/or they are my opinions; both stem from a single narrative source.  
When using your, yours and/or you guys, narrators of you understood vs. you familiar, are being employed and/or IMPLIED in a responsible and conscientious manner. 

Opinion or opinions can be determined to have multiple or collective origins of voice, which can be and are expressed as though possibly intended or possibly not intended which is then up to the reader to define narrator, if the reader creates motive for him/herself. MOTIVE – another mind generated self-created entity that most definitely exists, behaves and possesses very certain properties and characteristics. For example, let's

say “my opinions” make-up “moral matters”, then I can assume that my opinion is part of a collective voice, and that the “morally collective voice” never took into consideration my recently developed opinions, because morals were developing over 3000 thousand years ago when they were being established. (Public Opinion is what morals are made from, and that opinion is considered to have an origin of multiple narrators; by use of the word moral alone we understand that public opinion has made rules for us to abide by, which can also be perceived as self-creation; a set of mostly unwritten laws that were created by a collective opinion, multiple narrators that agreed on the same opinion, so in this case opinion alone self-created laws,  human beings’ laws of “right” and “wrong”) 

These are individual voices echoed as just part of the “collective voice”; it takes multiple opinions and/or multiple matters expressed/interpreted to be a “matter of opinion”, communicating collectiveness is interpreted when we say “moral matters”…the plural narrator is implied because of the word “moral”, which is also a collective bunch of opinions that are communicated to and from society as “one voice”.


MORALS DEVELOP FROM GROUPS - Grasshoppers are insects of the suborder Caelifera in the order Orthoptera. To distinguish them from bush crickets or katydids, they are sometimes referred to as short-horned grasshoppers. Species that change colour and behaviour at high population densities are called locusts

Change is goverened by choice, and choice is that independent variable that not even god could or would try to predict, without oppurtunity for randomness or novelness of choice, god would had assumed that same archaic, grumpy ass, piss poor attitude that the Bible portrays him to have.  Without choice, there is no newness, without chance there is no beauty, without hope there are no dreams, without feeling there's no belief and without belief there is no fullfillment and without all these things... god would be bored stiff...if you think that "you know" probably quite a bit by now, how do you think god would feel, think about life and knowing the answers to everything, that's life is about as creative as aladins lamp of three wishes. If God new every outcome, every twist, every turn, the guy would be bitter, and if there ever was a reason to come back and change something wrong on Earth that would most definitely be towards the top of the list. Destiny is well mapped out, fate is the actuality one faces after making choices, "right turns" or "left turns" , "staight ahead" or "stop", fill up the tank or run on empty, variety is the spice of life, and the paths we've chosen for ourselves expose their beauty.    


Grasshopper, when you jump from “moral matter” to “self-creation” you will find that there is very little and very much to agree or disagree with no doubt; for instance the self-creation one may decipher as an impossibility of human ability has made the choice for the mind to limit itself to a state of self-knowing, which is quite a jump for most grasshoppers, of course grasshoppers can see the landing strip but they don’t "know" what it’s made of until they land. It is then and only then the grasshopper “knows” something more than it "knew" before landing, stuff like "hard' or "soft", consistency of foundation possibly, actual an "hands on" feeling of the medium, but that is experienced which means "knowledge "of these experiences could not precede re-entry and landing. Thus knowledge is second hand experience, second hand to understanding and second hand to learning. To not have "knowledge" of unknowable information should be quite common, yet in America that fact, I know, is not accurate, knowledge in the encyclopedia has 7 different definitions, all of which incorporate very real and very tangible sources, mediums and methods quite distinct and very well defined (having one definition for learning, or one definition for experienced) within their own genre. Knowledge only consists of “known” facts or available information, and being aware of these facts and then being able to recall these facts are the distinctly unique properties that belong to knowledge. (so if you don’t know something or do know something, then what you "know" is information or data that is purely analytical subjective and tainted with your bias and not bias,  which by definition alone constitutes grasshoppers “justified true belief” [Plato’s version of knowledge] which still doesn’t distinguish the how or where of source, of absorbance, of familiarity, of acquirement for "reasons" unspecified? These principles and properties of "knowledge" lend themselves to such sayings as "know it all" or "genius" or "smartguy" all of which lend themselves to a grouping, which we have already determined as not knowlegable, public opinion which is valued to the group making it, laws that govern human beings made by certain groups of human beings, laws made from what 'smartguys" said is true, like those "smartguy" jews who strung up Jesus, like those "smartguy" war on terror or drugs (they think cutting the heads off the Hydra are going to bring an end to the problem. The war on drugs "smartguy" still can't figure out why we don't even make a dent, spending all that money, putting all those lives in danger, only to find that when we actually do kill the head of Columbia's Medajin, Carlos Vasco Degamma, we next find out that the Cali cartell has taken over and they are that much smarter from learning from Carlos and them, and we have to start from scratch. The problem of cocain trafficking is not dictated by the bad guys, it's dictated by the law of supply and demand, neither of which have a head to chop off. If they did then the solution of shopping of heads would work, as we can see the "smartguy" can not see the big picture) terrorism is virtually the same hydra, and releasing "known" terrorists form Guantanmo Bay back into the terrorist world is far more adventageous to our, well "known" archaic means of policing others without "knowing" how to police ourselves (Jesus). it's like how many Pollocks does it take to screw in a light bulb? Well there is only one nuclear bomb and there is only one button to push, so what does releasing "known" terrorists have to do with making that possible, they all have fingers, they all have minds, and if we weree to put strong terrorists personalities back into their environment wouldn't that create a traffic jam at the top of their "know-it-all" terrorist get togethers? It would, and on top of that we'd can follow the guys we "know" a lot better than the guys who we don't "know who replaced them.  On top of all that ,  we have repeated these same mistakes throughout time , never learning from our mistakes, actually "ignorin" them like they never happened (Jesus persecution), and ignoring stems from the word ignorance, and ignorance is easily and most accurately defined as a mistake that one repeats, hell, none of us ever even makes a mistake, let alone learn from one, and so why doesn't anyone "know" that to be true, because "knowing" is a belief as well as a recall of known data, which is where enlies the "true beauty" of "knowing"...one can"know" what one wants to whenever and whever, however and whyever they do, i call that non-sense.

These "smartguy" groups dictate worthwhile and value as properties they actually have knowledge of or "know", and really the statements of “I experienced”, “I understand”, “I found that”, “I’m sure of”, ”I learned that or from” etc., are far more descriptive as to where the information that you "know" is or was gathered from, it is a far more responsible way to communicate and treat other humans as well as the English Language and it's factual worth.[thus using the infinitive "to know" is irresponsible slang; unless the required reassuredness of existence is made fully understood by some other means].

Many other much more “knowledgeable” human expressions could have and should have been being used since the audience may or may not have their own analytic/subjective thoughts on the extremely ambiguous, self-creating concept of  another's own “knowledge”, and to throw that word around is to basically tell others I don't owe anybody an explanation of the validity of my all "knowing" statement, ewhen in fact that is exactly what the all "knowing" person did when they used the words "I know".

You see grasshopper, once I say “I eat”, then the audience can assume eating is in progress, and when I say “I have eaten” then the audience can assume past tense, done deal…well when I say “I know” then the audience is dogmatically force fed the past tense has already taken place, it is IMPLIED that I have already participated in the act of getting to know this information and it has been known to me and now I’m merely recalling it to serve my purpose in a particular environment (one part of my justification). “I am knowing” does not mean that I’m in the process of knowing something, like “I am eating” does.  The expression “I know” IMPLIES  “I have known” or “I knew already” both without any self-created will to explain how,  both  precursors and  properties of the infinitive “to know”…which by the way has to be the first and only infinitive besides maybe “to do” or “to be” that dare imply these absolutes…ick!!!  

If “I know” something, anything, let’s say “I know the time”, my audience must accept this very, too much and way overly used, common expression in America, “I know” as an absolute, no one can question it’s realness or accurateness, and if the “I know” comes in the form of a “reason” one is using to prove a point or part of a “justification” or is an “explanation” of the same, well then that just perpetuates the argument or actual validity of the “I know”er’s point of view, and the participants in the conversation have to go and check for themselves, and check for themselves on their own time, which is usually after the conversation, so the conversation/argument perpetuates itself because the “I know”er won’t take the responsibility to distinguish this fact or this information as learned or experienced or perception or any number of more responsibly descriptive terms like  “sure of” or “confident in” and on top of that, then and only then can perceptions be developed as to possible platforms that can be built upon, this entirely new an under experienced soil that I have landed on has just been conquered by another all "knowing' jackass that is going to fill the air with a bunch of crap that is going to be questioned and then the "smartguy" is going to become mad. (tell me if "smartguy" is so smart and one of the "seven sins" is to not get ANGRY, then how is "smartguy" dubbed smart? A "smartguy" that can't see well documented, well "known" information that can be easily interpreted and then anticipated as to an eventual agruement where feelings are hurt from "known" facts,  how is that smar, and it's been going on for thousands of years without anybody cluing in? how is that smart?

Anyway,  if a swarm of locust choose to fly, as a collective group, the locust fly, which is undoubtedly factual in observance and with observance of the locust cloud could one choose or determine it is either a dark cloud buzzing or simply large group of hungry grasshoppers flying through the sky. And if a determination is made, is that knowledge or is that more of the irresponsible gibberish that we, smartguys, overwhelmingly choose to use in our everyday conversations.

                                                           So grasshopper remember, life is what you take from it
                                                                                                   not what you make from it.         

There are no messages yet
Special Interest
Conspiracy Theories
writing CKeoki

You don't know
until you know.

Bookmark and Share

You must log in to rate.
Rating: 9.0/10

Plato says "Justifiable true belief" is "knowledge" ?
A Word from the Writer
Descartes says" i think ergo i am"?
© 2014 WritingRoom.com, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED