THE TRINKET FOR “KIDS” !
FAT FINGER TOUCHSCREEN !
THAT IF THE TOUCHSCREEN FAILS
YOU CANNOT DO SOMETHING !
So a keyboard is what you need !
WINDOWS 8 TOUCHSCREEN will
enhance the fat finger Neandertal
brains they have always had !
Windows 8 is microsoft’s “DOOM”,
AS IT IS A TECHNOLOGICAL
“REGRESSION”, and thus they are
giving up to us all : WINDOWS 7
WHEN they stop its upgrade and
HENCE: YOU KEEP “FOREVER”
WINDOWS 7 , 32 AND 64, AND
UPGRADE DRIVERS, ETC…!
when for some far fetched reason
in 5-10 years they think ANYBODY
MIGHT NEED MORE THAN
64 BITS to 128 bits, then they can
make WINDOWS 77…!
BUT I DO NOT KNOW “WHAT
AND HARDWARE COMPANIES
cannot regress in technology, or
they are doomed toooooooo !
COURTS WILL CLEARLY
DETERMINE THIS AS ALSO
ALL THE fat finger dodo birds !
AND MORE EMISSIONS FROM THESE
TOUCHSCREEN that are adding on
more “harm” to everybody .
THE ONLY TOUCHSCREEN I GOT WAS
THE CHEAPEST “cruz”, TO ONLY TRY IT
OUT, AND my HTC “Status” [touchscreen-
keyboard] 250$ “PAY AS YOU GO”
SMARTPHONE, all mine ! :
i am sure technology is having a mental
SOME MORE FINAL BLOWS TO The English
Monarchy “””for-ever””” Religious/
Political association with a divided
from CATHLOCISM, ANGLICANS !!!
Anglicans fail in many orthodox
protestant Christians creeds !
Especially the so called Gospel Hall
– Christian Assemblies – etc.
VIRGINITY logic and miracle God
Gospel of Luke, Chapter 1
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
Like the ancients, we moderns see miracles as evidences of some magic being. In the gospel stories of Jesus’ birth what we moderns notice is the miracle of the virgin birth. A miracle. God at work. A miracle proving Jesus is special.
Another SPFYMLMFor the ancients the miracle-as-evidence-of-a-God was only part of the story of Jesus’ birth. The other part, the part the ancients noticed but we don’t, shows Jesus being given His God-ness by another God-being. In our gospels the Holy Spirit brings divinity from heaven, down to Earth, and into Jesus—into the godman. It wasn’t the mere fact that a miracle happened that made Jesus special, it was the “facts” in the miracle, the passing along of the Godness. That’s an ancient Pagan idea, laid out by our gospel authors in ancient Pagan terms.
This ain’t rocket science. The way the ancients figured it, to have a god-man on Earth, a story needed two things. 1. A source for His Godness, and 2. A source for His humanity.
Ancient books are chock a block with stories of divine men. Over and over those stories include details showing exactly these two details. Where’d the divinity come from? A God. Where’d His humanity come from? A woman. Just as the fact of a miracle is evidence that a God is at work, the-divinity-came-from-a God facts in these stories were evidence that the godman was different from a regular human.
THE PAGAN LOGIC OF VIRGINITY, MADE A
SACRED HOLY CREED OF CHRISTIANS OF
ALL KINDS, IS A WRONG LOGIC OR
INFERIOR LOGIC, OF WHAT IS BELIEVED
TO BE THE NEED OF A “PHYSICAL
SANCTITY”, AND NOT ALSO A “MIND
RATHER IN PURE LOGIC, ACCEPTED
MATRIMONY SEX, IS IN PSYCHOLOGY, A
COMPONENT OF TRUE LOVE.
THE INHIBITION OF SEX, HAS BEEN THE
CAUSE OF THE WORST OF HUMAN
ABERRATIONS, IN THE FALSE BELIEF IN
VIRGINITY AND IN THESE CREEDS IN
Subsequently we can clearly deduce
and infer, that CHRISTMAS practices
and beliefs in a Miracle virgin birth
of a Messiah/Jesus-Christ, is a pure
logic aberration and wrong logic of
morale and sanctity.
Hence it highly probably never
occurred and is a man made fable,
turned into English and other countries
as a belief and practice commemoration
of an aberration ! And not of anything
holy or due of respect of any sort or
kind ! Well at least not of any respect
from me !
WHAT IS WORSE, A VIRGIN MESSIAH/
JESUS/CHRIST, is a “completion-continuity”
of the use of wrong morale logic. IT MAKES
THIS JESUS A FAKE HUMAN GOD, THAT
DID NOT EXPERIENCE ALL MAN AND
WOMEN EXPERIENCE ! Much less did
his virginity make him anymore holy !
IT IS WRONG INHIBITORY MORALE that
is clearly followed by Catholicism and other
Religions of ancient logic, that paganism also
followed and practiced !
HENCE if some innocent was crucified
identified falsely by Judas as JESUS,
that is a completely different story.
And it is of no Son-God that is going
to save us in the after life !
SO IGNORANT WORLD OF RELIGIONS
AND POLITICS. YOUR LOGIC CONTINUES
TO BE INFERIOR, and not much better than
that of childish ancient fables…!
HAPPY MASS OF CHRIST [CHRISTMAS],
AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR 2012.
…Belittled and a “light weight” in logic, gone
pure logic !
…not a Nazi, much less a Zionist, but like
these colors !
…for health reasons gone to leather and
string, and no metal. and magnetic and electric
magnetic emissions and radiation dampening
and insulation to be able to use my small
notebook computer short periods of time !
…so back to paper and ink and pencil, plus
george f. thomson
…My pure logic art style 1…! wed21dec2011
 Reverse perspective.
 Reverse or mixed depth of distance and
 Strange geometry and buildings.
 Some impossible things.
 A lot of analysis and meaning.
 Not a kids drawing.
 Humans generally embedded into someway
or other. As other beings.
 Most edges of figures, done with a back line.
 No intention in perfection, but I can be
For this one, we need to wait for the colors
Meanwhile, please use a bit of your own
SOME coloring, though not exactly the original
[B] From scanner to .png , plus some editing.\
…In the defense of the usage of the terminology of “pure logic”, via the “critique of pure reason” from Kant…!
IN DEFENSE IN THE CORRECT USE
OF THE WORDING OF “PURE LOGIC”
IN THE BOOK OF PURE LOGIC.
WE CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THE AMPLE
MOST COMPLETE SCOPE OF THE WORD
“PURE”, WHEN USED ALSO IN
ANTECEDENCE THE EXPRESSION OR
COMBINATION OF WORDS OF “PURE
REASON”, IN THE BOOK “THE CRITIQUE
OF PURE REASON”, OF IMMANUEL KANT
Hence also the expression pure
reason, is used as a “name”, title,
to be under of. So pure logic is
also a name, title, of the logic
used, and of the actual Book. A
part from the completeness of scope
used of logic, with no limitations
to the fields in Science, and in the
pursuit of purifying our reason and
development of capability in analysis
and to shield from errors and wrong
Please refer to the reference
to Kant included bellow.
GEORGE FREDERICK THOMSON
THE CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON
by Immanuel Kant
translated by J. M. D. Meiklejohn
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION, 1781
VII. Idea and Division of a Particular Science, under the
Name of a Critique of Pure Reason.
From all that has been said, there results the idea of a
particular science, which may be called the Critique of Pure Reason.
For reason is the faculty which furnishes us with the principles of
knowledge a priori. Hence, pure reason is the faculty which contains
the principles of cognizing anything absolutely a priori. An organon
of pure reason would be a compendium of those principles according
to which alone all pure cognitions a priori can be obtained. The
completely extended application of such an organon would afford us a
system of pure reason. As this, however, is demanding a great deal,
and it is yet doubtful whether any extension of our knowledge be
here possible, or, if so, in what cases; we can regard a science of
the mere criticism of pure reason, its sources and limits, as the
propaedeutic to a system of pure reason. Such a science must not be
called a doctrine, but only a critique of pure reason; and its use, in
regard to speculation, would be only negative, not to enlarge the
bounds of, but to purify, our reason, and to shield it against
error- which alone is no little gain. I apply the term
transcendental to all knowledge which is not so much occupied with
objects as with the mode of our cognition of these objects, so far
as this mode of cognition is possible a priori. A system of such
conceptions would be called transcendental philosophy. But this,
again, is still beyond the bounds of our present essay. For as such
a science must contain a complete exposition not only of our
synthetical a priori, but of our analytical a priori knowledge, it
is of too wide a range for our present purpose, because we do not
require to carry our analysis any farther than is necessary to
understand, in their full extent, the principles of synthesis a
priori, with which alone we have to do. This investigation, which we
cannot properly call a doctrine, but only a transcendental critique,
because it aims not at the enlargement, but at the correction and
guidance, of our knowledge, and is to serve as a touchstone of the
worth or worthlessness of all knowledge a priori, is the sole object
of our present essay. Such a critique is consequently, as far as
possible, a preparation for an organon; and if this new organon should
be found to fail, at least for a canon of pure reason, according to
which the complete system of the philosophy of pure reason, whether it
extend or limit the bounds of that reason, might one day be set
forth both analytically and synthetically. For that this is
possible, nay, that such a system is not of so great extent as to
preclude the hope of its ever being completed, is evident. For we have
not here to do with the nature of outward objects, which is
infinite, but solely with the mind, which judges of the nature of
objects, and, again, with the mind only in respect of its cognition
a priori. And the object of our investigations, as it is not to be
sought without, but, altogether within, ourselves, cannot remain
concealed, and in all probability is limited enough to be completely
surveyed and fairly estimated, according to its worth or
worthlessness. Still less let the reader here expect a critique of
books and systems of pure reason; our present object is exclusively
a critique of the faculty of pure reason itself. Only when we make
this critique our foundation, do we possess a pure touchstone for
estimating the philosophical value of ancient and modern writings on
this subject; and without this criterion, the incompetent historian or
judge decides upon and corrects the groundless assertions of others
with his own, which have themselves just as little foundation.
Transcendental philosophy is the idea of a science, for which the
Critique of Pure Reason must sketch the whole plan
architectonically, that is, from principles, with a full guarantee for
the validity and stability of all the parts which enter into the
building. It is the system of all the principles of pure reason. If
this Critique itself does not assume the title of transcendental
philosophy, it is only because, to be a complete system, it ought to
contain a full analysis of all human knowledge a priori. Our
critique must, indeed, lay before us a complete enumeration of all the
radical conceptions which constitute the said pure knowledge. But from
the complete analysis of these conceptions themselves, as also from
a complete investigation of those derived from them, it abstains
with reason; partly because it would be deviating from the end in view
to occupy itself with this analysis, since this process is not
attended with the difficulty and insecurity to be found in the
synthesis, to which our critique is entirely devoted, and partly
because it would be inconsistent with the unity of our plan to
burden this essay with the vindication of the completeness of such
an analysis and deduction, with which, after all, we have at present
nothing to do. This completeness of the analysis of these radical
conceptions, as well as of the deduction from the conceptions a priori
which may be given by the analysis, we can, however, easily attain,
provided only that we are in possession of all these radical
conceptions, which are to serve as principles of the synthesis, and
that in respect of this main purpose nothing is wanting.
To the Critique of Pure Reason, therefore, belongs all that
constitutes transcendental philosophy; and it is the complete idea
of transcendental philosophy, but still not the science itself;
because it only proceeds so far with the analysis as is necessary to
the power of judging completely of our synthetical knowledge a priori.
The principal thing we must attend to, in the division of the
parts of a science like this, is that no conceptions must enter it
which contain aught empirical; in other words, that the knowledge a
priori must be completely pure. Hence, although the highest principles
and fundamental conceptions of morality are certainly cognitions a
priori, yet they do not belong to transcendental philosophy;
because, though they certainly do not lay the conceptions of pain,
pleasure, desires, inclinations, etc. (which are all of empirical
origin), at the foundation of its precepts, yet still into the
conception of duty- as an obstacle to be overcome, or as an incitement
which should not be made into a motive- these empirical conceptions
must necessarily enter, in the construction of a system of pure
morality. Transcendental philosophy is consequently a philosophy of
the pure and merely speculative reason. For all that is practical,
so far as it contains motives, relates to feelings, and these belong
to empirical sources of cognition.
If we wish to divide this science from the universal point of view
of a science in general, it ought to comprehend, first, a Doctrine
of the Elements, and, secondly, a Doctrine of the Method of pure
reason. Each of these main divisions will have its subdivisions, the
separate reasons for which we cannot here particularize. Only so
much seems necessary, by way of introduction of premonition, that
there are two sources of human knowledge (which probably spring from a
common, but to us unknown root), namely, sense and understanding. By
the former, objects are given to us; by the latter, thought. So far as
the faculty of sense may contain representations a priori, which
form the conditions under which objects are given, in so far it
belongs to transcendental philosophy. The transcendental doctrine of
sense must form the first part of our science of elements, because the
conditions under which alone the objects of human knowledge are
given must precede those under which they are thought.
TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF ELEMENTS.
FIRST PART. TRANSCENDENTAL AESTHETIC.
SS I. Introductory.
In whatsoever mode, or by whatsoever means, our knowledge may relate
to objects, it is at least quite clear that the only manner in which
it immediately relates to them is by means of an intuition. To this as
the indispensable groundwork, all thought points. But an intuition can
take place only in so far as the object is given to us. This, again,
is only possible, to man at least, on condition that the object affect
the mind in a certain manner. The capacity for receiving
representations (receptivity) through the mode in which we are
affected by objects, objects, is called sensibility. By means of
sensibility, therefore, objects are given to us, and it alone
furnishes us with intuitions; by the understanding they are thought,
and from it arise conceptions. But an thought must directly, or
indirectly, by means of certain signs, relate ultimately to
intuitions; consequently, with us, to sensibility, because in no other
way can an object be given to us.
The effect of an object upon the faculty of representation, so far
as we are affected by the said object, is sensation. That sort of
intuition which relates to an object by means of sensation is called
an empirical intuition. The undetermined object of an empirical
intuition is called phenomenon. That which in the phenomenon
corresponds to the sensation, I term its matter; but that which
effects that the content of the phenomenon can be arranged under
certain relations, I call its form. But that in which our sensations
are merely arranged, and by which they are susceptible of assuming a
certain form, cannot be itself sensation. It is, then, the matter of
all phenomena that is given to us a posteriori; the form must lie
ready a priori for them in the mind, and consequently can be
regarded separately from all sensation.
I call all representations pure, in the transcendental meaning of
the word, wherein nothing is met with that belongs to sensation. And
accordingly we find existing in the mind a priori, the pure form of
sensuous intuitions in general, in which all the manifold content of
the phenomenal world is arranged and viewed under certain relations.
This pure form of sensibility I shall call pure intuition. Thus, if
I take away from our representation of a body all that the
understanding thinks as belonging to it, as substance, force,
divisibility, etc., and also whatever belongs to sensation, as
impenetrability, hardness, colour, etc.; yet there is still
something left us from this empirical intuition, namely, extension and
shape. These belong to pure intuition, which exists a priori in the
mind, as a mere form of sensibility, and without any real object of
the senses or any sensation.
The science of all the principles of sensibility a priori, I call
transcendental aesthetic.* There must, then, be such a science forming
the first part of the transcendental doctrine of elements, in
contradistinction to that part which contains the principles of pure
thought, and which is called transcendental logic.
*The Germans are the only people who at present use this word to
indicate what others call the critique of taste. At the foundation
of this term lies the disappointed hope, which the eminent analyst,
Baumgarten, conceived, of subjecting the criticism of the beautiful to
principles of reason, and so of elevating its rules into a science.
But his endeavours were vain. For the said rules or criteria are, in
respect to their chief sources, merely empirical, consequently never
can serve as determinate laws a priori, by which our judgement in
matters of taste is to be directed. It is rather our judgement which
forms the proper test as to the correctness of the principles. On this
account it is advisable to give up the use of the term as
designating the critique of taste, and to apply it solely to that
doctrine, which is true science- the science of the laws of
sensibility- and thus come nearer to the language and the sense of the
ancients in their well-known division of the objects of cognition into
aiotheta kai noeta, or to share it with speculative philosophy, and
employ it partly in a transcendental, partly in a psychological
In the science of transcendental aesthetic accordingly, we shall
first isolate sensibility or the sensuous faculty, by separating
from it all that is annexed to its perceptions by the conceptions of
understanding, so that nothing be left but empirical intuition. In the
next place we shall take away from this intuition all that belongs
to sensation, so that nothing may remain but pure intuition, and the
mere form of phenomena, which is all that the sensibility can afford a
priori. From this investigation it will be found that there are two
pure forms of sensuous intuition, as principles of knowledge a priori,
namely, space and time. To the consideration of these we shall now
JEW WOMEN SEGREGATION AND RACISM.
Ragen. ‘Rosenblit’s incident takes me back to what I experienced four years ago’ Photo: Shalom Bar Tal
Rosenblit. Refused to sit in the back Photo: Tanya Rosenblit
Ragen: Court authorized exclusion of women
In 2007, Orthodox novelist petitioned High Court after being forced to sit at back of bus, but judges approved continued segregation on ‘kosher’ lines. ‘Years have passed, nothing has changed,’ she tells Ynet
Published: 12.19.11, 20:38 / Israel Jewish Scene
Four years have passed since ultra-Orthodox men forced novelist Naomi Ragen to move to the back seat of a bus. A High Court petition and a revolutionary ruling were apparently not enough to change the treatment of women.
Sane haredim, speak up / Yair Lapid
Op-ed: Yair Lapid says large camp of moderate haredim can no longer remain silent
Talking to Ynet on Sunday following Tanya Rosenblit’s refusal to sit at the back of a bus, Ragen recounted her private incident, which led to the court petition, and shared her feelings in regards to the exclusion of women from the public sphere.
“Rosenblit’s story takes me back to what I experienced four years ago,” Ragen says of her trip on a “kosher” bus. “I was sitting on the bus on my own. I didn’t even know there were such bus lines.
הסופרת נעמי רגן. “ידם של החרדים תמיד על העליונה” (צילום: שלום בר טל)
Ragen. ‘Haredim always have the upper hand’ (Photo: Shalom Bar Tal)
“Suddenly I was approached by a haredi man who told me to move to the back. I said to him, ‘Listen, I’m not bothering anyone. This is a public bus and I’ll sit wherever I want.’ Another man arrived and began shouting and cursing me the whole way. It was just like a lynching attempt. I got off the bus in tears.”
In January, following a petition against the exclusion of women on buses, the High Court adopted an arrangement initiated by the Transportation Ministry. The judges ruled that forced segregation between men and women on “kosher” lines was illegal, but allowed populations interested in this separation to continue doing so, as long as no violence was used.
The High Court permitted bus drivers to let women get on the bus from the back door in order to allow separation with consent, and ruled that the Transportation Ministry would enforce the arrangement through a supervision system.
The judges also ruled that the Egged company would place signs on its buses clarifying that every passenger may use any vacant sear, as long as it is not intended for disabled people. In order to ensure that the separation was being implemented according to the arrangement, the court allotted a trial period of one year (starting February 2011).
‘Drivers support men’
Ragen believes that the High Court ruling helped authorize the exclusion of women. “The judges decided that a woman may sit anywhere on the bus, but decided not to stop the ‘kosher’ line issue and instead look into the feasibility of this situation out of consent and good will.
“They decided on a trial period of a year, to check whether this could be done with consent rather than completely ban the ‘kosher’ lines. In their decision, however, the judges basically authorized the exclusion of women by having them enter the bus from the back door. This small thing made them believe that everything is permitted.
“There was a very clear decision by the High Court, that a woman can sit wherever she wants, and there must be signs about it on all buses. There are no such signs; they have all been removed.
“The court asked the drivers to get involved and defend the women. Drivers don’t do so, and when they are asked to intervene – they support the men. The police must also defend the women and enforce the law. We see that the police are failing to enforce the State’s laws, but are asking women to move to the back and avoid causing trouble.”
טניה רוזנבליט. הנסיעה הפכה לסיוט (צילום: צביקה טישלר)
Tanya Rosenblit. Journey turned into nightmare (Photo: Tzvika Tishler)
Ragen is calling on the High Court to reexamine the issue. “The court’s ruling isn’t being honored, and therefore the judges must reconvene, say that the trial has failed, and put an end to it.
“They must simply ban these buses, stop this segregation. It can’t be done any other way, it’s a complete failure. Years have passed and it’s like nothing has changed.”
She views this exclusion of women as part of a general social trend in Israel. “It’s a shame that we are giving in to violence on every level in our country. Everywhere – in court, on buses. Everywhere haredim have the upper hand, and it’s extremely scary.”
…mOREPROOF OF WHAT ANCIENT orthodox jews old testament bible followers are to this day…!
FEMALE SEGREGATION and religion narcisists as of being the only ones and truth…!
WHAT IS WORSE, IS PALESTINIAN, SEGREGATION, AND THE ILLEGAL SETTLERS…!\\
I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST JEWS, OTHER THAN WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN AND ARE !!!
…orthodox jews and it seems that most jews are as a problem in the world as evolutionists or christians, or other religions !