The purpose of this text is for it to provide a and/or the reference for priorities about existence "in the universe" and society among us.

definitions of words here is based on and/or compatible with "took's diktionary" available at

this text may address the most ancient matters about science/religion/divinity/reality ("meta" section) interrelated with the most important matters about individual/society/justice/economy/health/happiness ("practical" section)

[for those who want to "jump in the midlle of things"](for those that prefer linear, you can read below)


arguing about the existence of "god" or the existence of "the big bang" is like arguing about the existence of spiderman. it's more complicated than one'd think. what follows is (for now) the most effective and efficient way to deal with it.

verbal languge is language that makes use of words. to discuss any matter via words, everyone participating in the discussion must agree on the definition of the words used in the discussion. (see below for possible definition of the word "god" etc). the whole thing's circular, because we use words to create definitions fo words. therefore, necessarily, the key to discussion via words is that we use the words "yes" and "no" to indicate whether or not we agree on any specific explicit matter that is a checkpoint.



yes or no:

"selfishness and altruism are the same thing."

if "yes": dude, i know what you mean, but this page necessitates that we cant talk like that.

if "no": we can proceed.

"god" or "the big bang"
having studied history of science and religion, i'd summarize it by saying "neither," and 'd make this IMPORTANT PREMISE:

this text might stimulate an AWFUL reaction in most people. most people GENUINELY believe in certain things, whether "the big bang" or "god." please be aware that if the text here stimulates negative reactions, that is not my intenton at all. one of the most traumatic experiences is to feel like one's "reality" is shattered. if you exerience a negative reaction to some of this text, i recommend you stop reading, thugh i invite you to come back to this text a little at a time, when you can interact with it in a way that you are reasonably comfortable with. thank you.

before i proceed further, i want to state explicitly for the sake of possible readers from th future, that as i write this, i live in a society where two types of belief systems clash profoundly and emotionally, with a powerful intensity that is beyond my ability to describe. the purpose of this text is harmony, but due to the current times, it is reasonable to predict initial clashes.

"the big bang" is still widely considered to be "truth" about the "origin" of the universe. historians however will note that even though most people have not understood and do not care about this, "the big bang" is false, as can be demonstrated by logic, and evidenced by materials that are currently non-mainstream but abundant to be found.
for the scientifically knowlegeable or inclined i recommend, for instance, the thunderbolts project. for the intuitively inclined, i recommend your intuition.

if you wish to have a quick reference point or two:
the metaphysical AND physical notions of "origin" are as unresolved and problematic with "god" as they are with "the big bang": IN OTHER WORDS, so far, no human attempt has succeeded (nor will this one) at answering "what was before god?" or "what was before the big bang?". not without contradictions or ambiguities wth the answer. that is why i suspect that the key word is "mystery." but i add even if up to this point it has been impossible for humans to expalin the "ultimate" mystery: (1) we can verbally agree to a first and fundamental building block of all discussions [i recommend the a yes/no agreement process on the DEFINITIONS OF WORDS at:]; (2) we must make good practical choices in our everyday life, specifically, choices we will approve even as time passes. [i recommend this text's "practical" section's final suggestions & link(s) about ideal world]
the current building block of current physics and astronomy and thus the current building block of "the big bang" and of the current "scientific" description of reality is MATH. the definitions of the word "number," "entity," "money" and related fundamental words in took's diktionary are, again, important to the deep study of this text. while you'll find that i argue that it's not some outside "god" that makes your smartphone work, but the people and the AMAZING technology behind it, the fact is that, yes, the mathematics of physics are amazing at planning the functioning of your smartgadget to the millisecond or the landing of the rosetta spacecraft on comet 67P "somewhat" close to their high-tech landing plan. but the deeper mathematics is used to describe the physical workings of the universe, the more it ultimately fails because of at least one fact that has literally psychologically crosswired the minds of most mathematicians, even though they are otherwise logical and intelligent people:
in order to achieve certain descriptions, most mathematicians accept (and even vehemently stand by and defend) what is ironically the most unacceptable element to any discussion: SELF CONTRADICTION.
as most enquiries will explain, mathematics is a LANGUAGE. however, it becomes a language of contradiction precisely where it runs into the unanswerable mystery of the not-for-humans concept of infinity. while most of us can easily grab the concept of 1, 2, 3 ... 1001, 1002, 1003... and it doesnt take a genus but only a child to immediately realize that it can "go on forever," human minds hit THEIR limit when it comes to "before 1?" or "between 0.004 and 0.005?" not to mention the infinity of space, such as "is there an edge anywhere"? philosophers and even regular folks have tripped out n this shit 4ever. again, no unambiguously clear answer yet. physicists astronomers and mathematicians have dealt with things ranging from the mathematical description of a curve to the brainy description of the big bang, by accepting the following as true:
the problem for an entire world view, society, and personal lives, is that if today's world were to stop using the above sentence as if it were true, is that it's be like when humanity had to come to grips with the fact that the earth was not flat but round. the majority of the world and the top world leaders and scientists that argued that the earth was flat, were not evil liars or anything like that, and the inhabitants of the world that accepted what their eyes told the and what the authorities and their own families and friends repeated, were not stupid. it's important to keep that in mind as human society transitions out of the currently accepted "science": let's not demonize or ridicule the geniuses that accepted that INFINITY + 1 = INFINITY, the school math teachers that didnt question that, or the mass media owners, world leaders, and everyday folk that enabled "modern" human society to go on as if the the universe described in our textbooks is true.
but the fact remains that math is the building block of physics and astronomy, specifically and very importantly relying on calculatins about infinity, and that math, as a language, allows this contradiction:
4+4=8 (math says YES)
4+4=9 (math says NO)

(see above checkpoint about we cant talk like that)

if you're into philosophy and metaphysics etc, you might knw that it's almost impossible to prove anything beyond "i think therefore i am." (descartes is famous for that, though he was neither the first nor the last to figure that out). in a nutshell, it all has to do with the fact that it might seem obvious that we can demonstrate the door exists. dude, touch it! but those that quip back with "how can you demonstrate that 'touch' exists?" are actually on to the fact that all philosophers and scientists have reluctantly had to deal wth. again, unless they contradict themselves. and, in terms of purely perfectly logical analysis, the ONLY thing that cannot be denied is that SOMETHING exists. even that is not or might not seem actualy logical per se, but if nothing else, it is ILLOGICAL to argue that "SOMETHING EXISTS" is NOT true.

meet god.

speaking of the risk of social, economic, emotional etc trauma, we must prepare for the transition to where humanity will have to abandon their conventional notions of "god" just like "scientists" wil have to come to grips their math works great with smarpthones and spaceships and even galaxies but it dont and fuckn cant explain the mystery AND in trying to is contradicting its own language rules.

imagine consciousness. awareness. pure awareness. the awareness of being aware.

it's probably "no coincidence" (note for readers of the future: while many words will have changed with cultures changing over time, it is worth to make a note about the word "coincidence" in temrs of how most people use it these days: "it's just a coincidence" these days means that we are to ignore any "significance" we might think is involved with 2 things that "seem totally connected" that happen "by chance" at the same time; for all readers: i recommend you are aware of the fact that there synchronicities everywhere and it's good advice to focus your attention on and direction to those snychronicities that are healthy) ... i was gonna say, it's probably "no concidence" that in some major biblical translations there is a line that says

"in the beginning was the word" and that "word" is ossibly or likely related both to logos, logic, naming, identity.

imagine consciousness. awareness. just as with "god" or with "the big bang", it's for now been beyond us to answer "wat was BEFORE it". its a fuckn MYSTERY. but if you can forego the question "what was before awareness" AND (for now, see more below) the question "is a subatomic particle aware?" (actually, let's skip the "see more below" and get to it NOW: if you think that a sub-atomic particle is NOT aware, try heating it, see if it reacts.)


imagine consciousness. make like it's a dot. it goes, woah. i am. the instant it has a ... LOGIC, either yes or not yes, either im one or im not one, either i this or i not this, it creates what i think is helpful to VISUALIZE as a capital T. the dot of cosnciousness in this visualization is the point where the vertical line and the horizontal line "meet" but it's actually our starting point for the visual representation of consciousness. if our starting point of awareness is that T spot, we it can help us take a "mystic" voyage via a "mysticism for dummies" quickie. consciuosness starts at/as a point, and with its "either/or" it grows into 2 or more directions. arguably, by fractalizing this at every "step" or "point" you get a fractal of toruses. and interestingly, the capital letter T works as a trinity in the sense that it's ONE glyph (or symbol, a letter n this case), made of TWO elements (the horizontal and the vertical if you're counting lnes) and/or made of THREE elements (3 lines if you're starting from the intersection point: 2 horizontal ones in aligned but opposite directions away from the point, and one vertical line gong down from thar starting point)

logic, names, identity, entity, entities, identities, all come into the picture of this mysticism for dummies section. if we imagine consciousness as a point that aware of itself as a point, form its starting point, evolves into a T, does it look at / identify itself / names itself as 1, 2, or 3? (infinity is implied by 1,2,3 simply because 3 is implied in 2, because once you go from 1 (entity, number, big bang or big mac with cheese) to 2 (entities, sub-entities, numbers, fractions of numbers, big bangs OR big macs), 3 is necessarily logical ("3" could represent something between entities 1 and 2, and obviosuly it can represent entity or sub-entity number 3). even in a context in which there is a consciousness with neither languages of words nor languages of numbers, consciousness (i'd argue necessarily, but not now) conscious of some form of "either/or." for this visualization is use the point at the intsection of the 2 lines that form a capital T the "starting example point" of consciousness and what i want to add is that while i'm aware that there are mysteriously infinite "micro point" within "micro points", where ORDER (not as in commands, but as in not-messy) IDENTITY and NAMES/WORDS and NUMBERS come in is that by a human combination of awareness AND words, we can use our words, for instance, thus:
we can call this ONE letter, we call it capital "T", it has a VERTICAL line, etc etc etc.
what we are thus doing, is, with WORDS we are DISTINGUISHING elements.
the reality of the universe is that it is ONE and that does not change the fact that we can distinguish parts that we identify within it with NAMES/WORDS (me, you, the big mac, make it two), and numbers (see big macs in the prev parenthesis). the thing to undesratnd about NUMBERS is that they don't exist. you can't eat a 2. but you can eat a big mac. you can eat 2 big macs. but even if the latest robot made them identical to the subatomic level, they're not identical if nothing else because on of the subatomic particles in big mac number 2 mght be juicier by 10 to the
minus i billion degrees simly because the god quetalcoatl blows on it. haha. money's the only thing that the universe can have to MANIFEST numbers. when you have $10.00 dollars on your credit card and you swipe the card at macdonalds for those 2 big macs and (special offer 2day, with large fries) your total is $4.99, the cash register doesn't fuckin ask or CARE "which $4.99 of the $10.00 are you paying with?" DUDE. only with money do numbers become real. and no, $4.99+1 is NOT EQUAL to $4.99+2)

([more on this numbers philosophy AND world economy etc]

before we leave the "META" section (good transition with the numbers to economics for the "PRACTICAL" section), here comes the trauma for the genuinely dogmatic about religion.


yes or no
god is all-powerful AND all-knowing

if no: im confused by your religion

if yes: EVERYTHING IS GOD'S WILL. EVERYTHING. "everything" does not mean "everything except ..." -- everything means EVERY thing.

now, how can anything ("god"?) know and have control over EVERY thing. truppy, but i suggest you close your eyes. see some shapes or dots in the blackness? thers ony 2 entities that experience those dots in your closed eyelids: you and what some may call "god" but i call all of us together. AND, to SEE those dots in your closed eyelids, "god" has to see them through YOU. your eyes.

and we may not be able to demonstrate anything beyond "NOT EXISTENCE IS IMPOSSIBLE", but...

if we AGREE, with our WORDS that your eyes are to be distinguished from my eyes, and if we agree with our words that i'm over here and you're over there, and if we agree with our words that new york is EAST of kansas and california is WEST of kansas, we will all come to the LOGICAL conclusion, that EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS is LOGICALLY COMPATIBLE WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT EXISTS. by logically compatible i dont mean that they like each other, by logically compatible i mean that it is impossible for new york to be east of kansas AND not east of kansas at the same time. (time is another hugely debated topic. it's not about measure, it's about BEFORE vs AFTER. time travel is NOT LOGICALLY possible (except in fiction, see rise of the planet of the apes in the crossover project) and --except with a vcr, haha-- we can only go FORWARD in time (i do have logical demo time does exist but is predicated upon words agreement, in nutshell if you eat big mac on monday and taco on tuesday, impossible for evidence on monday of your eating taco on tue, but records and/or evidence of you having eaten big mc on monday, necessarily exist on tuesday)

speaking of "word agreements" and the "meta" section, how about

god = the ultimate mystery;
a word used to refer to an entity that is all-powerful and all-knowing; everything/everyone; everything/everyone manifesting itself in/through each entity.

speaking of "word agreements":
if i will have written this correctly and you will have read this correctly, it will be clear that i do NOT believe that "god" is some entity that is "separate from" us. meaning, i do NOT believe that there's us over here and god over there. i believe each of us is a part of the mystery, that each of us is real, that quantum physics and logic demonstrate that neither god nor "laws of physics" DICTATE what anything does, that a photon in a quantic experment that goes this way instead of the ways of "scientific laws" does not mean that we should rewrite all scientific approxiamations of actions in the universe, but that we must understand that it's not that two particles attract each other because one is negatively charged and the other is positively charged, rather BECAUSE two particles head toward each other "scientists" have labeled them "positive and negative" but i suspect that it's like science is saying that if i buy comic books its because im a comic books lover, I'M saying that if im a comic books lover its because i buy comic books. in other words, it's not that what i am determines what i do; it's that what do determines WHO i am, in a sense --though this could open a wich-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg matter. speaking of matter, its hard for most humans to think that "a rock" and/or a subatomic particle does what it wants. the flip side is that people confuse free will with free act. free will means you AND that subatomic particle WOULD PREFER to go to th­­­­e comic book store, free will does NOT mean that you'll actually get your preference. and ALL empirical evidence from our daily experience to QUANTUM PHYSICS indicates that free will (the ability to have preference) exists. naturally, though we may have started together as a dot in a T, we all always gotta deal with all the other dots. even the other letters. so... when i catch myself saying "i believe in god" what i meanis i believe everything is ONE, ONE is composed of ALL and EACH entity, god/all wants to be well and healthy, and, just like every entity from a flower to a human being to a cluster of galaxies, in order for one to be healty, every "cell" in it necessarily needs to be healthy. in that sense i believe that a human society cannot be healthy unless each member in human society is healthy. and for me, "i believe in god" means that we are ALL part of it all, and that there is a will in "all" to healthy.

speaking of "word agreements" and the PRACTICAL section:

this comes in handy in the crossover

necessarily and importantly in combo with other key terms in took's diktionary.

emphases in select parts of definitions below is for focus on potentially key elements of definition

justice = a situation in which each party within that situation agrees in practice AND IN PRINCIPLE with the behavior and/or position of the other party/ies in that situation.

power = the ability of an entity to impose one's will upon another entity, regardless of the will of the other entity.

force = the use of power.

law enforcement = the use of power for the execution of law

law enforcement officer = a person authorized by government to use force in order to enforce law as she/he best sees fit.

judge = a person authorized by government to give orders [commands] based on her/his choice of which laws to apply and based on her/his iterpretation of laws.

law (laws / the law) = a limited/finite set of rules for an unlimited/infinite number of possible situations, such rules being:
a) subject to interpretation;
b) without unambiguously agreed-upon definitions of "good," "bad," "evil," or "justice";
c) without an unambiguosuly agreed-upon over-arching ("top") rule, or with an over-arching rule deferring to divinity and/or justice;
d) made of words.

rules = instructions for behavior.

internet justice = the available option to use the internet to let anyone interested and who has access to the internet decide on matters of justice.

" modelland 5" world = a world and/or territory and/or society and/or reality-tv show in which everyone in that world/territory/society/reality-tv-show has enough to eat and free access to the internet

(not as n maximum, but as in MINIMUM standards) (and NOT by law, but free choice. a society that needs government is like a child that still needs parents.)
(suggested details for free internet access standards below)
free access to internet:
- provide free internet access at a time/distance of no more than 1 hour free commute or 1 hour walk (each way)
- enable no less than 2 gigabyte data transfer/day at average rate of no less than 0.5 Mbps
(details above based on year 2014 parameters)
in the " modelland 5" world, enough food ( thinkin? ) and free internet access are what every1 starts with
(kind of " a la " machete & flint in "survivor") T ([more on this numbers philosophy AND world economy etc] t

email from zoxor umtn lyk thot i saw t

(cameras everywhere would be nice too. world THE reality show)
updated 19 0400wpdt ed 20141218 1516cetcet T updatn T the purpose T c1420ce T update 20141224 1243cet