« Home | In Response Part 1 - DJB » | Pushing the Pause Button Briefly » | Re-Grouping, Feedback and Self-Doubt Allayed » | The System State at an 'is' Decision Point » | The Power of Uncertainty » | The Selfish Gene - Modifying Theories » | The Mexican-Iraq Border » | Sharing the Beauty » | Space Messages and Double Entendres (vers.2) » | Prescience, Premonition and Entropy »

Everything: EVERYTHING

[Caution: On first read, this entry may appear to be closer than you think! You have been warned!]

{Hint: maybe don't try to make sense out of all of this at the same time, pick some part that does seem to make sense, and work out from there (in both directions, of course: both ends towards the middle: the middle towards both ends)


1) "In Response Part 2 - Soulless"
2) "Everything you always wanted to know about everything, but were afraid to ask."
3) "Everything you always wanted to know about 'is' "
4) 'is'

(future blogs, not yet written, or not yet linked):
In Response Part 2 - Soulless
In Response Part 3 - Dave
In Response Part 4 - Gary
String Bead Analogy
Global Bill of Rights
Letter Shapes and 'is' Systems
(NOte: Mackeydoodle and Gary left an excellent example of 'is' as a comment on In Response part 1 - DJB, check it out here).

Introduced by my very own quote:

"EVERYTHING 'is' a measurement; the critical thing is which scale you choose to measur [sic] [with]." - Me.

(Note to all readers: I'm going to write this as if it's a reply to the comment which Soulless left on my blog the other day, but I'm going to write it as if it's a SELF-TEACHING blog of the 'is'-WORD 'EVERYTHING' that is actually writing itself to her. I'm out doing grocery shopping or something...ANYTHING/EVERYTHING when S/HE/YOU read this, so you're on your OWN to LEARN it). EVERYTHING is giving birth to itself through this blog entry...now, there's a mixed metaphor if I ever wrote one! Picture EVERYTHING giving birth to ITSELF...at whatever level YOU-DEFINE-EVERYTHING to be) ...then, having made your assumptions about what this blog is all about, continue reading...


(Lesson about the pattern of 3 that you asked about in your note, Soulless: "Whenever you see a list of 4 (explicit or implied), your task is to pick the ONE CHOICE that would leave a balanced list of 3 if you were to remove the one you selected." This ties in with the basic tenet which states all FIRST-DECISIONs are BINARY by NATURE, and TERTIARY in FORM. Sounds contradictory, I know, but everything...EVERYTHING about 'is' is. ! I'll explain more if you like.)

This guarantees me a double-blind experimental setup, since I don't know which you'll select, and whether you selected it because:
a) you UNDERSTAND {MASTERY LEVEL} the concept, and so have shortened this definition of EVERYTHING by throwing it away {TABLA RASA} (thus moving us closer to MUTUAL-UNDERSTAND, \-or-
b) you NOT-UNDERSTAND it and want me to EXPAND further, adding more detail to EVERYTHING, thus moving us further away from UNDERSTAND iEVERYTHING, but perhaps, at the same time, CLOSER to UNDERSTAND English-EVERYTHING (or just Everything, as the title of this blog suggests).

{You OWN your OWN learning; No one is going to help you; UNLESS you ask for HELP}
(reference: Clarity Bill of Global Human Rights)

In responding to the blog titled "Re-Grouping, Feedback and Self-Doubt Allayed":

At 1:54 PM, Soulless said...
Hullo, Rick. ^_^ I choose "d" as to your first question. I find the "is" theory fascinating! I would like to read more on it. Would you happen to have previous entries on this topic? I would gladly read them (especially during the wee hours in the morning when my insomnia refuses to budge. Heh. ^_^).

Anyway, my inquiry would be with regard to the flow of the argument (since I would like to have a better grasp of it): what assumptions necessarily underlie said theory (be they function to weaken or bolster it)? And, what are the premises leading to the conclusion or claim?

Other questions that popped in my head:
--What is the working definition of "pattern" as used in the theory?
--How is the "pattern" determined? Is it demonstrated through its "effects"?
--As regards the process of argumentation, are affirmative statements relied on, or negatives?

I hope you do not mind my inquisitive side showing up here. *grin* I am not here offering any alternative, but merely being a curious cat. (Meow. ^_^) Forgive me if my inquiries seem to impose. I merely gulped my hesitation for it seemed, to me, that you were welcoming questions (so this looonngg comment is probably my roundabout way of answering #2 of your questions to readers). *sheepish grin* (Again: Meow. ^_^)

The earth used to be flat, the sun used to rotate around the earth, smoking used to be cool, virgins used to have babies.

When I read the last part about virgins having babies, I laughed out so loud I think I woke my neighbors. (It's past 3am here.) *chuckles* Glad to catch a whiff of your sense of humor. ^_^

To soulless: As I have indicated before, I am in awe of your talent with using words, just as I am with Gary's talent of squeezing meaning from words, (and everyone else's, for that matter!). Words, and their meaning(s) fascinate me, so I have been evolving this all-comprehensive and all-comprehending theory for sometime now, which is designed to introduce clarity without obfuscting richness. (Go figger that one out!...No wait, stay here and I'll explain more clearly!). It's the same questuon/question as "Do we have a rich consciousness or a thin one?".
[Did you pick up the LETTER-SHAPE mirror effect in questUon/questIon = 'rich'/'thin'?]

[My claim, with proof attached, will be that EVERY WORD in a LANGUAGE {'is', English, French, {Spanish, German....}} defines it's own opposite, and so when I use ANY WORD {period., in a sentence., in a paragraph., ., ...}, it DOUBLES the meaning of the {WORD, SENTENCE, PARAGRAPH...}. Thus, obfuscating, confusing, clarifying the meaning. Purpose. EVERYTHING.

[an aside, as a bonus question: obfuscate;confuse;FUSE:LIGHT]

{obfuscate, ob..., "Oh! Be!"..., 'O' (the perfect closed system), 'b' ('is', as in "to be or NOT to be"...actually, 'B', in LETTER-SHAPE means roughly "choose between two closed imperfect systems", but more on LETTER-SHAPE and how to interpret it in a future entry}

Dave would call that last sentence an example of when I "dialogue with myself" -or- "teach myself" (see his comments appended to the same blog entry that yours were).

To my regualr readers, BTW, Soulless has a gifted website of poetry that I came across recently. Using the PEN-name 'soulless', word phrases like the following drip and ooze all over the site: "...past your dream-moist eyes, to your soul..."

The link I put on the word 'me' up above takes you to a comment I left on one of her poems recently. Here is her reply:

I leave you all to draw our own conclusions!!

Ok, soulless back to your questions:

I won't answer them.
I'll answer them all with a single illustration.
This blog 'is' it.
The title of this blog 'is'.

The answer to every/any question is contained within the question (i.e. 'is' the question, with the missing part you're asking about filled in).

So, the only question you're really asking 'is' "Tell me more about 'is'...it *fascinates* me, is there somewhere I can read more about this when I have insomnia?. Tell me 'EVERYTHING' [the title of the blog....sit down, it's story time....the story of 'EVERYTHING'.....ONCE upon a TIME....]

When a word is capitalized in 'is', it means it is a "closed perfect system" word (see previous blog on system strata) [represented by the letter 'O' when we get to discuss the meanings of LETTER-SHAPE.]

So, I'm defining for you, the poet, what I mean by the word EVERYTHING, and it 'is' simply EVERYTHING you learn about 'is' from reading this individualized lesson plan on teaching the word EVERYTHING to you, the student, about whom I know nothing except for what I have ASSUMED by reading some of your poetry and the comments left by others. (NOTE: everybody, I have added the site to my "frequent flyer program" ... it's the link called "Touching Poetry - Unguarded Utterance").

[Run-on sentences in English are rich, aren't they? [as in: RICH:{'that's a good one!', -or- 'thick' (as opposed to 'thin': as in 'CONSCIOUISNESS'), -or- full of COMBINATORIAL-POSSIBLITITY, SHakespearean, AMBIGUOUS-INTERPRETATION, ...}].

I chose a WORD to talk to you about, since I ASSUME you have a strong interest in, and talent for, {manipulating, choosing, using, selecting, understanding, UNDERSTAND.....} WORDs. [You did ask about my assumptions, after all....it's only worth my while to talk to you about asumptions that you can personally verify as being valid or not; everything else,

implied fourth choice {EVERYTHING, TABLA RASA}.

'is' IRRELEVANT [to this discussion about EVERYTHING].

So, I can conclude(.) that for you and I to EXECTLY agree on the PRECISE, CRITICAL meaning of the word iEVERYTHING, my 3 assumptions are as follows:

1) there will be NO assumptions (tabla rasa) made during this explanation.
2) any assumptions made will only be ones that SOULLESS can personally verify to her personal satisfaction of {TRUTH, VERACITY, UNDERSTANDING}, and since I have NOT-CLUE to what those might be, and since any assumptions I make MIGHT be INACCURATE (the Butterfly Effect I spoke of in my previous post), therefore:
3) there will be NO assumptions (tabla rasa) made during this explanation.

Does that answer you question about my assumptions? (YES [default:CLONE]:NO [opposite]:OTHER[variation, VARIANT])

Soulless: If you need more information from me about how 'is' would self-define the 'is'-WORD 'EVERYTHING', just ask. I will always default to YES (see the five basic tenets of 'is'), but it can ALWAYS be overriden by CHOICE.

P.S. This entire blog is an example of 'is' in action. But I have made it 'rich' with illustrations of CONCEPTs that I have {only alluded to earler, are IRRELEVANT to this discussion, have discussed in great depth earlier as key componets of 'is'}

P.P.S. Since you are a wordsmith extraordinaire ( a la 'EXTRAORDINARY'), you must ASSUME that spelling errors aren't, grammar errors arent, punctuation errors aren't.


MORAL: looking at the title, this blog is trying to fill the UNDERSTAND gap between you and I about the meaning of the English word 'Everything'. Because we both have loaded palates [plates] about that word in English, let's take it off the English table altogether, put it on the 'is' table, devoid of all judgement and assumption, tabla rasa, make sure we UNDERSTAND each other's meaning [NOT-JUST-DEFINITION] of it, so we have a MUTUAL-UNDERSTAND-UNSTATED of the iWORD ('is'-WORD, or for brevity's sake, JUST WORD).



1) Every question contains it's own answer.
2) Every ANSWER contains its own question.
3) Any questions?
4) ANY question.
5) any ONE question.

Hint #2: I always use the pattern of 3's as my default pattern for EVERYTHING. It's the universal pattern AFTER ALL.

Hint #3: I chose to use the English abbreviation 'measur' in my leading definition of EVERYTHING, instead of the fully-spelled-out 'is'-PHRASE ME-AS-YOU-ARE (me-as-u-r), indicating I'll be walking in your mocassins, seeing it from YOUR point of view, as YOU are {seeing it, interpreting it, being confused by it, laughing with me about it, astounded by it's {simplicity, complexity....level}}


Please come back:
a) again
b) y'all,... over! {and out, to you}


Hullo again, Rick. ^_^ I've read the three blog entries you've recommended, before reading the present one. From "President's Day- and an Intro to 'is' Theory," I infer that your theory has, principally, to do with language. (As an aside, it has also reminded me of the philosophical concept of "language games.") And from the post entitled "The Common Universal Pattern-The basic tenets," I see Ethics (I mean the word as the field of philosophy) in play as a topic for discussion (based on the comments and replies).

Now, as regards the questions I posed, in my comment to "Re-Grouping, Feedback and Self-Doubt Allayed," they popped in my mind, for, when met with any theory, I follow a helpful guide, or technique, I learned a long time ago from a philosophy professor, i.e. with respect to presenting, or confronting, a proposition or claim or theory (herein I quote his words):

The 4 Basic Inquiries

1. What do you mean?
-- refers to definitions or meanings of terms used; try to get rid of vagueness or ambiguity.

2. What are the assumptions?
-- bear in mind that propositions or claims are usually package deals.

3. How do you know? [or Why?]
-- refers to the reasons, bases, or premises.

4. What follows?
-- refers to deductions, inferences, or conclusions.

Ok, back to the present blog entry. My initial reaction to it is... well, I admit to being befuddled. ^_^ So I read it twice, maybe a few more times as I type this comment. Anyway, going back to the first of the 4 Basic Inquiries, I am still quite at a loss as to what the terms used in the "is" theory mean. Hence, I have some difficulties in seeing the "illustration."

Let me elaborate. You have said:

I'll answer them all with a single illustration.
This blog 'is' it.
The title of this blog 'is'.

The answer to every/any question is contained within the question (i.e. 'is' the question, with the missing part you're asking about filled in).

So, the only question you're really asking 'is' "Tell me more about 'is'...it *fascinates* me, is there somewhere I can read more about this when I have insomnia?. Tell me 'EVERYTHING'

... what I mean by the word EVERYTHING, and it 'is' simply EVERYTHING you learn about 'is' from reading this individualized lesson plan on teaching the word EVERYTHING to you...

First of all, the statement "the answer to every/any question is contained within the question" is a proposition in itself which, again, makes me ponder, especially as regards how it has come about to lead to the conclusion "so...": "So, the only question you're really asking 'is' "Tell me more about 'is'... Tell me 'EVERYTHING'" Hmm. There I pause. And I ask myself: is the statement "the answer to every/any question is contained within the question" in fact an assumption? Or a premise (in the basic form of if-then logical argument)? I guess what I'm trying to say, is that there are many things here I have yet to understand before my mind's reach can even go for an application of the "is" theory. Illustrations are helpful, yes, but the specific questions I have laid out as regards definitions, assumptions, and premises/bases refer to those made in the course of the formulation of the theory. Ergo, they refer to those definitions of the terms as you have used them, your assumptions, your premises/bases... since this is YOUR theory... and I am just a curious stranger trying to find my way towards YOUR understanding of "everything" about your theory that you know and/or are aware of.

So, I'm defining for you, the poet, what I mean by the word EVERYTHING, and it 'is' simply EVERYTHING you learn about 'is' from reading this individualized lesson plan on teaching the word EVERYTHING to you, the student

Ahh, now this is a perfect example of the first of the 4 Basic Inquiries. If you have not defined the word "everything" -- as used therein -- then I would certainly not have understood it as referring to what I learn from this blog entry, but rather, I would have continued on understanding the term as referring to what YOU know about the theory, or to what YOU know about the theory and have communicated or can communicate. Without laid out definitions, I (as a reader or observer) would be more prone to making assumptions as regards meanings. And that would stifle understanding of whole statements making up a theory, yes?

But let me here rest with the above flow of thought, and move to another. Rick, you have a way, a manner, of presenting your thoughts, your arguments, in a way, a manner, I am not familiar with. For example, this:


And this:

implied fourth choice {EVERYTHING, TABLA RASA}.

But let me make it clear that I respect that. I reckon that's my bottomline. This is YOUR theory, and what you intend to do with it (i.e. whether you intend to put more flesh, so to speak, to the thought/idea, but for purposes merely of satisfying your own drive; or intend to make another person understand it, as near to your understanding of it as is possible; or intend to test the soundness of the theory as against another; et cetera) is not my place to question or rebut. ^_^

The theory does fascinate me. So far, to me, the helpful pieces of information on it are the following: "'is' is a theory of universal pattern. Basically stated, it allows that there is a common, underlying, irreducible pattern to everything. Further the same pattern applies to everything, no matter what 'everything' is." (from the blog entry entitled "Re-Grouping, Feedback and Self-Doubt Allayed")... and the 6th paragraph of the blog entry entitled "President's Day- and an Intro to 'is' Theory" (I would have liked to quote it here, but this comment is already much too long. Eep. My apologies. ^_^)

Certainly, the "is" theory continues to hold my interest. And so, I shall keep on reading your blog to follow-up on what, in any manner, you graciously choose to share with other people in the blogosphere.

Cheers. ^_^

It's now 6AM, my usual time to nap. *grin* I do have a chronic case of insomnia. Sigh. (Thank you, by the way, for your kind words as regards my poetry blog. Much appreciated.) I'm off to dreamland. Till the next visit, then. Be well. ^_^

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link

  • I'm Evydense
  • From Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  • And I'm tired of living in the shadow of narrow-mindedness and ignorance. So here's the fax, Jack! "The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred and sixty-two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." - Lynne Lavner*** I'm confused; curious; satisfied; realistically resigned to being a frustrated idealist; usually at peace with myself, but not always. Amazed at how little I know, and wondering how much I need to understand.
More of Me