| 
Oh let me tell you something crazy.
What if the government was designed to cover the secret government up? I have loads of ideas concerning this but am going to let you guys think about it because thats how people learn. But if you really want me to explain I will because it will be fun. Please note this is only speculation and is not neccisarly true. But really we could be run by intellectual alians that taught the greeks and egyptions what they know. And the presidents and stuff are only puppets designed to blind us by fake propaganda and bull crud thus wars exist to keep us occupied. These alians walking among us and we don't even know it. They don't need to be from another planet but they may be very cleaver as to know what to do to run the world. And I bet even the presidents of countries don't even know it because they are so blatently dumb that they think is all the world is about and really it is so much more. It's like the early mormons know JS. And so these stories are passed on to the point that most are lost and we are living in what we think is real and true but forgetting major events in history because many things were secret. Like JS was a free mason. How many Mormons know that? We don't even know the founder of the church we only know what we are told. These alians will live longer than us. Like the 3 nephites as such.
I was reading a book earlier by Roger Penrose, "Shadows of the mind". I really like his prologues. In this one he talks of a little girl in a cave with her dad. He is looking at some plants he is growing in the darkness of the cave, and the little girl, Jessica notices a boulder wedged above the entrance of a cave. She is worried that it might fall down and trap her and her dad in the cave and he says he knows it won't fall out because it has been there for such a long time and hasn't fallen out. Her reply was that it is more likely to fall out soon because it has been there for a long time. He insisted that because it was there for a long time it was less likely to fall out and therefore was not worried that it might trap them. So the girl was like just imagine it did happen they wouldn't be able to breathe or see, and so her dad said there would be a crack at the top where light from the sun would shine in and they would be able to breatheand she though they could live off of all the plants her dad was growing. Then he said something like if they were to be trapped then he wouldn't want to be with anyone other than her and her mum of course. And so she said " 'I want mummy in here too, in my question, because I'm going to suppose that the boulder fell down before I was even born and you and mummy had me here in the cave, and I grew up in here...and we could keep alive by eating all your funny plants.' " then her father said nothing and she continued " ' Then I would never have known any life except this here in the cave. How could I know what the real world outside was like? Could I know that there are trees in it, and birds and rabbits and other things? Of course you could tell me these things, because you'd known them yourselves before you got trapped, but how would I know-I mean how would I really know myself, rather than having to believe what you said?' " Then her father went on to talk about seeing the shadows of the trees and birds and other stuff through the crack when the sun goes by. And eventually to him doing conferences for all the other people that were to soon be trapped in the cave also as there was plenty of funny plants and he would need people there to prove the earth travells around the sun by the movement of the sun on the cave wall even though those people would prefer that the sun was moving around the cave because they couldn't accept that the cave was moving and so he would do experiments to show them the things of the outside world.
I thought of "Plato's cave" when I read this.
The Allegory of the Cave
Plato realizes that the general run of humankind can think, and speak, etc., without (so far as they acknowledge) any awareness of his realm of Forms.
The allegory of the cave is supposed to explain this.
In the allegory, Plato likens people untutored in the Theory of Forms to prisoners chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All they can see is the wall of the cave. Behind them burns a fire. Between the fire and the prisoners there is a parapet, along which puppeteers can walk. The puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, hold up puppets that cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the real objects, that pass behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are shadows and echoes cast by objects that they do not see. Here is an illustration of Plato's Cave:
From Great Dialogues of Plato: Complete Texts of the Republic, Apology, Crito Phaido, Ion, and Meno, Vol. 1. (Warmington and Rouse, eds.) New York, Signet Classics: 1999. p. 316.
Such prisoners would mistake appearance for reality. They would think the things they see on the wall (the shadows) were real; they would know nothing of the real causes of the shadows.
So when the prisoners talk, what are they talking about? If an object (a book, let us say) is carried past behind them, and it casts a shadow on the wall, and a prisoner says "I see a book," what is he talking about?
He thinks he is talking about a book, but he is really talking about a shadow. But he uses the word "book." What does that refer to?
Plato gives his answer at line (515b2). The text here has puzzled many editors, and it has been frequently emended. The translation in Grube/Reeve gets the point correctly:
"And if they could talk to one another, don't you think they'd suppose that the names they used applied to the things they see passing before them?"
Plato's point is that the prisoners would be mistaken. For they would be taking the terms in their language to refer to the shadows that pass before their eyes, rather than (as is correct, in Plato's view) to the real things that cast the shadows.
If a prisoner says "That's a book" he thinks that the word "book" refers to the very thing he is looking at. But he would be wrong. He's only looking at a shadow. The real referent of the word "book" he cannot see. To see it, he would have to turn his head around.
Plato's point: the general terms of our language are not "names" of the physical objects that we can see. They are actually names of things that we cannot see, things that we can only grasp with the mind.
When the prisoners are released, they can turn their heads and see the real objects. Then they realize their error. What can we do that is analogous to turning our heads and seeing the causes of the shadows? We can come to grasp the Forms with our minds.
Plato's aim in the Republic is to describe what is necessary for us to achieve this reflective understanding. But even without it, it remains true that our very ability to think and to speak depends on the Forms. For the terms of the language we use get their meaning by "naming" the Forms that the objects we perceive participate in.
The prisoners may learn what a book is by their experience with shadows of books. But they would be mistaken if they thought that the word "book" refers to something that any of them has ever seen.
Likewise, we may acquire concepts by our perceptual experience of physical objects. But we would be mistaken if we thought that the concepts that we grasp were on the same level as the things we perceive.
Can you see why I link this to the govenment? In fact this pretty much applies to life.
"Shengising Nugget"
|
) 
... warn you better next time.
