This should be after you your WUDU and MV prayers.
INTRODUCTION:
The concepts of Purpose, Names and Definitions are closely tied together and a key topic to familiarize yourself with early in this pilgrimage. To help us start this off, let's ask the question:
WHAT IS A SPOON?
PART I: What makes a spoon a spoon?
I know the question seems straightforward but as you should know by now, nothing is as straightforward as you believe if you actually "think" about it. And this is exactly what you're being asked to do here. Think about what it means when we identify something as a "spoon".
Because my question to you is what SPECIFICALLY do you mean when you say "spoon"? As in what is supposed to "pop into my head" when you bring up "spoon" in a conversation?
Now some of you might rely on the Label on the box for example as the official sure way to identify what should be considered a spoon. And that is not a bad start if our goal is to FIX a unique way to coordinate identities of things. But what if the person who made it sold it without a box for some reason, or what if you're someone who makes spoons! If the Label on the Box is the official way that defines it to you then you as the maker of the spoon wouldn't be able to identify it nor would the person that you sell it to if you don't put it in a labeled box. Obviously makers and buyers can define a spoon without the labeled box so what is it then that we're all "in agreement" makes a "spoon" what we all seem to agree defines it as such?
Someone may be thinking its shape is what makes us identify it as a spoon. But there could be many objects that are shaped as a spoon yet aren't. An art project for example quickly comes to mind, or perhaps a toy spoon for a childs toy kitchen or any cardboard cut out shaped like a spoon. Even if this shape came to be "naturally" like if I drew the shape of a spoon right now, it wouldn't convert that into a "real spoon" that you would define as such.
Now some may consider start adding extra specifics like the material and size of the object to make a more refined set of conditions that qualifies an object to be a spoon. But you'll find that there is no amount that you can add to satisfy our "accurate completeness" rule. Because we want our template for this definition to apply to any and all objects "possible" which includes what may not even exist yet. And even then you'll still fail to scrutiny like explainin our mind's ability to identify a spoon without seeing its shape and size and whateve sensory based criteria we come to agree on. But it might be easie to just think about the overlap with the artistic or very treasured/expensive golden spoon of king object that disqualifies the "set of all properties" answer to our question. And remember, if we can present any example, unlikely as it may be, that contradicts the "possible answer" to our question then it's more than enough to know that it will certainly fail when we apply it to ALL OBJECTS.
Hence, it's important to be as specific as humanly possible at this point so we can later generalize without any worries about potential contradictions. So, there is probably not as many treasured super expensive spoons out there, but other objects might fit this category better, and since physical properties don't capture sentimental or any other psychological value associated with changing the financial weight linked to the definition of the object, then this answe is also unfit for us.
So, we're still not quite there yet. But I think many may have guessed by now that it must be how the spoon is used that makes it a spoon to us. Let's call this the UTILITY* of the object. That actually is very close to what we want and it sure sounds like it would account for eveything that would certify it Accurately Complete. Because regardless of eveything we've said so far, if the object is being used the way a spoon is then it must also fit all the other conditions we were considering earlier. It can't be a spoon and not be of the proper shape and meterial and so on that is permitting us to use it to eat soop.
The only issue now is whether it is actually COMPLETELY ACCURATE as well. Because what about objects that aren't actually spoons yet being used as such for whateve reason. Heck, I can use a "cup" as a spoon of some kind if we consider the Utility to be carrying liquid from a container to our mouth for example. And what about the other way around, when a spoon is being used as a paint brush or to carve dirt in the garden or to scrape something off the dirty pots. The Utility idea is complete but it also opens the door to pretty much anything I can use to eat soup or honey or stir a cup of tea, depending on what you consider the main function of a spoon to be, which is a list that extends far beyond what we would agree on to be an "official spoon".
This was and should be a little frustrating for first timers dealing with Unique Definitions but at least we can all agree that there has to be answer because we all pretty much know and recognize what we mean by an official "spoon" and we would all correctly point it out when we see it. So the problem maybe that the CONCEPT that our mind is relying on to make this identification isn't in the vocabulary of the language you speak.
For example, what if I wanted to combine two of the concepts we've discussed so far as potential answers to our problem into a single one. As in a "criteria or property" that defines objects on the basis of this 1 thing, but it's a combination of two concepts. I'm speaking specifically about combining our two ideas of the BOX LABEL and the Utility of objects into a single idea.
But before we get to that let's consider what the BOX LABEL actually represented in a more conceptual sense. Because it was a too simplistic version of what is a very important factor in this problem that is the idea of the CREATOR'S OPINION of what they think the object is, which is stated on the box as a Label with the associated INTENDED USE/UTILITY that is "spoon". But just because the label and the box aren't accessible or were a part of the making of the spoon doesn't negate or change what the maker of the spoon thinks it is that he's making. So if we then agreed that the Utility of the object refined in a way to include its maker's INtENDED USE produces the best version of a unique definition so far. Because this version covers every REAL* SPOON and eliminates the conflicts of non-spoons being used as spoons and spoons being used as other things.
In practice what this means is that whenever something is being used as a spoon but is not, then the Unique Definition approach describes that event as a non-spoon (or whateve its unique label is) being used as a spoon., hence you can't FORCE a change of Identity by treating something as if its something other than what it was, according to its maker. And similar case for vise versa, using a spoon to do other things no longer changes its definition or identity.
Another good example is the Kitchen Knife vs Murder Weapon scenario. When is one acting like the other and when is it the other way around? Is a kitchen knife being used in a murder defined as a knife that became a murder weapon or is it a murder weapon that was masquerading as a kitchen utencil. And Utility was agreat way to get us to his level, but only including the Creator's Intended use as the UNIQUEST defining principle for "Use" that ensures we have a final Uniquely Definitive Template for identifying some objects here because we're talking things that have a UTILITY which sounds like it would be restricted to human space for most of you at this point in prayers. But will be extended to all objects eventually after some more adjuectments and imporvements.
It's worth reminding ourselves that the reason this distinction is a critical one to make and stick to in our prayers is because we're ultimately looking for the way that we can all communicate and UNDERSTAND each other's intended meanings, regardless of what we believe. That means the friction that arises from not being specific enough in what we mean when we're saying these words amounts to all the major irreconciable differences that you observe on the macro-scale. And it all boils down to this very peculiar but HUGE difference that was illustrated in the Knife/Weapon example.
That means that whatever you think it is or should be, if we agree that when you and I are talking then we're only using this Format of Defining Principles described in this template, then we will at least be sure that we're understanding each other well enough to reach whatever conclusions we reach. It may surprise you now, but there is only one conclusion once you purify the language and we can actually understand each other.
But I need to add one final note to what is meant by the LABEL ON THE BOX or CREATOR'S INTENT it represents. And that is that we're talking about their REAL INTENT. Something that we'll eventually convert into a something more mathematical but for now you should think of it as the actual problem they believed their product would solve, i.e. what it will be used for that they're hoping it would be. Now that may or may not align with their declared intent or what is on the box. And we don't typically have access to this information that is not the point. The point is that the only 100% complete and accurate way (and i mean real 100% error free) defining system for objects we want to use as a language, would be framed in way that references the REAL INTENT first.
That means in such a system, medication used OFF-LABEL was actually meant for something else would be consideed exactly that. But if the makers of this medication always had the OFF LABEL intent all along but declared and labeled differently, then the technical definition of our system would make this event of "off-label", an event of correct use of a MisLabeled Medication. Again, these distinctions may seem irrelevant to you but trust me, they'll come to show you the upside down image your living in that you think is "reality".
So, the key point is that we're talking about the CREATOR'S "REAL" intent, calculated based on the changes in their internal DISC-MVs.
Now like I repeated many times, you don't have to believe anything about anything by agreeing that this is the BEST and only ERROR FREE template to use during communication that guarantees we're understanding what we're talking about, which will carry over later to on to make the version for What We mean about what we're talking about. So, for now let's agree on the system we're going to be implying as the template behind all the Defining Principles and Objects we'll be talking about.
And to drive that point home even more, consider the sculpture who makes a statue of abraham lincoln who looks exactly like Taft instead. Heck, we can all agree that it looks nothing like Lincoln as long as we're all still in agreement that on paper, the TECHNICAL NAME for the statue is refering to the statue of Abraham Lincoln that looks like taft according to most if not all people. And not a statue of Taft that was supposed to be of lincoln. AS LONG as the creator's original intent was Abraham Lincoln. Now if even the sculpture decides that the statue looks like and should be Taft, it wouldn't CHANGE or ALTER the UNIQUE ORDER of the technical name, but only ADD to it. Hence it would be the Statue of Abraham Linclon that everyone, including its maker thinks it should be taft etc...
REMEMBER:
The idea here is not to completely dismiss any OPINIONS or FACTS but to make sure they're included in a UNIQUE MANNER that allows for UNIQUE DEFINITIONS. Hence the TECHNICAL NAME for use in official paper (i.e. our prayers) is meant to make sure that EVERYONE, regardless or who, when, where etc..UNDERSTANDS the INTEDED MEANING of all our communications. We're not even saying it needs to be thought of as LICOLN because that is More True than taft, we're only saying that this is the best way to capture ALL INFORMATION about the object the way we need to. Because our template captured the influence on others and the Intended and Unintended effects of the creator. And this abstract idea will play a big role when it comes to the CREATOR'S INTENT for the HUMAN OBJECTS or HUMAN LIFE EVENTS and how it differs from the Lesser Unique Creative Srouces that we call Human MVs and these Products/Objects they produce...
This should be after DISCS is discussed..
PART 1 B: Unique definition of the concept we're calling :"UTILITY"
We've been talking about UTILITY as well known concept. And we listed a few functions of the "spoon" in context of eating soop or honey and stirring a cup. But what does it mean in the Abstract sense that will let us apply it to all OBJECTS we want to Uniquely Define. So, we've established that UTILITY is a set of FUNCTIONS associated with the Object.
.
.
PART 1 C: Notes on part B
.
.
.
KEY POINTS from part 1:
. Our BELIEF that we successfully UNDERSTOOD/RECOGNIZED a "spoon" when we see one or when someone mentions the word for "spoon", are both dependent on our BELIEF that we certainly UNDERSTOOD/RECOGNIZED the "creator's intent" , i.e. the MIND behind the IDEA. And hence when we think that we exctracted the proper meaning from the Interpreted Sensory data of either seeing the object or hearing/reading an indirect symbol linking the object, in both instances this belief is based on the association between that data and the result of comparing it against KNOWN OBJECTS (and thus, with KNOWN associations to an Intention of an Orignating Mind). Some diffeence obviously arises based on the rank of the idea on the ladder of abstraction, like the creator of a specific spoon vs the unknown originator inventor of a spoon or any object that you can recognize - hence FORCING you to acknowledge an originating Mind, albeit with less REFINED/SPECIFIC outline of Identification of Who or when/where that origination took place.
To further underscore this relationship between the 3 concepts of Utility/Originator's Intent/Identity let's consider the scenario where a person first encounters this object we call a spoon but under very different circumstances like in a store setting and absent any Kitchen related signage to make them "guess" its utility. Hence they are looking at something they can recognize to have been "made" because it's being presented to them as something that has Utility by simply being on the shelf. But that only means they can IDENTIFY it as an OBJECT with a PURPOSE, but cannot actually identify it as a SPOON the same way you and I can.
After asking a store cleck who demonstrates how this object can be used, he/his mind is then at the point/state that is Ready/Able to RECOGNIZE/IDENTIFY the IDEA of a SPOON and all its DERIVATIVES/RELATIVE MANIFESTATIONS that covers the Material images at the very least. What's interesting to note is that this applies to the very same object/spoon that he used/relied on to FORM the IDEA of a spoon which he then later used to IDENTIFY what he's using/looking at as such. That should provide you with a good simple way to consider the perspective of Hirerchy in a Timeless domain like the fact that your MIND needs this particular sequence of GREATER to LESSER GREAT abstraction to make IDENTIFICATIONS which are the simplest units of understanding.
PART II: WHO IS KEVIN?
In this part, we're going to shift to the "orignating MVs" of part 1 and take our first look at the question of "who we are". Except, in stead of asking "who am I", we're going to ask :
Who is Kevin? Do you know Kevin?
A question that we often hear and is almost always with either a YES or NO type of answer. But what or who is meant when someone asks this type of question? What does it really mean to KNOW someone, muchless to know a SPECIFIC SOMEONE well enough to think the answer could be "yes".
I am obviously aware of what is meant or intended by these questions. But our interest here is to examine what it would mean to actually KNOW the person behind the "name". Because at first glance, the question of a "name" pops up before us. And the idea behind this prayer to ask ourselves what would the "name" of a person have to entail in order for us to actually know the person perfectly simply by knowing or learning their "REAL" name.
It should be clear by now that this idea of a NAME being a complete and accurate accounting of the entirety of what we're calling "KEVIN" is different than the version of names we're used to like the word "KEVIN" is supposed to be. But just like this idea of english words used to "point" or "ID" UNIQUELY something that is entirely different than itself. Just like the person KEVIN is not really linked to his english name except by the fact that's the symbol that was assigned to POINT HIM OUT of the rest of selfsimilar images, i.e. other people.
Therefore, we are also interested in this functionality of a NAME that links a simplified version of the information that is meant to represent a more comprehensively complete and accurate version of the information that we can call the REAL UNIQUE IDENTITY of something.
So, that is what we're after. A template for the type of NAME that would be a fit for naming the REAL UNIQUE IDENTITY of what we've been calling "Kevin" so far. Because clearly, the english version of names that "kevin" is, is nowhere near what would qualify as HIS REAL NAME. And to spare us some confusion, let's call the REAL NAME version of names, the GOD GIVEN NAME of someone, or NAME IN HEAVEN. There will be a reason for these associations later on but for the moment let's simply use them to separate between his english name "KEVIN" and KEVIN'S REAL NAME that we're developing as a Geometric Template.
Dismissing the Usual Suspects:
Everything that KEVIN is not, yet are a part of him, or he's a part of as the party responsible for these events/identifications etc...
..
The sum of ALL CHANGES in the CREATION MV....
Broken into the ......and the LESS UNIQUE IFLUENCE MV which is itself subdivided into the MORE UNIQUE and hence the more influencial influence that we'll call the IMPACT MV and make the LESSER UNIQUE INFLUENCE category as EVERLASTING INFLUENCE. Note that "everlasting" covers ALL NOT(IMPACT) domains. Hence his INFLUENCE BEFORE AND AFTER his physical presence are included in this section of the Information identifying KEVIN in accordance with his God's GIVEN NAME..
.
.
diagrams....
.
.
CREATION'S M-V Boundary:
We divided kevin into two volumes of information, the one for the DATA (CHANGES) that are more directly associated with him (body,mind,soul,possible beyond) and the one that is NOT, but yet we know he's responsible for, like how he made others feel in his life or the students he helped teach , which you may want to include a moral evaluation into it like "good or bad" feelings and teachings that he's responsible for. Of course we can include what others thought or considered his influence to be as, Good or Bad, based on whatever they think those things even mean. However to maintain our WUDU's Objectivity, we cannot apply any Absolute Moral Judgements until we can at least Identify it. So, we'll simply leave it at the relative judgements of others and any potential Absolute Judgement of Character or Being if or when we can Identify such a concept properly enough to add to the template.
..
.
GEARS DIAGRAMS
.
.
.
Part of what what led us to be able to CLOSE a boundary around the entire CREATION M-V without requiring us to specify the exact nature of the structure serving as the Boundary layer of the entire CREATION, was due to adhering to strict CERTAINTY based outlining procedure that relies exclusively on the approved templates of understanding. That is to say that we're only going to be using CONCEPTS that we all agree are ABSOLUTE and CERTAIN to use as OUTLINES in all our constructions. So, this HEVENLY NAME template to IDENTIFY HUMAN BEINGS would FIT the criteria because we can see that it would be ACCURATELY COMPLETE and COMPLETELY ACCURATE first edition. That means that the parts we couldn't ABSOLUTELY IDENTIFY like moral judgements were set to be relative to whomever is casting said judgement while the parts we haven't yet poved to be CERTAIN like the influence in the afterliving for example was left as a POSSIBLE volume information, which would simply be empty if there was no such space or data that people had in their file.
While our inclusion of all Material and Imaterial Changes in KEVIN and NOT KEVEN sectors of the Creation MV, which implied all the SubSpaces we can outline using the same approved method of drawing the outlines meant that this form of the template includes everything we need it to and without any possibility of Overlapping or Missing parts with other HUMAN NAMES of this form, or the CREATION MV hosting them.
All of that is to say that we followed the protocols that makes sure we didn't violate the conditions upon which our outermost boundary of the creation M-V was set. And becuase of that, then no matter what the shape and actual structure of this boundary is, and hence its internal volume must be, we can still treat it as the Single Symmetrical Stucture relative to our work. And the reason that is of major use to us is because that means we can IDENTIFY every human life-event by the Un-Symmetry the erasure of his God Given Name data would translate into geometrically. So, even if our prayers lead us to a Creation MV that is shaped like a Unicorn running at different speeds with a bunch of small elephants flying inside it into fractal loops, you get the idea, to us we can still treat it as a PERFECTLY SYMMETRICAL SPHERE if we wanted to. Which means that every HEVENLY NAME contributes into maintaining this Symmetry, and hence the removal of anyone of them would lead to a missing GAP in the complex's data that would manifest as a MISALIGNMENT in the UNIQUE FOLD of our structure.
At this point, this is of no use to you because you don't know how to outline the M-Symmetry Grid of POPs but eventually it means that we can actually MEASURE things that right now seem impossible. And while Only God Can "see" and "Judge you" in terms of what' sinside your head and your influence in the world that nobody else may be able to see, we will be able to measure what you MUST believe in order for GOD to judge your moral character, and the relationship between who you are according to God and who you are with respect to Christ/Imam. Who I cannot prove to be me, but I can prove to MUST EXIST and that IT CAN'T BE ANYONE ELSE. Hence, what I will reveal as MY HEAVENLY NAME will be the one and only geometrical alignment with the COMPLEX'S GRID that makes a PERFECT IMAGE relative to any other human MV, past or future.
IMPORTANT:
Note that this isn't the same as measuring CREATION if you weren't born or didn't exist. It's measuring the different between this very same creation if we erased you from it. Obviously CREATIOn would collapse if that was to happen but it's supposed to identify your purpose as the filling of this GAP left behind that would have made creation impossible as it is right now. Hence the concept of PURPOSE is the english term for the structure of the GAPS created by any MV that we remove. That means that whatever GOD included in the CREATION MV is fulfilling his purpose of filling this gap.
Definition of MVs such as A KNIFE:
Let's shift the conversation to nonhuman NAMES, and ask ourselfves what makes a KNIFE a KNIFE? Or anything non-human what it reallyis?