Archiv für Mai 2012

Love bubble b_oo_p °ff

As I minded the refrain of classical heterogeneous relationships with ‚yes‘ and ‚no’s as ridiculous mindset against ’safer sex‘ in eviction against dominate abuse of ‚aliens‘ called ‚virus‘ and path_nausea math cancer the threat as bi_furniture promise commencement in parameters of bi_white fucking BDSM,..the frame will be never mentioned as ‚freedom of choice‘ for time windows of naked aped genitals.

Dismillah Bel


My pier_cing of honor!


Allah/al_Lath is vegan!

Lyrics with a Φφ

No‘lympx and the secrecy of States Special Unitz…

*sigh* I‘m arguing against justification, not induction.

„Justified“ is a highly ambiguous term with no precise definition, no universally agreed upon standard (except within certain rule-based systems, such as formal logics, math, and procedural systems.)

Apart from such systems, whether or not a given belief is justified is a matter of judgment, and commonly the criteria on which such judgments are based are not mutually agreed upon. One person’s judgment produces „justified“ while another person’s produces „not-justified.“

Therefore, when there is dispute about whether or not a given belief is justified, each party to the dispute needs to skip over the term and explain their reasons for accepting or for rejecting the belief at issue. Agreement about whether or not a given belief is justified reduces to agreement that certain criteria have been satisfied, and that these criteria are sufficient. If there is disagreement about which criteria are sufficient and/or about whether or not they have been satisfied, then each party can present reasons for or against the necessity or sufficiency of the criteria. There is no universally accepted resolution to such disagreements, rough.

As SDC mentioned, reliability is often the issue. That is, commonly, what we want is to increase the probability that the belief is reliable, so we select criteria we believe will enhance reliability.

Tali-PoP…th‘x_cryst_ian skiffle band//gang destoia by iSe_grim!


Love Breakingz: News from post_fascist Hamburg

As summer is heating up, the mirrors riffraff of seizures and measures roles the streets for kinkz and queens, the suggestion is: My crumbling back to the Crustpunk garden, where my twin has backtracked with Judges his diplomacy into my Jail time and Psy_pene__Traitions,…or more the Hip Hop flavor of lotta bridals with one word and the pi flushes on in all sudden situations and possibilities as sex positive_Ism could strive the neck of political conservatism out.

Or some homo//poly_stuff to say after 14 years in agencies sexual incomes a greater fuck off, and wait t_ill verb changes and new paragraphs hindsight some real friends who a.n.n. hu_M[animal] could sniff snuff as relatives?

A big Pak question the term love without dope and beer…



As next…

I must make[…fall] love in a whole warm measure out of single mind pet. The punk bow libyain me has to many failures…


PS. the fucking clinical hygiene of all what Germany left radical scenes asses[t]!

…the crusty love empowerment against the homo_national core to the swift teardrop of pastings.

One beer for good Mr. Allah


Why the oTTo’skill is much more then chaos in theory

As I have a wishful evening at my favorites in Hamburgs harbor,…thanx to the Indian mariners chord,… the Punk lyrical frame and all the creative normads of sub urban catechize is merged by all that room’s Taqwa whores, as I like to return the Wu of beef the Trans_Asian through Latin Americas snuff,…I‘ll be back in chaos and submerged allies of UFO parts the poor people of color gives me there at a place…

HeArtcore at its best!

To[o] use Wittgenstein as my able_Ism chord of flirty the mind back in the days:

Why is the world bedrock in terms of the way we form basic beliefs or bedrock beliefs? The reason seems to be intimately connected with the way in which the mind first comes in contact with the world. There is no doubting and no knowledge at this level of discovery. It’s just the mind (or brain) coming into direct contact with the world around us through sense experience. This is where it all starts (this is bedrock), i.e., where the brain forms very basic non-propositional beliefs. Thus why the world around us is considered bedrock. Moreover, this also explains why beliefs at this level are causally formed, i.e., there is a causal relationship between the world and my mind through sense experience. The seeing, feeling, smelling, tasting, and hearing of the world causes my brain to react in a way that affects my behavior, which is why one’s actions show what non-propositional beliefs we have at this level. I learn that I can move through space by walking or moving certain parts of my body, and I do this without understanding the concepts connected to language. Remember there are no concepts at this level of discovery. There are concepts that describe what is taking place, but that only comes later in the process of learning a language.

Of course if one thinks only of beliefs in terms of propositions/statements, then this will present a problem. But if you come to understand that beliefs are simply states of mind, and that we use language to communicate these states to others, then it may be easier to understand how beliefs can be non-propositional. How do we know that the mind is in a particular state? We observe the state by observing the actions associated with that state of mind.

Again the ability to share one’s state of mind or one’s thoughts comes later in the development of language and the concepts that follow.

It might even be said that both the world and the mind make up what is bedrock to basic beliefs. There is nothing more basic or fundamental than this, unless we could get outside the mind or outside the world.

Once we understand this process, then we come to understand what kinds of beliefs are beyond knowing and beyond doubting. These are Wittgenstein’s hinge propositions. Thus we start with non-doubting behavior before there can be doubting behavior. One cannot proceed without this being the case. Doubting behavior is logically linked with non-doubting behavior in a way that shows us how these words are used in certain contexts and not in others (as with Britcore propositions).

What are the implications of these kinds of basic or bedrock beliefs on epistemology? One of the implications is that there are a set of beliefs that are outside of any epistemic considerations. However, one cannot simply name these beliefs and say categorically that they are bedrock. What makes them bedrock is the context. In some contexts they are not bedrock – in other contexts they are. Britcore propositions are examples of bedrock beliefs, which is why Wittgenstein criticizes Britcore as beefy use of the word „know“ in relation to these kinds of beliefs (hinge propositions); and it is also why Wittgenstein gives examples where such beliefs do fall into our normal epistemic language-games. Anim[al_Qaeda] the question of where justification ends is answered if we understand how these beliefs are formed, and more importantly, how it is that these kinds of beliefs are outside the language of epistemology. Therefore, epistemology rests on that which is not knowledge, and it rests on that which cannot be reasonably doubted. Finally, it also solves the circularity problem, because these beliefs again are not within our language-game of justification. These kinds of bedrock beliefs are epistemically neutral.

I‘ll hope I can take a wheety joint again with all the love oTTo have!


PS: On June 23rd MC Gato will marry the creepy dope Mexican X through NYC’s Bronx frames! See ya at Centro Sociale…