Language. Subliminal Influence. Caution: This may alter the way you think.

Turkey Dinner


Tur - transurethral resection (a type of surgery where they insert an instrument into one's urethra)

Key - Key


Din - loud and constant noise

Ner - Brother of Kish, father of Abner



So, when eating a turkey dinner, what is really happening is that I'm having a key inserted into my urethra by Ner (father of Abner, brother of Kish) while making loud constant noises.

I suppose I would be making loud noises while that was happening.

Chicken Pot Pie

Chi - the body's natural energy
Ken - Knowledge and understanding

Pot - well... not to violate the T&C, but a lovely lovely thing.

Pie = Pi - 3.14159265358979323846..

So my energy can understand Pi with the help of a little pot....


You know what ET, this is fun. I'm gonna keep with it.

Anagram of "Esoteric Teacher"

I TORE EACH SECRET

how about

A Secret Cite Hero?

or

A Heretic So Erect?

or

Rat Cheese Erotic?

or

Eerie Crotches, Ta.

I might as well add some of mine

Soar as BI

Aria Boss

As is a Bro

How about...

Bar Oasis :w:

Rasobasi420 you missed this one, which seems to tell it all...

RASOBASI420

A SARI 420 SOB (anagram)

SARI=SORRY (sounds like)

A SORRY 420 SOB

[edit on 17-2-2007 by df1]

Esoteric Teacher = Coerce hesitater. or , Tree Theocracies.

Rasobasi = I Arab, SOS!

[edit on 17-2-2007 by Rotator]

Just because it is possible to treat language in such a way that apparent - though implausible - 'messages' or 'hidden meanings' can be discovered by use of a 'decoding' mechanism does not prove or even go much way towards redeeming the plausibility of the assertion that language is, in fact, EN-coded (and your argument relies upon such an encoding if your decoding mechanisms are to be deemed to discover genuine 'codes'). That's why this can never move beyond (extremely) unlikely speculation and word play.

Language manipulation and linguistic similarities are no proof of such (sneaky, and, indeed, esoteric) intelligent design

[edit on 21-2-2007 by granny smith]

[edit on 21-2-2007 by granny smith]

Originally posted by granny smith
implausible - 'messages' or 'hidden meanings'

An anagram of Granny Smith:
* SNARING MYTH

I make to representations as to the accuracy, but it is certainly interesting. And it did grab enough of your attention that it provoked you to post on this subject.

[
An anagram of Granny Smith:
* SNARING MYTH

Nice one (if one ignores the leftover 'n' ), but I'm sure you understand that this is not a 'hidden meaning' or anything of that type in relation to my contribution to this thread, in the sense that it is not en-coded within the username in relation to this thread, even subliminally (it is the working title of a George Harrison song - 'Love You To', I think - on Revolver and I used it to register on a Beatles board way back when .....)

I make to representations as to the accuracy, but it is certainly interesting. And it did grab enough of your attention that it provoked you to post on this subject.

Surely the standard of worth of an idea can't be judged by the fact that people respond to question it's plausibility after it has been tenaciously asserted despite other similar demonstrations of implausibility. That would be a very unfortunate standard of 'worth'. : surely, by that logic, the most worthwhile contributor to a webboard would be the 'argumentative, flame-baiting, troll' .

Saying that, though, kudos to ET for tenacity.


[edit on 24-2-2007 by granny smith]

Originally posted by granny smith

[
An anagram of Granny Smith:
* SNARING MYTH

Nice one (if one ignores the leftover 'n'

)

because it is important to note the difference between the pronunciation of one "n" when compared to the pronunciation of two "n"s.

What is the difference between the pronunciation of "n" and the pronunciation of "nn" ???

, but I'm sure you understand that this is not a 'hidden meaning' or anything of that type in relation to my contribution to this thread, in the sense that it is not en-coded within the username in relation to this thread, even subliminally ...

In order to be sure that the subliminal mind is not encoding language, a prerequisite might be understanding the way the subliminal mind works, the way the mind integrates and develops languages, and the way the body's languages works. I have presented in this thread and others supportive and collaborative material from learned disciplines to include doctors, scribes, and other influencial scientists. I have also demonstrated numerous examples of how implementing exact and defined techniques result in reduntant and repeating patterns. Whether a person chooses to acknowledge and reckognize it as possible or improbable is ultimatley up to the individual, but i contend whether an individual accepts it or not, the subconscious mind which is acknowledging, reckognizing, and accepting this is influencing the conscious mind's actions and behaviors.

Surely the standard of worth of an idea can't be judged by the fact that people respond to question it's plausibility after it has been tenaciously asserted despite other similar demonstrations of implausibility.

for every supposed demonstration of implausibility via minds that are the manifestation of "self pre-serve" and all things attached to that cellular command, certainly minds exist that are not subservant to the instinct that is "I am selfish before i serve anything or anyone" which are seeking truth compliance rather than extending their will upon a shared reality.

For as many times as it can be said that this is implausible, numerous examples can be shown and demonstrated.

Saying that, though, kudos to ET for tenacity.

[edit on 24-2-2007 by granny smith]

I most certainly thank you for your input, and take under consideration your contributions.

Thanks,
john

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
because it is important to note the difference between the pronunciation of one "n" when compared to the pronunciation of two "n"s.

What is the difference between the pronunciation of "n" and the pronunciation of "nn" ???

That's right!!!

YOU GUYS need to say this stuff OUT LOUD (preferably in private ) in order to gain from what ET is so patiently expounding on.

IT works in ways i cannot express! Open your minds and read aloud.

because it is important to note the difference between the pronunciation of one "n" when compared to the pronunciation of two "n"s.

What is the difference between the pronunciation of "n" and the pronunciation of "nn" ???

erm ... the result ceases to be an 'anagram'?

In order to be sure that the subliminal mind is not encoding language, a prerequisite might be understanding the way the subliminal mind works, the way the mind integrates and develops languages, and the way the body's languages works. I have presented in this thread and others supportive and collaborative material from learned disciplines to include doctors, scribes, and other influencial scientists. I have also demonstrated numerous examples of how implementing exact and defined techniques result in reduntant and repeating patterns. Whether a person chooses to acknowledge and reckognize it as possible or improbable is ultimatley up to the individual, but i contend whether an individual accepts it or not, the subconscious mind which is acknowledging, reckognizing, and accepting this is influencing the conscious mind's actions and behaviors.

Sure it is a prerequisite but I think it is jumping the gun to use methods used to 'decode' 'encoded' texts and present the results as 'proof' of anything other than the fact that meanings can be 'constructed' from other meanings in that fashion - this can never demonstrate that language is 'encoded' - why would the subliminal encoding take the esoteric form of the deliberate and structured encoding of ancient texts - which attempted to 'hide' meaning through that method?

For as many times as it can be said that this is implausible, numerous examples can be shown and demonstrated.

I think that this is where rigour breaks down - none of the examples are 'evidence' of 'encoding'.

I most certainly thank you for your input, and take under consideration your contributions.

Why, thank you kind sir. Will you even entertain shifting your paradigm though? - it is seemingly a matter of closure for you. You offer a method which spews forth dubious 'evidence' but it (the method) is not falsifiable - and this is not a virtue for it is the test for a 'pseudo-science' according to Popper - merely highly implausible (which, given the 'pseudo-scientific' claim of the hypothesis is sufficient to dismiss it - life is too short 'y know) .

Good luck though (I really am trying to help)




[edit on 24-2-2007 by granny smith]

Originally posted by granny smith

Sure it is a prerequisite but I think it is jumping the gun to use methods used to 'decode' 'encoded' texts and present the results as 'proof' of anything other than the fact that meanings can be 'constructed' from other meanings in that fashion

i agree, but the methods i present have been present for thousands of years. I'm doing nothing more than applying methods that have been previously accepted by some dating back thousands of years.

the meanings that are extracted are extracted from language, names are created by a fractionalized mind, and names are a reflection of what is transpiring within our fractionalized consciousnesses. Without an individual's willingness to confront what conflicts reside inwards, recognition and acceptance of what is influencing our actions and behaviors and our intentionality can not be recognized or accepted as true consciously. And without that variable, the basis for comparison will be tainted so long as we are not consciously aware of what effects our subconscious mind has on the development of language.

- this can never demonstrate that language is 'encoded' - why would the subliminal encoding take the esoteric form of the deliberate and structured encoding of ancient texts - which attempted to 'hide' meaning through that method?

i can only assume, necessity. But, if i were to speak for the subliminal mind, first i would have to know the contradictions it is quantifying.

For as many times as it can be said that this is implausible, numerous examples can be shown and demonstrated.

I think that this is where rigour breaks down - none of the examples are 'evidence' of 'encoding'.

this may be opinion. Where you neither acknowledge or recognize patterns, many do.

If everything named by a fractionalized mind has only one possible interpretation, why do people dissagree upon the meanings of language?

The fact that we dissagree upon the meaning and origin of words provides proof that different meanings within words exists, or else there would be no problems with communications between humans.

Why, thank you kind sir. Will you even entertain shifting your paradigm though? - it is seemingly a matter of closure for you.

It is not closure for myself i seek. Empathy, Love, and Truth choose my paradigm.

You offer a method which spews forth dubious 'evidence' but is not falsifiable -

I offer nothing that has not existed, and known, for thousands of years.

The method you think i offer, is in accordance and compliance with holy scripture.

go spell gospell.

(I really am trying to help)

as am i. which is why i am not proving it. Free Will.

Yes, but the methods you use would be valid only as mechanisms to decode texts that have been en-coded according to those methods - we are back to my starting point : without en-coding, de-coding is wishful thinking.

(Round and round the garden
Like a Teddy bear
Once step, two step
... Tickle under there .)


[edit on 24-2-2007 by granny smith]

Originally posted by granny smith
Yes, but the methods are to decode texts that have been en-coded according to those methods - we are back to my starting point.

I agree. If some mechanism has encoded language/words then decoding language/words for "hidden" truths and meanings would require decoding the texts by the same means that they were encoded by.

So, if meanings do exist within the words and languages, we must determine what methods were utilized to encode ... or ....

find truth compliance within our own subconscious minds in order to observe how the subconscious mind effects the development of language, if at all.

I am trying to be both delicate and gentle, and i am not attempting to prove this phenomenon as true, but rather explore the possibility that those who were sure of such a thing may not have been mislead when suggesting such a phenomenon exists.

I see a certain level of truth in this, or i would have let it go long ago.

Deep within the recesses of the subconscious mind, could it be that a voice contends with the information i am sharing, true or false?

what would such a voice say? Som thing simple, and short?

Noise You Lie, perhaps?

Noise = Nois
You = U
Lie = Li

Nois U Li

noisuli[mirror]ilusion or Illusion???


Or, we could just ignore it .....
ignore=shun

Ill, you shun.
ill u shun

[edit on 24-2-2007 by Esoteric Teacher]

so today there was this speaker who came to our school.
so blah blahblah

he gets to this poem that his daughter wrote about her friend.

So one part of the poem that intrigued me was the dash. She's refering to the dash on a tomb stone when a person dies. How it is the dash that's most important, how the person lived and so on...

ex: bob joe
1902-1954

^^So the dash in between. So remembering this topic in the presentation i just played around with the word abit

pronounce "the dash" backwards

sorta sounds like....shadeth? or somesort

now shadeth sounds like what? Shadow?

so in someway , the dash, our lives between our birth and death is a shadow?

in someway, you can think of a shadow as an illusion, it's created by light simply put. Example? shapes of various things we can do with our hand shadows.

So i kinda got freaked out when i got this in the auditorium. That our life is an illusion of somekind



[Edit] I remember another one. It was in science class, we were watching a video on atoms on the show bill nye the science guy

so anyways, atoms, are the building block of all matter.

atom sounds like Adam (referring to Adam & Eve)

now i'm not educated much on the bible, however, in a away, can Adam be considered the building block of men? as in the base of all man kind? the first human? or something...



[edit on 27-2-2007 by thedespondent]

--------------- confirmation bias

the phenomenon known as confirmation bias, whereby subjects systematically seek only evidence that confirms their hypotheses


--------------- Honest evidence:

assume nothing (or even assume the oposite of what u trying to prove, to see if evidence stands up to scruitiny,)

assume nothing -----> look at ev ----> FROM the EVIDENCE the best conclusion is drawn (without any need for pre made asumptions or theorys)


--------------- mental brainwashing technique / conman technique:


Present the theory first (assumption) ----- > find many examples that match your theory (superficial "evidence") ----> belief in theory is reinforced

even thoo no actual proof was presented, the large number of superficial evidence will create the ilusion of lots of proof
(since the proposer of the theory doesnt forget to supply lots of supeficial evidence, he creates a case of confirmation bias on steroids)


The way to combat the conman technique is to present examples that dont match the proposed theory (things that prove it false)

Ex: the sky isblue because it reflects the ocean.

The sky is blue even above large land masses, and is not green above forests.

Theory disproven.


--------------- about this thread

there are plenty of examples by other posters above that disprove the theory presented in this thread.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by randomguy]