Instead of these links which are originals, the text on this page has been revised; scroll down. Check if you are ready to read the page. Phocomelia, distinguishing, related to the mother, Psychoanalysis, Jesus was a Silhouette.
XVR Available (difficult reading)
https://gevluef.wordpress.com/2007/04/15/phenomenology/
Phenomenology
I am going to discuss my personal views about someone who is very important to me; Merleau-Ponty. From my first recollection, I did not like Ponty. The fact is those feelings guaranteed me an automatic ‘F’. I can tell that I have made progress in my opinion since – as evidence by my erasure of comments in the margins of his greatest work: Eye and Mind.
So I cleaned up my copy of his essay. Merleau-Ponty who was a French Philosopher wrote about the Master French painter Cezanne. After Ponty passed away in the early sixties, his works were translated into English. The translator, Carleton Dallery used a number of writing styles to achieve an effective and purposeful study for the English speaking scholar to learn about Cezanne. The consequences for my strong feelings against Merleau-Ponty at that first reading are not outside of the realm of possibilities for any reader. It might be the case that Carleton Dallery at the expense of being perceived as not knowing a certain detail about Cezanne, embedded a critical idea which does not come to fruition in order to affect the reader with strong feelings. Not however, but particularly for Ponty, space has taken on a kind of identity. I have had difficulty overcoming my initial opinion and further hold by some fault of my own I have come up short on wits. Thus I must reason I had at that time the condition about which I have already talked about a necessity for agreement. This is in keeping with my latter readings, and I want to reassure Dick Tracy that I like Maurice Merleau-Ponty and that I understand his essay; I admit it is a great work.
You are a fool! So, you say you like Maurice Merleau-Ponty, but you have changed. Why you don’t convict him for your disposition?
Well, I will tell you, my friend, Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s English translation has as a remedy something called a Rhinoplasty. This is a Plastic Surgery correcting the Septum from deviation. These were his last words, ‘you have your whole life ahead of you.’ I got a Rhinoplasty. It has been the single most enlightening procedure of my Life.
If you are able to sustain a frame of mind on that of a person whose fingers are stubby, you will learn. There are a number of builds that are available to muse with; all of which raises your social status. I am telling you this because there is a reason that a Dominant Gene results in a Conscience. The Dominant Genes of this particular type in a person who has one from each parent, results in a disorder, called Phocomelia, and which causes a birth defect of the arms and hands. Phocomelia literally means Flippers. The genetic disposition, I am calling a Disorder, includes the making of the Conscience where there is only one Dominant Gene of which it is the same type. Here the Idea is that you get your genes from your parents. This is a normal condition to have one, or to have both Recessive. The infamous Luke Skywalker was Recessive-Recessive; “Use the Force Luke”. And this very issue which sadly Maurice Merleau-Ponty did not correctly develop for some reason, is a Distinguishing component of socialization.
When the Philosopher says existentially NO!; it is to be a distinguishing threshold in which we enlightened the path to Fame. For example you would not want a person with a conscience to read the news or write lyrics for an album unless the person were able to overcome the present with new material. What you have said about my acceptance of Maurice Merleau-Ponty is probably a thought disorder.
To make this situation which I have built in thought whole, I just want to mention that there is another reading of David Hume. His thoughts mostly have been about the good of determination. But if you needed an advocate for your applied distinguishing activity, which I have said is Genetic, Hume has the correct thinking for a free minded person of a general nature to be an advocate. So, on the basis that this issue is Genetic, I conclude that there will be NO changes in the thinking process – no fear. I say this and I expect you to believe that you are who you are ever since conception. Now, haven’t I been a nuisance, a person should not have Fear? And haven’t I just given you a good reason to teach Hume even though his works only seem to fit with a certain type of a person?
If for some reason, the little friendship that Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Jean-Paul Sartre had while the editors of the magazine in France the prejudice against Maurice Merleau-Ponty still went without address, his reason is there really is something to see: and I am referring to Phenomenology. Maurice Merleau-Ponty would have been the president of that little organization of Cosmonauts.
Now, I have a little bit of house keeping to do for Maurice Merleau-Ponty that I haven’t addressed elsewhere. While Maurice Merleau-Ponty had a driver which never came to fruition. I have mentioned it earlier, there is a confusion about which gene he is referring to. Let me say that when I was referring to a Dominant Gene, it is conceivable the inherited dominant gene for conscience could have come from either parent and not just the Father. Though he did not speak of it, he was all the while referring to another Gene; it was a driver to get a person to have strong feelings. In the Philosophical work Eye and Mind, which he is best known for and which he sort of built a little engine “see”, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, though I do not believe it today, there is a tendency to confuse the gene for sex with the gene for conscience. Recall that Maurice Merleau-Ponty mostly ignored the prompting from Sartre about the Genetic issue. So, when the prejudicial perspective that Sartre would have prompted him about in their years together came up, Maurice Merleau-Ponty probably extended his most highest held belief, to see, in the instance that it is restricted to that of the spirit of the Father. In the case of the Fathers Gene, the Genetic issue is in regards to the twenty-third Chromosome determining a person’s sex. In a remedy, from the religious point of view involving the Holy Trinity, after thoughts (God willing), the Father could have a high degree of influence over his children’s cognitive abilities. Here I want to mention that this is as much a disparity as that of the twenty-second Chromosome which determines conscience. So, even though I have been square about a Distinguishing social issue, the presiding gene, I have had to bring into the discussion a matter of articulation of Maurice Merleau-Pontys emphasis as having a gene that could inconceivably been inherited from the Mother as well as from the Father. It is the Holy Trinity case the Philosopher Spinoza had as a good Catholic. Maurice Merleau-Ponty merely casted into time for a collection of intelligent substance with which seeing would be the basis of a Phenomenology without the context involving the gene for sexual orientation.
I seem to have uncovered a matter of confusion. If you wish to think about this issue look at XVR and Comments to XVR
Comments to XVR
February 21, 2008
There is some question as to just what is the XVR page. Some visitors are wondering about the situation. I read the page today and I think that there is a lot of evidence presented, and that the reader is expected to make an integral. So, let us take a survey of the situation.
First, the distinguishing definition that prefaces the comparison of Sartre and Ponty could also refer to one of the governing rights, though on it’s way out, a Creed. That issue is coming to a realization by both global warming and government complications. Keep in mind that though it seems like I have spelled things out, that it is really a difficult exercise to realize that Hume has his value in support for people who would be recessively oriented rather than dominant in nature. That should be a Huzza for Hume!!
Okay, now that the genetic issue is being discussed, I bring to the discussion the differentiation of Sartre and Ponty. And, from that passage in XVR the intended message is that Ponty’s little engine “see” is designed to see only those indiscernible objects which will never fully come into being. Familiar? Yes. Ponty was developing for only the most treasured events of Phenomenology. At the time of writing XVR, I realized that Ponty was not clear about what relative “see” it is that was supposed to satisfy his engine. I reasoned, thankfully that see would not hurt me, the genetic issue made most sense when I imagined he was referring to the twenty-third chromosome; inheritance of Sexual orientation; XY. So the reader has to read for the distinction of the Sartre and Ponty discussion. And most notably that Ponty may have been attracted to another gene on the basis that it was controversial; the twenty-second chromosome. A tall order for a philosopher whose best work is less than fifty pages.
From another direction, Sartre was a major person in the self actualization for people to sort of understand their seeing character. I am really not very well learned about Sartre’s philosophy. I do know that he must have been very patient with Ponty and served in the clutch for most of the time. He refused his award. I am sure he will eventually resolve his need to get that interesting psychology term for the seeing person involved in the Ponty circumstance. Recall that Ponty was writing about Paul Cezanne. And since the situation was that of the naturally recessing genetic disposition, Sartre remains naturally curious. Is it a “Pay Stub?”
The question remains in the XVR page how does any of this relate to the X or the R when the passage doesn’t ever mention the basic facts that are predicating the philosophers. I hope on the outside there is a suspicion that XVR is a correct title by intuition alone. I am not going to worry about it. I feel that there is enough said without having doubt about the way in which a decision such as XVR is decided.
XVR available
Posted on May 25, 2009
The first thing to sort out is the thought disorder. The thought disorder is the, “my way is best,” approach to socialization. The person is distinguishing traits of the governing-self. Some people get it and some don’t. One might say, those that don’t get it are inferior. There are a number of ways to approach this thought disorder. The reason I am calling this method of socialization a thought disorder is by the outcome – Fear that a person could change their self governing disposition. But, there are no possible changes because it is a genetic trait.
The above Thought Disorder sounds like the dominant disposition. A person’s aptitude to be famous hinges on their freedom and truth about the world and not so much about their family. Assume that you can prevent a thought disorder simply by acknowledging the distinguishing person recognizes two traits of the governing-self; one by the “dictates of conscience” and another by conditions of fitness and marketability. So, let’s say diversity exists and you are not trying to fix someone unlike yourself, that the famous person’s conscience is what there is to be learned.
I hope there is something more than, “my way is best.” Recognition of diversity brings the essential distinguishing judgment as to Conscience to plurality. I must concede that there are social conditions like, “my way is best.” I hope to avoid anyone, in a sort of thought disorder, where there is fear that something could be broken. I don’t know how to explain this to such a person, because to sort it out it requires a familiar relation. If I were to trust my feelings, I must tell the story of the birds and the bees. Personally I do not want to have a familiar relationship with anyone on this criteria. Along these lines however, there is Conception. The disposition was set at conception, the genetic make-up is Dominant or Recessive, and the disposition is permanent. There will be no changes in the conscience; it is the inherited genetic information that is established from the beginning as a large Gene or a smaller Gene. From understanding the plurality of possible traits of the governing-self, it is my hope to prevent a thought disorder.
Later in this page, I will be discussing Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Jean Paul Sarte. I will not speculate as to the self-governing dispositions of these Philosophers. But this discussion about the conscience continues, and it is important that this possible thought disorder be discussed first. I will get more and more specific about which gene is doing this, so be patient.
The reader of David Hume (I’m choosing not to site him because my opinion of him is nothing more than a reason to teach him in school; the reason, it turns out, is that there is a higher reading) might do more then dismiss his musings as self absorbed in determination. Though it is most commonly an issue of determination; where determination is to be understood as a general term of a certain type, Hume’s discussion gets interesting in support for the weaker self-governing disposition – if we are still distinguishing. This could be a reason Hume is still taught in school. Hume’s Philosophy is supportive for those people whose governing-self are free spirited. He seems to have been in support for the distinguishing disposition of those who are not limited to Existential constraints.
Sartre criticized Maurice Merleau-Ponty on the grounds that he did not take enough care to establish this genetic compositional account as a matter of technicality. And so now there is an entire class of people who have rejected Maurice Merleau-Ponty philosophy on the grounds that his philosophy is a danger. The point that Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy need not ever fully exist does nothing because he built the most amazing little engine “see.” I guess people were either scared out of their witt’s or else developed a Thought Disorder. The advanced reader of Maurice Merleau-Ponty with or without correct thinking will resolve with his work on rare occasions when there really is something to see!
I do not know for certain if Sartre ever really became comfortable with Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy. Sartre’s approach is almost categorically all together the same as Maurice Merleau-Ponty, where the emphasis is on see. Seeing for them was in need of philosophical attention. These Guy’s were doing philosophy in the sixties. Sartre lived until 1984. They were co-editors for Les Temps Modernes. They probably talked to each other every day. While Maurice Merleau-Ponty pours over a huge breath of historical philosophy with the outcome literally “to see,” he establishes an authoritative and familial relation as Philosophical. Sartre was making the see an incremental matter of iterations and due to exposure corrective revisions and on and on – I’m guessing to become a secret.
‘Eye and Mind’ trans. by Carleton Dallery in The Primacy of Perceptioned. by James Edie (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1964), 159-190. Revised translation by Michael Smith in The Merleau-Ponty Aesthetics Reader (1993), 121-149.
Sartre’s approach was of a general nature in dealing with see, there were lots of iterations which were sufficient. He would have been satisfied for a scenario to have a characteristic. And with more practice he would be especially happy for the see to have become an expression. I have to point out that in so far as in a case of the natural law the scene could be indemnified with a thickness of thought, that these transformational characteristics have an expiration date.
Time being the part which without common knowledge of a general nature a scene would not come into fullness. All this means is that Sartre was working with lighter pieces of matter. There was an instance of something that Sartre would have accepted. A metaphor eventually falls from it’s popularity. Lets build it again. Imagine a debit for some reason see would have a richness and thickness of thought. This seeing as an instance of the existence of knowledge; for Sartre would be taken as truth; surely one could discuss this– but with who? I think Sartre would appreciate an occasional “game played” or a little too much pay-stub. There are the many instances that Sartre’s ideas were acceptable. I ask that you recall the Unsecured Credit Offers you received in the mail in the late nineties. The most marvelous piece to those unsecured credit offers was the expiration date! Are people still getting those?
At a great cost to the reader the essentials of Maurice Merleau-Ponty will be overlooked. Maurice Merleau-Ponty surveyed a great breath in the historical perspective of Philosophy in order to secure just and satisfactorily “see.” I hope with good intentions that Maurice Merleau-Ponty will remain that exclusive group of people who are authoritative and adept at learning. In so far as getting identified from some sort of appeal, a person will have at their disposal some relevant context quick so as to not notice the many changes people make in thoughts; see in this elusive way is the rank and file. Maurice Merleau-Ponty probably has a long list of people whose needs include the stuff of the most amazing proceeding of see, and in Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s context those who want to see in his philosophical way. Does Sartre accept an occasional resolve in spite of the many celebrations of see; the pointer, the art, the politics, the procedure, the emotion. Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s engine “see” never expires.
I have attempted to show the similarities and differences of Sartre and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. I hope this has been helpful. I do not know where you can get the supposition on genetics. But, I would never discuss these Guys without having mentioned it. Assuming you’ve got something to think about I can’t leave my discussion without saying that Philosophy has been long undisturbed since it’s official ending of “Philosophy” with Spinoza. So, it is pretty much slim pickens for getting underneath the surface of things without stumbling onto someone from Philosophy’s rich history. That just about covers it. God willing is there nothing that hasn’t been looked at philosophically? It would have to be something really specific. I hate the idea of jesting that there is a hole somewhere: Fix the Dogs and Bears. Well, since China will have the reigns before long, leave me off at photography.
My reader should consider this permalink to a posting on CQ1010: Phenomenology. I argue that Maurice Merleau-Ponty was using the Jeff Genetics issue on the basis that it was controversial. He did not know that it leads to confusion about his priorities. I conclude that the only thing that Maurice Merleau-Ponty cared about was the particular matter of see. That would be a distinct idea of the mind and it’s relation to Spinoza. Did you think that Spinoza would have liked to have had a container for those who have seen the sign of fortress?
About The Conscience
Posted on May 27, 2012
I have written about differentiation, however the reader would have had to have read some of my earlier posts to know I have already said some stuff on the conscience. Well, I will mention it again. This post is on differentiating the conscience.
The twenty-second chromosome exists in a dominant and recessive trait. The people with more interaction with the world, have more information to process, or feel strongly about a certain idea have a dominant trait for the twenty-second chromosome.
The reason this gene is responsible for our conscience is because it is possible for a person to inherit a dominant gene from both parents. It causes a genetic disorder known as phocomelia. The dominant-dominant disposition is very assertive. It is like the parent’s consciences together in one body. As you can see I’ve been begotten. But, this genetic disorder fuels the differentiation process. We think stuff about our selves because we also have the same twenty-second chromosome and are affected by the person with phocomelia.
People with a recessive disposition for the twenty-second chromosome also work correctly. They trust their own feelings and make decisions from within. They’re a free spirit.
It is common to have one dominant gene and one recessive gene – one from each parent. It is also common to inherit two recessive genes. The phocomelia is not common. Out of the rare occasions when the dominant-dominant disposition survives the assertiveness in one body of the parent’s consciences, that offspring mostly always has the blood-type AB.
So, some things fall into place. It is conceivable for this text to explain mental illness. A person could suffer indirectly from phocomelia more particularly than normal. It also depends on the kind of mental illness depending on their particular dispositions of the same twenty-second chromosome.
Now I have said my peace as to the conscience and differentiation.
Government and Conscience
Posted on May 31, 2012
This illustration is not a code. The architecture of the government is based on the phocomelia genetic disorder. Phocomelia is explained in About The Conscience.
Like B and b denoted the dominant and recessive traits for eye color, the letters in this picture denote the dominant and recessive dispositions for conscience. This is a particular build for a person learning about phocomelia.
When Thomas Jefferson designed this he believed that the people with mal formed hands were the basis for primary and secondary qualities and that they are responsible for Democracy.
The primary quality that he was after was the recessive-recessive disposition for conscience in relation to a person with phocomelia. The secondary qualities were everyone else affected by that primary quality. It is also possible for the primary quality person to have a dominant-recessive disposition for conscience; but, that would be an entirely different governmental build. Thomas Jefferson had a serious belief that the primary and secondary qualities were based on people and how they feel things.
Last Word On Conscience
Posted on June 7, 2012
I wrote that I’m loosing my girlfriends due to a function of the work of Art titled 46605 in an earlier post – differentiation; but, now in this last two posts I wrote about differentiation of the conscience. I know I’m not getting anywhere with it. I’m a primary quality whose mental illness manifests in an understandable way. I just wanted to acknowledge the differentiation function in terms other than what a girl’s natural process has within. The truth that it is no big deal is perhaps better understood by young people who wouldn’t appreciate my painting’s nature.
Revisiting Zola
Posted on July 21, 2012
F2 & F3
Tim Yates is a person from my past. His purpose is destructive because he has schizophrenia. The person with phocomelia that he is particular to is Chrissy Shultz from Downey California. She is very disillusioned that Tim is obsessed about me. It is important to keep in mind that he has a mental disorder and that he is managing because knowing about me has a therapeutic outcome.
The reason he is respected is because he is the will for Rick Hilton. I would expect his writing to be lucidly written. He is my enemy. I hope that my people do not deal with Tim Yates; I have enough problems without him.
Did you want to get another more reliable source in getting to know Tim? Why not try watching the TV show M*A*S*H* for more.
Pompejanischer
Posted on July 21, 2012
This is an important picture I found on the internet that explains the difference between Schizo-affective mental illness and the Schizophrenia disorder. Please visit this important wiki_picture. I’m scared to put it up on my blog because the citations are international.
This comment is about a disjunctive property relating to a possibility. After looking at this picture, where do you think staff should apply a disjunctive disposition?
Retrospective Conscience
Posted on October 14, 2012
I’ve been thinking about the therapeutic process. Most of the stuff out there is psychoanalysis. Freud must have been concerned with the twenty-second chromosome. Mostly in the case for the dominant trait for conscience as it is passed on from the mother. What I think might not agree with what I’ve said about Freud in the past, but my mom didn’t have a dominant gene. She was recessive in chromosome number 22. That means I might not be the most ideal patient for psychoanalysis.
Now there is a female with phocomelia where I am particularly interesting. The cause of phocomelia is when a child inherits two dominant genes for conscience; one from each parent. This genetic disposition is so assertive that it mars the body, and thus the deformity of the hands and arms. Because this dominant-dominant trait of the twenty-second chromosome is so assertive those babies that do survive are most often of the blood-type AB. There is a Schizophrenia or Schizo-affective Mental Illness in this story, but I’m trying to make a case for psychoanalysis. I wouldn’t say that much about my mother like Freud did with many of the people he studied, but everything pretty much revolves around Leila. This is a no brainer for me, but for a therapist, it is only as easy as finding the language to clinically express my condition. It is not an inheritance issue. In fact I did not inherit a dominant gene for conscience from either parent; I’m recessive like my mom. That is why I ultimately believe that I’m Schizo-affective. At the very least I can say that I have a diagnosis. It is a good start since I am in therapy and the clinician has to start somewhere.
Using the letter F or f, show the build for the mother-daughter. No wonder Freud was a do; thats too many girls!
I started out saying I’m not predisposed for psychoanalysis, but on further consideration I realize that having a mental health diagnosis is an awfully good start.
In the blog I have written a lot about the conscience and that is why I have called this a retrospective.
Silhouette
Posted on January 22, 2013
One of the last major achievements to get is Jesus; he was a silhouette. It should be the first achievement though. My reader needs to get prepared to understand mental illness. I’m not saying that Jesus had a mental illness, but in the posts that I have already written, I talk about distinguishing the conscience. And, so the reader should be aware that one of the sacred mysteries of Jesus will unfold. He was a silhouette.
The basic understanding should be that Jesus was the son. That is the important and correct way to understand; because if you want to say that his father was God, you have to admit that you have an understanding of a genetic disorder called phocomelia. Jesus was the son. That is the final way of understanding the phocomelia difficulty; through the son. The masses will accept the son appropriately because trying to understand phocomelia was too difficult for an earlier time.
The disorder manifests in cunning and baffling ways. Imagine that the father had phocomelia and that Jesus inherited some genes from his father. There is two genes of which Jesus got one of them where the phocomelia disorder was passed on as a dominant trait. Later in this blog I talk about distinguishing genetic traits of the conscience. But the most profound insight is that Jesus could never discern which dominant gene he inherited. Only that he was a silhouette of the two dominant genes that his father possessed in which his father had a genetic disorder now called phocomelia.
If you do not understand, please be patient. This blog will teach you. All you have to get now is that Jesus was a silhouette. Later on after you have read about the conscience and you rethink this little tidbit about Jesus, it will excite you. The amazing part about what you will discover is that this knowledge strengthens your faith. You will think that Jesus is a super human. That he was the son is a sacred mystery after all. You will have more insight into your faith. Jesus was a silhouette.
40 PERCENT 
