Hidden Flaws Of Large & Small Numbers Reveal A LotPI Part 8w of 10Unity Consciousness #3341

(9azzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzx of 11)

Time to re-flip the script of logic that has us tripped up, continuously tripping, thinking large only means big and bigger, while small only means little and littler.

The larger the number, the smaller the unit size, and the other way around.

2 is larger than 1 because 2 represents more divisions. Yet 2 is also smaller because two divisions means each division is a smaller portion of the whole, thus a smaller unit size. For the same reason, 100 is larger than 1 but also smaller. But wait, 1 cent is smaller than 100 cents, but 1 cent is the same size as each of the 100 cents. Of course 1 penny is smaller than 1 dollar in both size and value, even though, by the numbers, 1 and 1 are equal.

We must be more careful when using words such as large and small and then attaching a meaning to it because we view it as large or small.
Same carefulness must also be exercised with words such as weak and strong, flexible and inflexible, better and worse, greater and lesser, first and last, more and less and so on it goes for any words born as conjoined twin powers, then separated. A few of many more cousin khusen sibling semblances in this same family are bottom and top, lower and upper.
Is the bottom of your foot better or worse than the bottom of your hand? Are feet on the bottom, lesser than head on the top? If two heads are better than one, then aren't two feet better than one head? Is it better to go feet first or head first?

We can now see more clearly how the hidden flaw of small and large numbers is not limited to small, large or numbers.
We must return our focus to reinforce the initial point of this message.
2 is larger than 1 because because 2 is more repetitions, more duplications., more replications (keper-tepru-nui). 1 is smaller for the opposite reason.

What is large in one context is not large in another context. Yes your big toe is larger in size but it is certainly no better or worse for being such a toe than any of the other four.
What is large in one context does not have the same meaning in another context, a large nose for a human is not the same as a large nose for an elephant. No elephant has a large nose within the context of elephants, but they do when we compare them to other creatures.
It's really weird when humans are offended by, and also try to offend others by saying “you have the big head” meaning you are arrogant, meaning your thinking and behavior is abrasive at best and abusive at worst. Meanwhile, humans love to think of themselves as being more intelligent due to having bigger brains than other creatures. Like flawed fools, we expect to have a big brain but not a big head, which is why we do lots of other incongruous schizophrenic things such as trying to cram self-identity into a visual box, yet while proclaiming self as great, based on a supposedly fully formed mental assessment of our limited visual sensing ability.
This flaw goes as far at it can go when humans also keep trying to force the supreme being into a human box, while at the same time, proclaiming their version of the supreme being is greater than everything, yet those same humans are unable to mature enough to allow their supreme being to transcend their limited human thinking.

Free God From Your Facade

We keep starting with one form of the flaw, that then expands into other forms of the same flaw. So once again we return to the flaw based on numbers.
Would you rather build your house using 10,000,000 toothpicks or 1,000 logs?
Would you rather build your house using an uncut sequoia, redwood and cypress, or 5,000 pieces of wood cut from those same 3 trees?
By the way, if you build a house out of trees, isn't that the same as a tree house?
And don't you know other primates build houses in trees?
Don't birds do the same?
How about any number of insects?

What all this is telling us is that what basis we use is important.
The overall basis and underlying basis and surrounding basis and all-encompassing basis is our utamawazo worldview context.
This worldview basis guides us in alignments and misalignments of information, that are used by us to create logic statements, most of which, more often than not, are incomplete thoughts.

We can clean out our cache of space-consuming corrupt logic, gain life clarity by settling the differences between our internal logic disputes (justified contradictions called convictions and causing afflictions). This clean-your-dirtied-house process starts by making the choice to remain conscious of the nuances of meanings attached to small and large.
When large and small are as they should be, they are what is needed. When either exists out of proportion and sync to what is needed, then they are dysfunctional.

Thus, for example, the racist collectives of humans, countries and their institutions are large in number and societal power; however they are small in relation to larger numbers and larger powers; yet they are neither large nor small, but rather the appropriate size for what is needed to cause defect, aberration and destruction as part of the upheaval and fulfillment portion of the need-want incentive ever-changing algorithm. Thus their size matters for better and worse. A primary example of this is when darkness or lightness become the largest condition, both are for better and worse.
A second example is the womb becoming larger and smaller when needed.
A third example is the cell remaining in create ameliorate mode until the time comes to switch to self-destruct deteriorate cancer mode.

We move close to conclusion using numbers called fractions that are written with a decimal point.
Think of a number such as 1.1 as meaning “1 after a certain point and 1 before a certain point.”
1 is 1. and 1.0 and is viewed as larger than 0.1 and .1. 1.0 is the hidden base pair. 1.1 is the hidden part of the pair now revealing itself as beginning to replicate itself to create another 1 by first creating a 0.1, the seed of the mirror image behind the scenes, behind the point of return which is the point of no return, nu return, new return, nun return and nonreturnable.

Yet, when 1.0 and 0.1 are viewed together as one number, 1.1, neither is larger or smaller, greater or lesser, whole or fraction. The number is the number. It is what it is. The it from is still is it.
Thus when two or more things are united, truly kherrekhly connected in unity consciousness, our logic flaws are able to be seen using lowlight, highlight and twilight (high point, low point, middle ground), thus enables us to see our flaws in their true teriu light so we can eliminate them and liberate ourselves. This allows us to take the frontloaded and toploaed pressure on our spirit wings, reshape those forces and shift them to the back and underneath.

What I Believe Is Why I Can't Fly.
What I Know Is Why I Can.

Three more examples to make sure we understand this last paragraph.
Firstly, if all women were truly united based on gender, their already divisive self-limiting logic flaws would not hinder their efforts to achieve equality based on gender.
Likewise, if the supposedly united great white sharks, Chinese, Asians, Hispanics, Latinos and White Jews of the world were truly united anywhere (on code), including in their own homes, none of them would be greater or lesser than the other, and all of them would have the same equally divided resources, that would only vary at times due to the golden rule of “to each according to need.”
Thirdly our flawed logic of large and small numbers is reflected by our own abuse which comes back to bite us. We think having a large amount of money as only good, especially when we have more than others using whatever it takes, yet we consider a large amount of taxes (money) is not good, if required from us, whatever it takes. Now all of a sudden, it's not fair.

The other side of logic must always all ways be checked, the mirror image, the reciprocal, the other side of truth, the other side of lie.
If a second doctor's opinion is prudent and at least three estimates is basic procedure, then double-cheeking logic is common sense; triple-checking is wisdom.