Our idea of the AIOOYAAIODI

Any thinker of the Earth can recognize the insurmountable difficulty in presenting ideas to those without a a background in abstract concepts which reflect the ideological richness of the various philosophical schools.

Our claim of offering these ideas to you, condensed into several paragraphs, defeats from the start any possibility of homogenizing these concepts, giving them an adequate form under which we know them. Nevertheless you will be able to form a rough sketch of the structure of our thought.

In the field of cosmology, the progress made is sufficiently important that our ideological speculations resting on the shaky ground of intuition give way to a pure and omnipresent empiricism, allowing us to formulate more meaningful hypotheses than before.

We can say that the first "shock " registerered by the old mechanistic models of the Cosmos happened when our astrophysicists began to understand the true nature of physical space.

Our model of the Cosmos answers more or less satisfactorily the various questions relating not only to physics but also fields of biology and psychophysics. It meshes with the rich phenomenology of which we are the secondary observers.

But it is not a final and perfect model - a true one - for although it answers our own formulations: what is being? what is not-being? why are we here...what is necessary "reality "? (Note that I adopt the most familiar formulations) and that it harmoniously satisfies our subjective aspirations of knowledge, false sophist convictions are nonetheless introduced.

Like saying that there is an objective model for us. Like the one we describe (to satisfy our own preconceived mental diagrams), as having an " outside my mind ", as a concept grasped in its entirety without taking into account the possibility of another thinking entity with a structure different from my own also consistent with its formulations, resulting in a result incompatible with a " structural me " but perfectly valid for it.

But this is a corollary of the troublesome question posed initially. Is there an objective model of the "Cosmos "? If the answer is no, the confusion introduced will render any hope of certainty impossible. But before expressing ourselves on beings themselves, on the AIOOYAAIODI (dimensional being), let us consider the problem of information whose deterioration prevents any possibility of comprehension.
 

Language and our logic

Our prime objective in thinking was to work out a didactic basis, a logic independent of language. This was of vital importance if you take into account that our form of expression is bisynchronous, and that the verbal encoding of the thought into two phonetically simultaneous streams (one through a "lingoguttural " mechanism similar to the languages of the Earth, and the other through a code consisting of repetitions of phonemes in the form of sequences) invites misinterpretation, while also being a source of misunderstanding due to the ambiguity of the terms used and the emotive nuance at the time of their expression. That is why our OIYOYOIDAA was chosen (method of expressing ideas through a codified repetition of various words in the context of a verbal communication of our AADOO-AUGOOA (logical) concepts). Thus the transcendantal ideas are expressed in a mathematically- based language.

This is how we, the OEMII of UMMO, can use three verbal instruments at will, according to the needs of the individual at every moment.

The first, DU-OI-OIYOO (one can translate it as language of connection) uses ideograms in its graphic expression, and dependent or related words which represent concrete concepts, values and objects when we are not dealing with complex ideas. It is used to converse on the levels of (language domestic, technical, macrosocial, popular) (see note 8).

NOTE 8: We will go into further detail elsewhere about our OANNEAOIYOYOO (you would say "TELEPATHIC ") form of communication which allows us to connect the integral elements of our social network across long distances. Two difficulties are inherent to this method of communication, however: Establishing contact between two OEMII requires some time. Complex concepts of a transcendent logical nature cannot be communicated using this method, only useful for the transmission of simple ideas and facts.

During the teaching process, in the meetings of a transcendent nature, the dialogue between those you would call intellectuals, when the hierarchies of our society (our supreme authorities are on three planes: UMMOAELEWE, UMMOAELEVEANI and UMMO-OEMIl) must address the members of the social network for transcendent reasons and in other more common cases, when the urgency of the case necessitates great speed of information transfer, two orders of ideas can be simultaneously expressed to the person we are addressing. Of the two items to be communicated, the most important, complex or which requires a high degree of precision, is expressed through a numeric encoding in which each simple number is grasped through the repetition "N times "of the same phoneme, each modulated in a particular way (see note 4).
NOTE 4: We will illustrate this method of verbal communication using a concrete example.

For this type of language we does not use "terms or words ": statements are codified by concatenating the individual components of the sentence (subject, object and verb as you would say) in the form of a codified proposal. The aesthetic quality of the resulting sound is less important than accurately transmitting the meaning intended.

Thus the statement "this greenish planet appears to float in space ", would be expressed in our usual linguistic system (OI OIYOO) as follows: AYIIO NOOXOEOOYAA DOEE USGIGIIAM;

But if we wish to express this idea by means of OIYOYOIDAA, only three encoded symbols are needed

Proposal: this planet floats in space.

Corrections: Greenish, appears, believe that.

Three numbers (in the duodecimal system) are used, the proposal requires seven simple numbers and the corrections five and four simple numbers respectively. In this manner, in "non-transcendent" speech like UAEXOOE IANNO IAUAMII IE OEMMI + UAMII XOA AALOA we would insert the preceding piece of information: AEXOOE IANNOO IANNO IAVAMII IE IE IE UAMII XOA AALOA AALOA AALOA, in which the simple numbers are expressed in two ways: by repeating certain phonemes, and by modulating the accent of some of these words characteristically.
 

It is this last method which is used as a basis for a third type of language which, while using the fundamental method of encoding the more elaborate ideas (numerical encoding), establishes flexible rules when it comes to the communication of more complex and precise information.

Therefore when we must commnicate or express transcendent ideas of the normal type; mathematics, "metaphysics "or physics, we use a particular encoding of ideas, formulated in such a way that our dialectic is not linguistically obstructed (phonetically or emotionally). The significant gain in informative capacity far outweighs the slowness or the rare fluidity of the flow of verbal communication.

We have observed notable divergences between our basis of logic and yours.

We deny the Earth principle of non-contradiction (as stated by Aristote) according to which a statement can only be true or false.

Such a line of reasoning requires that we also refuse the principle you name contradiction (for example in the field we call the theory of BIEEWIGUU) (can be translated as in psychophysiology).

In all cases we respect what you call the principle of identity.

What we have just said requires further explanation. In our normal, everyday life, our dialectic bears a strong resemblance with yours. If I say that "yes ", I woke up at 26 UIW, this statement is true otherwise I have lied, in which case another type of statement other than true or false is not possible (and this here within the three-dimensional framework of my WAAM (Universe)).

For normal activities of everyday life, this artificial, bipolar or bivalent principle, is valid and useful (you do not either make relativistic corrections on the mass of goods when making simple purchases). But when we wish to speculate about transcendent values, or when we try to study concepts which you would call gnostic, ontological, physical, biological, theological... this principle is completely inadequate.

This is precisely the obstacle we are referring to in preceding paragraphs. How can we expose the metaphysical basis of our language to you if our "respective "languages are based on contradictory logical principles? The problem cannot be solved by transcribing the meanings of phonemes as you probably suspect.

This is the reason why (apart from images used in a concern for brevity) we must make use of Earth comparisons in our reports, mutilated and reductionistic "proposals "which "remove "all the informational richness from our dialectical assertions. Even the use of the verb to be limits all our possibilities. The entire ontology of Earth thinkers is saturated with expressions like "BEING ", "NOT BEING ", "I EXIST ", without being able to choose other more distinct forms. When it comes to this, Earth neopositivist thinkers like Russel are remarkably clear-sighted, not so much for rejecting all metaphysics but for being aware that the language must be revised. So long as your methods of informatiional communication are not clarified, the process of searching for the truth will be slow and difficult.

Our EAAIODI GOO (ontological) basis

As you are not, Mr Jordá Ribera, a specialist in Earth philosophy, we will try to use a more familiar and understandable terminology with a similar vocabulary. The problem of "being", as Earth thinkers see it, has a radically different formulation on UMMO. Our ancestors did not doubt the existence of an reality outside the individual conscience for a moment. "Things" existed for them "outside the self" but their essence was hidden by the encoding of our senses (see note 7).

NOTE 7: On this point, EARTH thinkers also accept the difficulty of truly attaining external reality, our mental images assimilating themselves to it through a process used by our exteroceptors and proprioceptors.

This principle remained constant until new forms of dialectic added to these primitive ideas. A synthesis of our current EAYODIGOO (ontology) could be formulated as follows:

It is impossible to define initially the concept of BEING. "To me " who is purely conscience of my IGIO UALEEXII (self) and of "the things "which AIOOYA (exist dimensionally) around me, I am plunged in a WAAM (universe) which surrounds me.

"Things ", the objects of my mental processes "are" probably not as I perceive them, nor as I include them in a process through a complex rationalizing mechanism. Causal relations are relations "within me " processed according to an order laid out by such mechanisms. A plant is grasped by "me " with characteristics which represent its real "attributes ". "My " sensory impression which arrives at the level of the conscience is undoubtedly an illusion due to external factors. Thus the color will be the psychological impression of an electromagnetic stimulation and the concept of mass in my conscience is very far from being able to identify with the physical function which generates it. Up to now, Mr Ribera, such ideas follow the thought of the theorists of the Earth.

But, even if "beings "(things) masked themselves as they reached our Me, and even if we could not know how they really are, would their essence " external to me " be constant? I can be unaware of how a molecule of camphor which stimulates my sense of smell causing a conscious feeling "is" exactly, but each time I perceive such a smell, can I be sure that it is only an attribute of camphor, and not an illusion or a hallucination? Expressed differently:

Even if I did not know how the WAAM "is" exactly; is it "there", dynamic or static, changing or constant, generating ideas which are reflected in my conscience without my "ME "being able to change its essence, its own "BEING "? Our answer is no.

We, the OEMII with a definite neurocortical and mental structure (you people of the Earth, we of UMMO and all similar beings in the WAAM) can never attain the truth, the essence of the WAAM, not because such a WAAM "does not exist "or because there is a barrier preventing us, but because in thinking of a being, we modify its essence (a coarse comparison will illustrate what we mean): when a physicist of your planet claims to observe a micrometallographic test-tube to note its optical properties, he causes a deterioration in the process by using light for the observation. This is an insurmountable obstacle since the observation itself alters the true nature of what is being observed. Something similar occurs with the being: that it "is" from the moment it is not thought of and that the idea of it is not in my mind.

As soon as we, thinking beings, reach towards the thing, it neither no longer [ IS] nor [ IS NO LONGER ] (here your logic does not allow us an to adequately express this concept).

We OEMII "create "the WAAM as we think of it, the Cosmos appears to us as a configuration of IBOZOO UU (see further on the physical model of the WAAM). These IBOZOO-UU no doubt exist as a speculative reflection of " something which was not IBOZOO " before having thought of it, and since [ to think is to be ] before we, OEMII, exist.

There is somewhat of a "symbiosis " there between external Reality and us. External Reality yields to our mental process, it is modified from the moment we center our conscience upon it. This is how we cause the development of a binary WAAM composed of IBOZOO-UU physical factors, which is our " creation ", and at the same time this reality shapes our ME, creates it, generates it.

At his point, one might think that our system is a sort of Pantheism which excludes the idea of "a necessary Being"or WOA (God) " transcending the cosmos ". That is not the case as you will see further.

Let us imagine other thinking "beings " different from us (EESEEOEMII). (We do not refer to beings different from us physiologically, but whose "selves " have a different mental configuration.)

Without any doubt "they " will try " to think of the cosmos " (of course the process of "thinking " should not be interpreted in an anthropomorphic sense) but in "so doing" they will modify its BEING. Thus their WAAM will not be our WAAM [ note this is important : we do not say that the WAAM will not be observed or felt or perceived or visualized differently - this is obvious - since the model of this Cosmos must be different, just as for you the optical image perceived by a dipterous insect will differ from that perceived by the human retina).

Not only will the model of this WAAM be distinct due to our different mental processes. But the very being, the very essence of the WAAM will be disturbed.

This relativity of the being, this versatility of the being, is visible in our logic in what we name AAIODI AYUU (range or network of the form of being). Suppose that we symbolically order all the ontological possibilities (let us put aside for a moment the law of non-contradiction) transcending my "self ".

(It IS a BEING) (1), (IT IS NOT a BEING) (2), (" Symbol "X ""IS a BEING).(3) ("Symbol "y " is a BEING) (4), ("Symbol "z " IS a BEING) (5),

It is a set or series of nontautological possibilities which we can codify even more synthetically:

S1; S2; S3; S4; S5.....; Sn

 
We arrive at the meaning of AIOOYA, whose translation into Earth language is impossible. AIOODI is "that" which is likely to adopt the possibilities embedded (integrated) in possibilities S1; S2; ...... Sk. You, an example of an IBOAYA OU (energy quantum, photon) can be (S1) or not be (S2) (if it transforms into mass) but the two possibilities are deformations of an AIOOYA caused by my ME (thinking being).

We, OEMII, thus see the WAAM and its integrated factors in possibilities S1; S2; ......; Sk. You, people of EARTH, you accept only possibilities S1 and S2.

But other possible thinking beings will receive the AIODI as different possibilities Sk + 1, Sk + 2... Sm. The destiny of the OEMII or another EESEEOEMI is that their search for the truth, their research into the AIOODI will be unfruitful since it always manifests the characteristics S1 ,S2, S3..... Sm.

My judgements, my acts ordered by the objectives to be reached and the means to attain them, constitute "themselves " as many S1, S2. ..... Sk, "self-deformed" by their own thinking process.

The concept of WOA

You have a beautiful myth. Tantalus, the king of Lydia condemned to be unable to satisfy his appetite with plates of food in front of him. Any EESEOEMII IGIO (thinking being) must also suffer the consequences of its own essence. The WAAM is inaccessible. The WAAM that he sees, touches, feels thermically... that he thinks, is transformed by him in this thinking process. But the AAIIODI with its multiple forms "of being" is here in my WAAM. Can something or somebody reach it? To think of it without deforming it? Can somebody or something attain the AAIIOYA without it being permuted into S1 S2 S3 ......Sn? This somebody or something is WOA, or that which generates, that which on the Earth you call God, if the "God" of your theological schools were less anthropomorphic than our concept of "necessary Being". We say that WOA generates the WAAMWAAM (multiple Cosmos). We use the expression "to generate " not in the strict sense of "CREATE " but like a transcription of our phoneme IIWOAE. I said that WOA is the single "thinking being " who does not deform the AIIODI. Using words of the EARTH may still "anthropomorphize " the concept we are exposing, but we say that WOA coexists with AIIODI, that AIIODI is not transcendent to him. AIIODII is the "ACT "of WOA, it was generated without WOA having given it the power to do so beforehand. In this manner the "THOUGHT OF WOA " bears no relation with our process as dimensional beings.

We thus affirm that to be is not immanent, it is not a goal of our subjective conscience, even though this conscience is the one that shapes a reality (AIIODI) by deteriorating it, which hides behind our distorting intellectual version of REALITY. WOA also generates all the possible forms of S1, S2, S3.... Sn and its sub-groups constitute as many WAAM. In other words, WOA generates an infinite number of cosmos, by generating an infinite number of the types of thinking beings, but the statement "there is an infinite number of WAAM " is only true for us, EESEOEMII (thinking beings) who, deforming the AIIOYAA as many times as there are types of "thinking selves " that we are, create the illusion of a very rich range of ontological possibilities.

Expressed more simply, "from WOA's point of view" the WAAM (Universe) does not have the same broad range of forms familiar to us, and WOA does not even see it as something that exists or does not exist or which (symbol "y ") EXISTS; for WOA, it is simply AIIODI, as eternal and immutable as he (here we do not mean "eternal " as a synonym of infinite time).

Our image of WOA

It is quite difficult to speak about WOA, whose essence we do not know, while constrained to use a foreign language whose logical basis is divalent. On UMMO, when we use the phonetic expression AIOOYA AMIIE (the literal translation would be "DOES NOT EXIST ") we refer to abstract ideas or to WOA. We want to express something different from AIOODI (inaccessible being) since AIOODI manifests itself "dimensionally "and WOA is adimensional, i.e. not subject to deformations by our thought. Thus we say AIOOYA IBONEE (cosmic radiations exist) or AA-INNUO-AIOOYA-AMIE (symmetry does not exist).

WOA is adimensional. On this point we agree with the theologians of EARTH. It does not make sense to speak only about "Eternity, "time, thought or spirit in the essence of WOA.

But its AIOYAA AMIIE reason is precisely to be the genesis of the idea of AIOODI. We said that AIIOODI is the Reality which does not transcend us such as it is: fractured, split into multiple forms (WAAMWAAM).

It is in this sense that we can (from this familiar point of view) imagine that "there is a creative spirit of ideas, of an infinite number of ideas, insofar as these ideas are not incompatible with the essence of WAAM ". Moreover we do not attribute qualities to WOA and we do not associate his AIOBII (see note 10) with humanoid functions, which would make our image of him anthropomorphic, unfortunately just as the theologians of the EARTH have done in the past. The attribute of GOODNESS, CREATOR, JUST, CRUEL, etc, do not make sense if they are linked to "that which AIOBII (it is the case for WOA) ".

When we translate the phoneme IIWOAE by the word "generate", the original meaning is lost, since our concept of IIWOAE NO means " to generate "or "create "in the sense that you understand it, i.e. "the function allowing an entity with an initial existence to cause a contingent being to emerge, whose constituent elements do not previously exist "(see note 11).

We realize completely the confusion which can arise when trying to understand these paragraphs. It is not our fault.

We will use an image to make this clearer in a logic familiar to you.

From man's point of view, WOA (God) " creates "the basis of certain atoms, generates laws which govern the Cosmos, but from WOA's point of view, the function " to generate ", "to create ", and even "TO COEXIST " does not make sense.

We must insist on the great difference between our idea of WOA's genesis (as seen by an OEMII) and this same idea as it would appear (an absurdity possibility) from WOA's "point of view ".

For us WOA generates an infinite number of ideas, ideas which as an extension of "a supreme Being " must be carried out, exist outside of us. Thus he is able to generate as many cosmos as there are thinking entities.

But from WOA's hypothetical point of view, everything is different. He (coexists, generates) with Him, or with the (to use a quantitative term does not make sense) AIOODI, but a thinking being is simultaneously AIOODI, since in thinking of "him ", he deforms it into a thousand ontological facets, creating his own WAAM, his own COSMOS. Thus emerge as many WAAM as there are EESEOEMII compatible with "the spirit of WOA ".

For WOA the pluri-cosmos (WAAM-WAAM) does not make sense, but it is not the same for we thinking beings.

But let us continue with the process as "seen " by me (thinking self).

Among the infinite number of ideas which coexist with his essence, WOA imagines "an adimensional " being able to think its own AAIODI (i.e.: to generate ideas). Such "a being " (being for us, AAIODI for WOA) must thus be free. [ Note that if it were not it, its creation of ideas would not make sense since they would be attributed to WOA and would thus not be ideas (in your conceptual understanding of the term) but AAIODI ].

It is also illiogical to imagine that this "BEING ", free and generating another AAIODI, can be a twin, a duplicate of WOA. (WOA could thus not generate such a being).

Thus the BUAWE BIAEI (can be translated as "Community or social sprit") "was generated" which represents, as we will explain, the community of EESEOMII or (thinking beings) unable to access the AAIODI's essence, since this attempt would cause "a mutation "in it, as we explained before.

How many BUAWE BIAEI "exist "? I.e. how many categories of thinking groups are there? Are all the BUAWE BIAEI identical in their essence? Is the EARTH BUAWE BIAEI the same as that of UMMO?

We will try to all these questions in order, but before we do it is necessary to clarify the double interpretation possible for the phoneme BUAWEBIAEI: the first meaning (the old one) is "community of EESEOMII ". The second represents our current idea of "collective spirit. " Without this clarification, the meaning of certain of these passages becomes ambiguous, making the understanding of our thought even more difficult.

If we stick with the first meaning, it is obvious that we are unaware empirically of how many categories of conscious and thinking beings can exist in the WAAM-WAAM (set of Universes coexisting with WOA).

If we accept the definition of the WAAM-WAAM in the strict sense, there must be as many WAAM as there are categories of thinking beings able to deform the AAIODI..

In also adopting the term BUAWE BIAEI as meaning a homogeneous community, you humans of the Earth, we OEMII of UMMO and all humans with our neurocortical structure and whose mental processes proceed along similar lines, we all belong to it; but in accepting the other meaning (collective spirit) we confess that we have not yet been able to solve this enigma. (One of the reasons, among many, for our arrival on your OYAA is to embark upon a major study of the problem.)

Our gnoseology

 We have truly worked out a theory of knowledge separate from our WOALA OLEASS (Philosophy - Theology) with its own identity.

Our source of knowledge is empirical. Convinced that AAIODI (the true being) is unknown to us, convinced also that the WAAM we perceive through our senses and intellectual processes is "an illusion " created by our thinking self, we choose to try "to delve into " this idea of the AAIODI that we deform. (On UMMO, there is an old legend that illustrates this attitude.)

The IGOONOOI (hurricane-force winds with abrasive and dangerous sand, which destroy vegetation and strongly erode rocks) wanted one day to read the OUDEXIENOO (see note 6) of the OEMII "of the lakes "for it felt "weak and sick " (its speed was decreasing according to the original text). That night, it came down from "the deserts"and blew so strongly that it terrorized the OEMII, destroying the BAAYIODOVI (flora and fauna) and eroding the rocks and the ground. But once it managed to read the inscriptions, who had been eroded by the sandstorms (deforming the texts), the IGOONOOI died (it stopped "blowing " in poorly interpreting the pictograms which it had half-destroyed).

NOTE 6: OUDEXIONOO were monoliths of porous and very tender rock in the shape of rods set in the fields, and where our ancestors inscribed "healing and helpful counsels ". They wanted in this way to perpetuate a medicine of an empirico - magical nature. Some of these long columns still survive today.

This myth illustrates the drama of the OEMII on UMMO. Conscious of the fact that the WAAM that we " contemplate ", which we "think "is not the true WAAM generated by WOA, since the "thinking " function deforms his reality, the human being and by extension any EESEOEMII (thinking entity) is condemned to damage the true "healing" inscription which would appease its gnoseological anguish (NdR: no doubt " gnostic " is meant here) .

Our ancestors evolved gradually, discovering that the scientific formulations elaborated under premises and conclusions based on a simplistic logic were not as indisputable as they thought. Certain dynamic characteristics of the WAAM were unable to be considered as strictly "false "or "true " . Thus emerged terms based on a new logic, not only able to exceed the limits of certain rudimentary forms of communication, but also able to enrich the range of possible AIGAEGAA (propositions). How else to reconcile scientific phenomenology with concrete realities like AMMIOXOO (moral wrong), IUAMMIO DII (cruelty), YI ISA-OO (happiness, moral right, inner happiness), OANEEAOIYOOYO (telepathic transmission) OENBUUAW (bond between soma and psyche). None of these realities can be quantified or measured analytically, and to be inscribed within the framework of an objective reality with concepts such as GOODAA (liquid state of matter), IBOZOO UU (see the paragraph devoted to the structure of the WAAM) or IBONEE (very high frequency radiation).

It was necessary to free the OEMII, devoted to science, of its unconscious tendency to impregnate its conclusions with emotional content, thus distorting the consciousness of objective reality.

Thus new techniques of studying phenomena you would describe as "spiritual " emerged, by using a rigorously scientific methodology (in the sense that you understand this word, i.e. by checking facts and formulating laws analytically). There is only one difference with the scientists of the Earth: you accept an hypothesis by raising it to the level of the rational application when its postulates (stated in aristotelian formulations) do not contradict the law expressed mathematically - generally of statistical type - until such time as the discovery of new facts conflicts with the old formulation.

Our "agnosticism " (as you would say it) not only prevents us from defining and probing something as transcendent as WOA or AAIOODI, but also working out a theory and verifying it. We do not accept his authenticity after all.

This flow of concepts, explanations, hypotheses, is a mental exercise for us which purifies ideas constantly. For instance, when a thinker of UMMO formulates a new hypothesis concerning the influence of the UWAAM (twin cosmos) verified by the facts and his analytical formulation, he does not believe it himself and will never accept it. The dynamics of the thinking function are more important than the "flat" stage of a stagnant theory which generates a school as happens among you. An example will illustrate what I say, although it is absurd. If Freud had adopted our mentality of UMMOEMII, he would never have dogmatically accepted his own theory of "the Oedipus complex".

This pragmatic behaviour which surprises you is useful to us since it also avoids schools of thought fracturing, which divides the Social Network by causing conflict, like the narcissistic and non-objective positions adopted by those who accepts their own mental processes as universal truths, forgetting that some more intelligent OEMII in the future will perfect their hypothesis without denying it.

That is why our OEMII thinkers do not try to speculate about the essence of what is inaccessible (for example WOA and AAIODI).

Our "Uaa "(Moral)

Our WOA, then, is not a God with human attributes (good, wise, powerful) at least not in the literal sense in which you understand these terms. The "problem of evil " exists for us, which we must attribute to WOA. The OEMII of UMMO "experience" moral and physical "evil" differently than you do on Earth. But this "evil "is generated by our "freely thinking self "which in extracting what is transcendent (the AIIOOYA) projects a very rich variety of physical forms and forms of existence onto our conscience, sometimes more or less "good", sometimes more or less "bad "when they disturb our affectivity.

We do not share your practice of seeking safety near God, a current tendency in the social and religious context of Earth humanity in response to its own anxiety and distress, distress at the vastness of its existence. We do not "ask "WOA- we "send" only gratitude to him. We love the Creator, but since he is inaccessible, as he transcends our consciousness, as our images of the WAAM and of the psychic or ideal scale of values cannot come close to AIIOODA, we project this love onto the other EESEOEMII (our brothers) and this love results in purified social morals and strong compromises towards the AYUYISAA (Social Network) (see note 5).

NOTE 5: We draw a comparison between all the OEMII and a network whose "nodes" or intersections represent the physiological organisms, the "branches " being the bonds of a physical, psychological, moral nature... a measurable flow of information between two IBOO (nodes or intersections) would analytically define this relation in terms of a degree or stage of evolution of the network.
 

This morality is worked out according to two sources: The first, eternal, nonmodifiable and static, as presented in the revelation of our UMMOWOA, the second thanks to the active participation of our brothers, the development of new interpretations and forms continues, carefully adapted to the time and place, a development conditioned by the culture in full progress, by the slow process of "neuro-corticalisation ", by applying technology to our forms of life. Thus our moral code is ever-changing, adaptable at any moment to the OEMII's environment and social context. On UMMO, the WOALAOLOO (experts in religious philosophy) have never invoked a regression to our ancestral civilization. The EARTH myth of "the noble savage "does not make sense on our OYAA.

Our code of ethics is not bound by a history stemming from the history of the society, which would strangle and saturate it with the hollow content of irrational practices and "taboos, " standardized agreements which would choke the OEMII, preventing it from being free.

We can offer you, Mr Jordà Ribera, a synthesis of our definition of the moral Law.

UAA is the range of laws imposed on the EESEOEMII without mental or physical constraint, by a constellation of ideas based on the present stage of knowledge. Laws which are expressed along specific standards, according to the mental situation and development of the OEMII, their situation and development always in the process of evolution. The authenticity of our changing Ethics is evaluated according to the balance between the requirements individual morals and those of the AYUYISAA (society).

NOTES: As regards the notes, only the nine first reached us.

NOTE 9: Although you are unjust when you accuse religions or philosophical schools of prostituting the truth, is Roman Catholicism guilty of not having accurately interpreted their Master's thought, and by institutionalizing it and by complicating its structure, saw itself dramatically "encircled " in his own nets, leading to a sad crisis and serious internal tensions?

Are the evangelical churches guilty of having destroyed themselves in trying to apply a literal interpretation to the biblical texts which must necessarily lead to chaotic polymorphism?

Is Marxist dialectic materialism guilty of refusing the idea a nanthropomorphic god who could never satisfy a man of science, a god which seems to protect the powerful and the rich person against the misery of the common OEMII?

Is existentialist philosophy guilty for being aware of the tragic problem posed to humanity in converting their own world into a hell, when it is impossible to hear or be heard by their fellow humans?