Memoriale - The four categories. The proof of the inexistence of God

After our discovery, it'll become known. At least one will be able to state its existence as a fact. It'll have a word only after the discovery, if it is unique of its kind ("What do you want to call it?" "Let's call it Pluto")

It was initially in somebody's mind. That creation made it known to other people (including those who haven't read that work yet, because they can do it at any time).

The object is not real, but everybody has got an only image of it. Everybody knows what it is about. So everybody will describe the Mickey Mouse figure more or less in the same way, everybody will describe Copperfield's life in the same way. There must be a word to define it.

It is an imaginary thing, that everybody is unable to describe. When mentioned, everybody will ask: "What is the friburnary?" or "What do you mean by friburnary?". It is pure sound, never become a word.

Many people are likely to tell you that God belongs to the category n.3 or n.1. Both are in error: it belongs neither to the group 1 (we don't have any knowledge of him, being mere 'supposition') nor to the group 3, because his image is not the same in all minds. This means there's a great number of images on God, just because it belongs to the fourth category (nonexistent, unknown). What happened? With the fourth category, everybody created a meaning of his own every time. Look on those interviews. "Any idea of God?" "Yes, I think he's more of a spirit, probably an energy" " Just a spiritual source" "An invisible spirit who's everywhere" " The Almighty" " The most generous being in the Universe"

This kind of answers revolves around the question, without clearing up what the stuff is like. When you deal with an object belonging to the fourth category, you may say any thing about it. 'Hey, Paul... what does a friburnary look like?" Paul will say whatever comes to his mind. This is the most evident sign of the unreal. Look what happens when it is something real to appear.

CONCEPT

'What do they mean by Pluto?'

It is a planet, that is to say a body in orbit around the Sun

SOUND

P - l - u - t - o

IMAGE

Everyone's image depicts a planet, an immense celestial body in space

This way we learned that every word (=every sound become word) comes from a combination of three elements:

Radio is a sound, first of all. It's always been there as a sound, but it was used only from a certain date, when the reception of messages by waves was reached and then more when an apparatus for receiving signals was invented. Sound is what is being heard by other people when one of us speaks. As we speak, communication is established by emitting sounds in the air (otherwise we'd make gestures).

CONCEPT =meaning of the sound become a word, what the word means, what we mean when that word is being pronounced

The concept contains the essence, the substance of a word. If you want to express an idea you need a word, to be related to that idea (or several ideas). Do you want to convey the idea of drops of liquid falling when one person cries? You've got the word 'tear' for that. You can communicate the idea by speaking of 'tears', having no other possibilities than this (the domain might be often filled with synonyms).

The image arising from a word must be unique. So, if you say 'radio', there will be no one thinking of a box for holding matches or knives. If you say 'radio' there will be no one thinking of clothes. Everybody, after hearing that sound (radio), can have only the idea of what a radio is. This is an image, which is being formed at a supersonic speed, when somebody is emitting that sound.

If at least one of the three elements is missing, that word - in spite of its existence as a potential sound - is not accepted by the community of speakers, except for imaginary or literary languages. Let's go and see why.

An ashtray could only be expressed by saying 'container for discarded tobacco ash'. Without a sound we'd remain with a meaning that would be impossible to express by sound waves in one form. This is very easy to understand. Every word was mere sound, before acquiring an idea related to something else.

This is not as easy as the previous point. Look at this sentence: "Sheila is studying Anglish panguage". If I said that, those two sounds (Anglish, panguage), being similar to a couple of existing words (English, language) would be likely to produce a meaning of their own, all the same. As a matter of fact, we cannot say 'Anglish', because this sound has never become a word. It is only a potential one. Living in the civilized world, we find ourselves on a huge territory called 'language', where these connections (sounds acquiring concepts) have been already established in the past. So, if I need one concept I'm forced to use a specific word. This is really sort of compulsory reality, which no one will ever escape from.

Thus, picking up any sound that you like is not possible. One could say: "I don't like the sound trousers, I prefer to say treasers".We have no freedom, at all. The concept aiming at giving the idea ('trousers') was decided once and for all. This means that English-speaking people can only use this word when they need to refer to a garment covering the body from the waist. Back to the point, without a pre-determined concept we'd find ourselves again in a forest of sounds not related to one concept for the whole of national speakers.

Without an image the words pronounced would be interpreted in thousands of different ways

What we defined as an image is nothing but the result of what's being formed inside everyone when single words are pronounced to make a speech. So, without an image we might combine whatever word (already existing) with the others in a personal combination that doesn't make sense for the community. We might say 'The USA is a multicolored table of men and dogs'. Those who are listening to our speech would catch single words without reaching the meaning of the whole sentence. Every single word is meaningful, but they don't make an inner association when pronounced all together. Without an image, whatever combination would be possible. The USA may be 'a cup of coffee', 'a ray of light', 'a set of colors'. An image is indispensable so that everybody can interpret the words in the same way as anybody else. Every single word produces its own image, automatically. Once the words are acquired, they give rise to a single image that will always be the same (=that one).

Now, do you understand why I wanted to lay stress on the autonomy of our languages? The idea of the Internet-like domains can give us the best example. After the domain www.memoriale.com was taken, it couldn't have been given to anybody else. Only Mr.Monni could occupy this domain. After www.cnn.com was taken, the CNN news were to be broadcast by those who acquired the domain. What if something irregular occurs to these domains too? This is very interesting, because exceptions (=what goes out of the rule) or irregularities (human mistakes) can make it all meaningless, without anybody's notice. Disasters are frequent in languages as well. God has been the greatest one. Let's go into this puzzle, that captured above all the weak and the gullible.

Unfortunately, this word has never had all the elements required. This necessarily leads back to an original 'black hole' in the past. It's the unescapable deduction to be drawn from our reasoning.

What about its sound? Of course, it's got one. A sound is always present, in every word (including those imaginary or wrongly coined).
But that's all.

What about its concept? Here we have to get into the first inconsistency, deriving from a lot of false meanings given to it. We can say the immense lapse of time (more than 2700 years!) carried a continuous falsification throughout the Earth, confirmed by all the world's languages. Before I started to publish these pages, no book had ever made this objection.
How can you maintain a word allowing hundreds or thousands of different interpretations?
As a matter of fact, most people did enjoy this foolish merry-go-round. Here, two or twenty people declaring the same concept used to say different things about it, which never occurred to any other word. This word in Islam had some 99 different names and elsewhere dozens of different meanings just because they did not even know what the right meaning was. If you have a clear concept you may consider the sound less important, as you can express yourself with gestures (like dumb people do). But without a clear concept what gesture could you ever make?

What about its image? Here's the deepest hole. The very concept was betrayed. Here's why Memoriale said they shouldn't have mentioned this word without feeling shame. It was the absence of an only image (with the presence of hundreds) to damage the word more than anything else. We are back to the trap already mentioned, in which one thing (the USA) could be described in thousands of different ways, because it didn't carry one image only. This word has always been put everywhere. How many times have you heard them say that 'God is everywhere, even in a flower or a tree'? How many times have you heard priests say that God is any thing and inside any thing? Can there be something located at any place? Only the unreal things can be seen where they are not. It is the same as saying that the United States is 'a ray of light'. If nobody makes objections, they'll keep on repeating the singsong for their lifetime. Thank God every moment, God bless the United States, and so on. All these sentences worked like 'empty cars' circulating all around. These cars took priests and believers nowhere.

1) Reality is to be necessarily provided with a situation of absence or lack (opposed to the presence). Whenever an object is absent, the verb must be referred to the object. We'll say for example 'Yesterday Mickey Mouse cartoons weren't broadcast by the BBC'. We won't say 'We've been mickeymouseless'. Here we can't say 'God is missing in Korea' - because he may be there for some - but we'll say 'Koreans are atheists'.
Both agnosticism and atheism were the vicious result of this secular misunderstanding. It turned out to be a disaster dividing our world in two halves. We could no more refer to the simple lack of the object because even when some declared his absence, God was still present for the other half (believers). The highest concept would have been the one containing his absence, as it occurs to anybody (present or absent). Only this (=a situation with or without the object-God) would make us understand what or who it is like. I can understand the concept of an electric stove because when I've got it I am hot while when I haven't got it I feel cold (the cold temperature being the effect of its absence). Here - with God - there isn't any absence. If we say 'atheism' that is like calling it 'stove-less', an empty idea.

2) The awareness of reality makes us talk about a path in one direction only. Here, they could go back and forward in either direction saying every time that the object was existent (being converted) or nonexistent (becoming atheists) at the same time.

The opposed situation in the other group of people (who believe) is the following:

The subjects F, G, H, M say they have God = God is existent in F, G, H, M and is not in C, D, E

C can go over to the other group at any time because he may be converted. In this case, he'll declare the object existent. So can F, by going over to the other group at any time, declaring suddenly the object non-existent (becoming atheist). This equivalence relation in both the directions is sort of tremendous inconsistency, because...

We can't take it for real a concept potentially existent and non-existent at the same time. With a real concept, the relation would be rigorously univocal: only C could move on to the other group becoming a believer. F could not, because after the existence of an object is verified the object cannot become suddenly nonexistent.

I'm about to go up the fourth step, only because there are people knocking on my door: "So what was this word for? We've just said that a word with uncompleted structure is not socially accepted. Here we have however some 2500 years of uncontested use. What does that mean?
Let's go into the revelation, the last phase.