The Making of the NDNID Paper - The NDNID Paper - 2 Ways, History and Work Approach

The Idea of Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design as Defence to Religious Belief

Introduction.



This work comes into existence because I've been thinking about the requirements to a rational belief in religion. I've started, almost as Descartes has done it, to examine exactly why I believe in religion.

Clearly, there are the other aspects too, like Pascal's Wager, why God should exist or not, the appeal of God for being considered as real. I've also gone through, quite rigourously, the position of ethics, and morality with it, in the World and how it connects, possibly, with intelligence, well inspired by Kierkegaard.

We recall easily from Kierkegaard, from secondary literature, that his system of text contains, by crude description, a kind of evolving levels, that can be named aesthetics, ethics, and religion.

We have also been supported well by other authors too, like Leibniz, Aquinas, Conway,  and Plotinus, of whom all drives us toward a fairly hard belief in both ethics and health, in aspiring to being God's miracle on the planet Earth, each and every one of us, God-believers, first and foremost, all religions, I guess now, based on the wiser aspects of information society and the fact that laws need refinement, redefining in some sense, every religion as "caring for the religious spirit in which it has been written".

This has gone on for many years now, as I can recall, all the way from 16, seriously speaking.

The formalisation of the Quantified Modal Logical Argument of NDNID.

UD (universe of discourse): Everything

K: Truth/Knowledge of Propositions

G: God proposition

I: Important proposition

P: Propositions in general

E: Objective Ethics propositions

M: Meaning propositions

B: have Belief propositions in

D: Propositions of definition of God

C: Complete Knowledge propositions

(1)

1. □(∃x)(Dx) ≡ ◊(∃y)(Gy) A (being the 10. line)

2. □(∃x)(Dx) A

------------------------------

3. □(∃x)(Dx) R (Reiteration)

------------------------------

4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 2, 3 ≡E (Equivalence Elimination)

Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the first element of the foundation (1/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction).

(2)

1. □(∀x)(Cx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) A

2. □(∀x)(Cx) A

------------------------------

3. □(∀x)(Cx) R 2

------------------------------

4. ◊(∃x)(Gy) ⊃E 1, 3

Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the second element of the foundation (2/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #2). This interpretation may be complained about, but the words are "when you sit there in heaven, your collateral knowledge/"complete" knowledge is including God, yet you probably lack the possibility for getting to the computer database of (complete) knowledge".

(1) and (2), formally and possibly better to some, 1 and 2 can be combined into the following:

1. □(∀x)(Cx) ⊃ [□(∃x)(Dx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy)] A (being the 10. line)

2. □(∃x)(Dx) A

3. □(∀x)(Cx) A

------------------------------

4. □(∀x)(Cx) R (Reiteration)

5. □(∃x)(Dx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E

6. □(∃x)(Dx) R

------------------------------

7. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 5, 6 ⊃E (Conditional Elimination)

Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the combined elements of the foundation (1+2/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction). I'd say that this combination hides or obscures the fact that Complete Knowledge can be harder to imagine than a simple and broad Definition of God. Thus, the two simple parts may be better than this combination of these 2 more elementary parts.

(3)

1. □(∃x)(Mx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) Assumption A

2. □(∃x)(Mx) A

------------------------------

3. □(∃x)(Mx) R - Reiteration of A

------------------------------

4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E (1,3)

Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the third element of the foundation (3/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #3.

(4)

1. □(∃x)(Ex) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) Assumption A

2. □(∃x)(Ex) A

------------------------------

3. □(∃x)(Ex) R - Reiteration of A

------------------------------

4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E (1,3)

Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the third element of the foundation (4/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #4.

Now you have, all in all, at least 4 valid logical deductions that support the possibility of God (◊(∃x)(Gx)) where most faithists don't care about the possibility and assert the reality/existence of God, straight!

It's worth noting that cognition lies ahead of, obviously, all of these 4 entities leading to a possible God, i.e., ethics, meaning, definition of God and (Complete) Knowledge.

In addition, the anomalies of science suggests a fantastic description for a definition of God! Fx. what would the ancient people think of our time's nuclear bomb? Surely something fantastic! Likewise enters the idea of God as something fantastic far out there in time and in mind.

One remark on the side. In order to use necessity of God, you'll have to write something like this:

[□(∃x)(K) ⊃ ◊(∃x)(G)] ⊃ □(∃x)(G)

That is, if God is affirmed, knowledge contains an existing God, then an existing God is necessarily an existing God.

This should be in line with Kripke-modality as it's explained in his Naming and Necessity.

But the best one can do, IMO, is ◊(∃x)(G), possibly there's an existing God! I guess, all we believers are waiting for "Heaven".

Pacal's Wager.

The worry of the agnostics.

The value of defence and not proof.

The limitations to science and scientific influence.

The definition of God in relation to science and the prospects of science.

The classical notions by relations of science to religions.

Main Part I - The Argument.

[also the 5 arguments by logical structures and the rest, 4+1 combined]

Main Part II - The Reasoning.

Notes: [using two sections, the usage of "Notes" and "References", not that it matters, but I think it yields stiffness as well as flexibility.]

Notes.

As common in logics, square brackets are put in for separating from the round brackets and for being correct on the "primary connective" which is a formal requirement in Logics. Square brackets also make for better pedagogics, that only using the round brackets has a confusing capacity.

I've "imported" an addition from the Philosophy Now forum that has been written there 15. Jan. 2011.

References.

Kripke - the distinction between necessary and possible.

[+ the ones below]

Middle part to belong to one of the Main Section 2 probably:

Toward the NDNID paper (as CSM-Wikipedia proper):

Work notes added by these, just for some kind of notice:

Note1: Important! This is work in progress. No objection to the style here presented is tolerated or accepted on any (imagined) professional ground whatsoever! Formatting is thus not ready yet for the CSM-consistency.

Yes, the concepts and names are here strewn, you can begin to look them up yourself as well as the idiots can leave the books to themselves and "get to the objects" of Heidegger and more...! It would have said: "Toward the NDNID paper (as CSM-Wikipedia proper), while in "Hurwegen", the improper Norway under Insect-Jens, the PM also:", but not like that here.

The considerations for NDNID:

S. Kierkegaard
- some of the best considerations for a definite God
Aquinas
- almost unmistakenly /the/ reference for a best/most fundamental sense for God, along with Kierkegaard, the unbeatable brothers of Religious Philosophy for the believers!
Pascal's Wager (God or not God)
- too weak. that considering God would demand more thought than only "God or not God"
Kripke's paper "Naming and Necessity"
- thorough studies of this text have been crucial, in my head, to achieving the new notion of NDNID
The Dogmatic Debate, the Fideists and the Theists, the dogmas necessary to believe in God, by the classical "Church notions"
- that I have kept a keen eye to the "camp of positions" debates to these above notions, that they have had their very special conceptions for God.
St. Anselm
- The first argument of the modal kind to consider, usually also as reference for the others to follow, by description also.
Alving Plantinga's use of 5-S modality sentence, that possible, possible, possible yields "Necessarily God" when I have in fact never believed in "Necessary God" because the idea of God has seemed "too massive, too "magical", too far outside our sense and proof of reality, also by science".
- therefore, I've caught a type of description by Kierkegaard and Aquinas as the best before realizing that "possible God" would make it happen under the "best and greatest" pro-God with adding the 4 elements (by movie-making also, you may say movie-making studies) toward a seriously possible God!
This text contains the most of the conception for my 4 elements of possible-God! Yes, this has been a work after the profound studies. I have gotten anywhere near it, NDNID, without the input of crucial intellectual matters, and then I have skipped many light-weight "educators"!
2013-03-07.
2013-05-17.

Objection to the International Blur of Power - The UN Sky

The former Interpol discussion has made it clear that even Interpol has had a need "to have its legs into one by one nation" because the instructions and international police work simply has become too messy formerly, by history record. Its on this note of wisdom that I object to bulging idiot governance of UN that speaks  against the serious political science and I advice the (financial) accounts of the UN to follow the accountable patters still, that UN represents international agreement and national accountability and that indirect-indirect delegation of power from the nations is one that doesn't deal exactly more power than that, making it necessary to negotiate the agreements with the respective national assemblies to establish it.

So instead of "flashing various (agent) cards", of diplomatic status too, of authority and being by very special agant (Mulder) then rather the extra attention toward certain problems like in this case a list of crimes to cover where money, yes, that the money goes to Interpol/Europol/FBI. This must be the objective answer. UN isn't some blurred political power in the sky and never will be either (if we bother to discipline the organisation properly, holding consciousness to it every year).

Keyword: reporting (accurate), that's right, the report, one d*mn job duty, the reporting.

UN: reporting (accurate), international agreement and discussion over international matters (toward agreement/making explicit notes).

(This is for public education if nothing else.)

The Ecology Points - By Applied Ethics, Most Importantly and Further...

Combatting the Overpopulation

Suggestion for combatting Overpopulation, a dire condition that brings out the worst in people and against animals and wildlife the same:
The governments of the World issue a (steady) recommendation for only one or two children (for each woman, or other standard, issues may arise with homosexuals who desire children, but this needs separate resolve).
Under the recommendation then, this follows, a 3 pt. list,
1. that families will be required by law to pay partly or wholly for the 3rd child as incentive toward right behaviour.
2. that becoming pregnant with a fourth child or giving birth to a fourth child may provoke forced abortion or forced adoption.
3. that becoming pregnant with a fifth child and beyond may trigger forced abortions, forced adoptions, forced sterilizations and removal of legal rights in representing stupor below normal intelligence.

I hope you bother to take note and that we work together, in moving the politics toward better ecology and a better future for all, with as much people in the future gene-tree as possible! Thanks.

(Me? A hard-liner Ecology Philosopher? This files under Applied Ethics and only as suggestion for discussion. Also, point is made for making the discussion /move/ somewhere whatsoever.)

I've written a notice lately to WWF suggesting the Ecological Victory option to the Civ 5 (Sid Meier) games, such that 2 kids now make one's gene-tree 4 the next turn for your 2 kids. In this way, ultimately, one's genes become the World "some gene-steps" up the World history. This is also possible with only one kid, but takes a generation extra...! So contraception pills MUST be seen as World solution to all pollution problems, in overcoming Overpopulation toward 3.4 Bn people, figuratively speaking, "half the population of every nation now"!

Re-Issuing, the CO2 Problem

In relation to CO2 measurements, it's worth noting that CO2 level HAS NEVER BEEN HIGHER than today's at a little lower than 400 ppm. Over 800 000 years, it has never gone higher than than mere 300 ppm until lately. So not only do we suffer from high World population that distresses nature greatly, but we also guzzle ourselves down on own mass of people and gurp about in something like 385 ppm of CO2. I must say, this is a VERY interesting experiment and that I hold WWF, IPCC and Greenpeace the most responsible, even though, as much as Pugwash "boldly" says no to nuclear weapons, common people are now betrayed by their governments and intellectuals alike! (Heh-heh, unless they DO something... but /can/ they squeeze out the necessary words and the display the necessary leadership? Yet to see...!
(Still the words of Mr. Al Gore are ringing in the ears as GREAT! See the movie, please, An Inconvenient Truth!)

(I'll use this blog posting to highlight a very important ethics/applied ethics matter, one that seems to move slowly in terms of (acting/effectuating/legislative) politics...)

Also remarks to brilliant writers, activists, Greenpeace (who should pick up on /seriousness/), World Wildlife Fund, IPCC, the former Environmentalist movement, people who support Deep Ecology and other people who move the these matters into scope and place.

PS: Overpopulation is now centered on the most because I see it as /the/ most important ecological issue today.

The Internet Population - The Story of an Ever Growing Interconnected World - How many? By the Nations...

From Wikipedia 2nd time:

2006 2011

6.5 billion 7 billion

2006 2011

Africa 3% 13%

Americas 39% 56%

Arab States 11% 29%

Asia and Pacific 11% 27%

Commonwealth of Independent States 13% 48%

Europe 50% 74%

a Estimate. b Share of regional population.

World Total: 7,017,846,922 Internet Users - Latest Data: 2,405,518,376. -> Gives 34,2% of World total. (Surprising low. Who to take the blame? USA and World corruption, much police?)

Extra consideration:

Internet population (more):

Well, well, I don't know why ITU chooses to disclose the numbers the way that it does, but a reasonable way of informing the public on this has usually included a notice such as "of those who _can_ use/access the Internet". To this number we should expect Europe and USA to be quite high, much like almost 100%, exempting the usual groups, those who are too ill, one matter or another, and those who are too young or old.

Indeed, the ITU numbers seem too much idiotic when they should know better and that the current numbers may also reflect the World status, i.e., that the World is unnecessarily "pointy"!

Numbers of (implied) users from possible users, also as percentage, is the usual way for presenting these "Internet population" numbers. It is now? But this may not be a problem, rather, how much of Planet Earth area, land territory as connection of one place with people to another, has "Internet" on it, on land and elsewhere? So what is this number, in percentage, please? No, there is something strange in this World? Also, a type of technological access at sea, including a type of technology use to a given degree to this calculation such as "a certain percentage of the boats/ships at sea has a certain technology with them that allows them Internet connection at all times". More this includes technology that allows only limited access "here and there" based on other technology to land based antennas or radio-based transmission of kind, accessible some areas at sea, but not others...


That it's unnecessary to add this statistics consideration over population, i.e., the absolute population vs. the actual possible Internet population, a number that may be very obscured from a number of people. We need to follow this up to the ITU.

(One pervert consideration is that "0-year old kids" are unconsciously using the Internet by what would normally be considered criminal implants, and that this approach is enticing to ITU that, giggling wildly, ITU would like to see h*llishly more of it, word by intention.)

Source: International Telecommunications Union. href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_population (#cite_note-8").

Source: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm for World numbers in absolute terms.

The 10 Commandments and Modern Christianity - One Comment

The 10 Commandments "how I like them told to a friend":

The two texts commonly known as the Ten Commandments are given in two books of the Bible: Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:4–21.

Exodus 20:1-17 Deuteronomy 5:4-21
First number is the number of the Commandment.

1. 3 "You shall have no other gods before me."
Comment: The logical consideration that there can only be one top God(-principle). That the ultimate best is carried by a top-point!

2. 8 - 10 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."
Comment: This is the text that describes the duty to "love" and believe in one God and hold this belief too, and not worship "the golden calf" or any other "false God".

3. 11 "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."
Comment: This is the text that says that you are not to /defy/ by cursing! (Allowing one specific cursing to take place still...)
and that
"8 - 11 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
Comment: Merely, that one remember the /holy day/ and that this connects to meditating the Bible and being thankful to God and God's creation. That I believe in "these 2 Commandments" to be combined into this 3rd.

4. 12 "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you."
Comment: This is the duty to honour your parents, but it can also be read as a duty to honour history and those who have struggled and been before us.

5. 13 "You shall not murder."
Comment: I think this includes "You shall not harm" too, but I'll look into for confirmation.

6. 14 "You shall not commit adultery."
Comment: Adultery is of course both the (sexual)  abuse of minors as well as the sexual attacks on adults.

7. 15 “You shall not steal."
Comment: This is the duty to respect the properties of others.

8. 16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
Comment: This is the "you shall not lie" Commandment.

9. 21 "And you shall not covet your neighbour's wife."
Comment: This is the duty to respect your other people's spouses and probably given separately because of importance and the implied encouragement toward discipline.

10. "And you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his male servant, or his female servant, his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's."
Comment: This is the duty to not envy and respect your fellow human beings' belongings and imply the extra duty not to steal from your fellow human being too.

God's miracle, the human being, is still a deep worry inside all or most religions and that working toward a healthy human kind that has vast chances of ascension to Heaven must be considered a duty, small or large. Practically speaking and for today's societies/legal systems this is one bloody tough nut to crack!

I can't see that the 10 Commandments /extend/ to the hostile/deply unfriendly/the enemy people. That is, the duties described by the 10 Commandments are only valid toward a /potential/ group able to read them and believe in them too. I'm not going to try to tell a person with a pathological mentality about the Bible or the 10 Commandments. For this you need physical power above the other and psychiatric means and methods. So by this, skip the idiots as you want, please!

The 10 Commandments are now /updated/ by the notions of modern Christians, given by the  contemporary legal frameworks. That sincerety and ethical/moral  mindedness toward God and  "buy"/earn you Heaven today and throughout your life.

(Some information is taken from the Wikipedia article (the) "10 Commandments".)

The Catholic Seven Virtues and Seven Sins - Also by my "Rejection of the Cardinal Sins" Argument, in line with Kierkegaard Aesthetics

Catholic - Seven Virtues - Catholic - Seven Sins!

-. Virtue Latin Pedagogics

1. Chastity Castitas Modesty, also fidelity toward spouse, moderation in balanced quantities, as matter of personal discipline toward balance in life

2. Temperance Temperantia Balanced mind, sense of justice

3. Charity Caritas Caring for those who are in need, for the suffering, for those in despair

4. Diligence Industria Politeness, to be timely, to act with manner, the work ethics, the work duty

5. Patience Patientia To wait and be disciplined about it too

6. Kindness Humanitas Goodness, that one has the ability to care and respect, properly

7. Humility Humilitas Humility by sense, a type of respect, (NOT acceptance of slavery of accept any unlawful submission)

(In between here lies the 10 Commandments, one that translates into the laws and regulations for the modern Christian.)

-. Vice Latin Pedagogics

1. Lust Luxuria Lust, plainly, the excessive disposition toward lust as drive in life

2. Gluttony Gula Overweight, that one eats too much and care little else than for food

3. Greed Avaritia That money becomes an obsession in one's life

4. Sloth Socordia That inactivity and complacency replaces job and the drive to use one's body, to work

5. Wrath Ira Unrestrained anger, aggression toward "this and that", the random anger/hate/aggression

6. Envy Invidia The possession of others becomes an obsession

7. Pride Superbia Disrespect for the 10 commandments, do not abide by the laws and regulations in the modern sense

"The Roman Catholic Church also recognizes seven virtues, which correspond inversely to each of the seven deadly sins."

Quote marks, from Wikipedia. The very virtues and sins are also copied from Wikipedia.

I present this list for exactly the purpose by the text and especially over the irritation with the "Pride" sin that is probably the most misunderstood, quenching the notion that religious aren't supposed to be proud people (because I think they/we are mostly entitled this by the undertaking of community responsibility and so on, setting the good example.

(Some idiot formatting is still on Blogger for preventing "delete"-action, to mention one.)

Entering the Discussion of HIV/AIDS Cautiously

Tentatively, over HIV/AIDS, remembering Jacob Zuma and the anti-bacterial (discussion) by house-hold detergents, I give you my opinion for now:

There's a lingering recall of a med. doctor who, by suspicion, is the first documented case in USA and that many people have been brought in to answer the situation at hand.

That a psychiatrist has also given one opinion. My suspicion is, rightfully so, that all of these people's work has entered the data-set.

Therefore, as conclusion (for now): This med. doctor is suspected to have been deeply corrupt triggering a rare condition in the blood that can look like coagulation but is rather hoops or mud of something that may seem to be cancer, of one particular kind. You may say blood clots of warts. So therefore, my recommendation is now that HIV/AIDS is not transferrable by sex like they say, but rather the symptom of this corrupt, widely out on the schizophrenic category by two-category system of classification, person and in line with Alzheimer's and those, that this person has died from a type of blood clot/blood cancer! End of story (for now).

I writing this to you now, I also pay great respects to both oncology and hematology alike.

This solves the serious need for description from other (med.) doctors and sheds light on a new angle to which other serious researchers may add opinion, something that should be plain! That being all the way to the schizophrenic side of life entails  the result: HIV/AIDS.

Corrupt means schizophrenic or worse in this text, i.e., toward the immorally blind psychopathic behaviour much like the personality described in "American Psycho" by Bret Easton Ellis.

Enjoy.

(If they, the med. doctors, don't take the hint, then I note strictly the culture of lying and dishonesty, one that they need to accept straight down and without particular reservation.)

PS: I'm sorry that this last text has only entered now, rather than at first with the rest of earlier.

Over Being Doing Malice in the World - The Laws and Regulations

The very failure to these "I'm with the powers"-people, they who claim to be "with" a different set of rules outside the ordinary laws and regulations by the national assemblies is that they/we fail/are OBSTRUCTED to separate the ones who are "evil all the way" vs. the ones who may "have tried to do something", i.e., working for a better World with less suffering, straight, no lying possible.

Again, the most hideous need to be accounted for by laws and regulations and that laws and regulations need to be acted upon or are acted upon, one or another, logically, in the World (and possibly beyond).

So, yesssssssssssss, I think we have this SQUARED DOWN!!!

Links and more text may be added.

Watch up for key word: operationalism and remember, please, HDI/mHDI (crime stat's incl.)

Telepathy - the inquiry continues with new leads too

In terms of Ganzfeld Zimmer experiments (only sound isolation, no special light other than slight dimming of white light), that this way may provide better use:

1. Make sure the participants have open minds for it, that they are prepared to accept such, telepathy, or have a weak/strong suspicion towards it.

2. Make sure they are emotionally prepared, that they are told of the "respects toward own feelings routine" before entering the experiment and that this preparation can be academically improved, by a type of guidance, opposite sex/gender or not. There is also the question whether the participants should bring friends/acquaintances they are confident with, and I think this represents a good beginning, although, there are probably other ways that work too, Helsinki-Declaration in hand, general research ethics...

3. Some (para-)psychologists may have "strong opinions" on the outcome and are not fit or suitable for conducting this type of research, they should be removed from (every) possible set of researchers...

Importantly: There is also a bigger, tacit assumption to this "game" and it is how the senses/the feelings relate to this, FORCING the entire psychology onto a new direction by train rails, that a finding probably sends a battalion of idiots right out to where they belong...!!!

Important 2: That we go with alpha-numbers at 5% or lower, that the Zener cards are kept to 4, that the subjects are to choose a comfort zone as options provide inside the Ganzfeld-zimmers. That an outcome on 8% means success, if not the very numbers higher up!

Good luck!

Notes:
1. One book to start with, in determining a whole field of all, papers and books alike, all "meta-studies included", but intelligently... This book fx. has an ESP topic to it: http://www.amazon.ca/Introduction-Psychology-Dr-Rod-Plotnik/dp/0495903442/ - +/- page 139. Introduction to Psychology - Hardcover: 768 pages, Publisher: Wadsworth Publishing; 9 edition (Feb 25 2010), Language: English, ISBN-10: 0495903442, ISBN-13: 978-0495903444.

2. Urls: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy (only Wikipedia for now, sorry.)

3. Remember to add the "Truthiness"-aspects...
as notion to the researchers themselves or others, by the questionnaires to the participants or so...

4. Here is an interesting link further: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=26367.0 that includes "some views/findings" on the Ganzfeld studies altogether...

5. You know, when the god-d*mn sociologists can't f*cking relate to PRIMARY literature, sitting on a "golden degree" that they probably never should have had and poor in reading the very literature, if not the Scientology itself... then what about our "friends", the psychologists... Probably not all...

A note of pleasure - Cocaine - Satisfaction

The destruction of a song:

Cocaine - Satisfaction

[text]

...
Cocaine
...
Satisfaction
...
[same calm, "stiff", relaxed voice with music and rhythm extended from Cocaine and then /taking the rhythm up/ to the body/verses of the song again?] Good?

As rehearsal, you can keep repeating these lines, maintaining rhythm and music:

...
Cocaine           ...ai/ne...
...
Satisfaction           ...âction...
...

...
(Because the Rolling Stones' song /isn't/...)

Disclaimer: ...drug abuse pose a significant risk against human health... that... the distinction of use/abuse and "being with the doctor's program" so that things do not get "chaotic"...