Challenge to iambiguous and surreptitious both

Wow you two use lots of words… maybe I’ll be a bit wordy here too.

Three Mormon women walked up to someone I know and gave him a Book of Mormon with 5 questions in it. He was allowed to make a future appointment and only ask one. The one he chose was, “why does God allow so much suffering in life?”

They answered like I’ve seen people on ILP answer, that you need the negative to understand the positive. The ugly to understand to beautiful. Suffering to understand the value of joy.

I pondered this for a moment and realized that even if that were true, a 100% consensual reality can accommodate that just as well as non consensual reality. I found the answer empty and stupid.

My true philosophy is simple: non zero sum.
Everything else is bad, immoral, evil.

When someone says “I got the woman, I got the job, i got the house, I got the husband, I got the children!”

I call this “bloodlust”

If a person hates zero sum. They are of the good.

It’s easy to feel empty without others, but who has the heart and honesty to feel empty when they win?

Not many. These are self centered people.

The only thing in life worth winning is non zero sum for all beings.

I actually agree with this. You learn a lot about people through their answer to the problem of evil and amazingly many atheists and theists come donw to the same conclusion regarding evil, though obviously one group includes God in some way.

a more subtle version of the viewpoints you are arguing against is that it actually need not be a zero sum game but either 1) we - our souls - decided to allow for confusion and the struggle to get back out in to the non-zero sum game option or 2) we are not aware of the guilt and self-hate we have that draws the zero sum game effects to us. IOW we think we want good things and we think we think we deserve what we want but actually at a deeper level, we call for punishment. There are even more nuanced versions of this. But before we get all gnarly into those, I do think that the excuses for the problem of evil and the problem of suffering

parallel the excuses battered women make for the behavior of their spouses
or how people exused the behavior of Kings
or how people justify caste systems and what passes for interpretations of Karma,
etc.

Oh sure, the psycho-reactivity when this isn’t conscious is massive in our population.

I think I did well to make my point though .

It is objectively true for all beings that 100% consensual realities are moral and anything but is immoral. When I go on about the damage done by human sexuality, this is objectively bad even in a zero sum world.

Iambiguous more or less makes the argument that because some people can only fall asleep well in 50 degree weather or below, and others can’t fall asleep well in anything below 75 degrees, that conflicting goods can never reconcile. While there are expensive solutions to this particular conflicting good (space heaters / air conditioners) it doesn’t resolve the equilibrium issue in general.

So you’d have someone like iambiguous arguing from this that there is no good or bad, or at a minimum it is at least subjective.

But there are other meta fingers to point with stating, actually evil is zero sum, so anything (like my hyperdimensional mirrors - per my op) or just less stratification in general, serves the good.

So there is good and evil. Concrete. It’s not a myth.

You have preferences. What then are your preferences relating to a moral conflict that most of us here are likely be familiar with? And how are you able to embrace a particular set of political prejudices and feel less fractured and fragmented than I do?

That’s what I am trying to discern here. I had preferences myself back in the day when, as a Marxist/feminist objectivist, I was convinced that being pro-choice was in sync with the “real me” in sync with the “right thing to do”. Then Mary and John and William Barrett persuaded me otherwise.

I am simply unable to grasp how someone who does not believe in objective morality is not fractured and fragmented in the manner in which I am. Given that “I” here is an existential contraption [rooted in dasein] ever and always open to change given new experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge.

To me moral values [in the absense of God or a solid argument defending deontology in a No God world] are [by and large] fabricated from our past experiences. There does not appear to me to be a font able to resolve value judgments in conflict.

Or, rather, none that seem reasonable to me here and now.

On the other hand, you insist that…

Then we are simply out of sync here. Your metholdology works for you but it does not work for me. Instead, I speculate that your pragmatism is more a frame of mind enabling you [psychologically] to feel less fractured and fragmented; and thus more comforted and consoled that the choices you make somehow reflect all that you can do in coming down one way rather than another given the nature of conflicting goods.

How about this…

Is it then fair to say that while you hold to certain values here and now, you do recognize that given new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas, you may well come to conclude just the opposite? That, in absence of an objective moral font, there really is no way in which to be certain about the behaviors that you choose?

As I try to make clear over and again, all that is of interest to me here is the extent to which someone is able to demonstrate that what they do believe is true [or think they know] “in their head” is that which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to embrace in turn.

In other words, I’ll let others delve into all of the “technical” issues relating to the subjective/objective conundrum that some philosophers pursue here. Instead, let them bring their conclusions out into the world of conflicting goods. At the intersection of identity and political power.

Actually, this part…

…is not at all unfair. They can point it out but I am far, far more interested/intrigued with how they integrate their own rational understanding of these technical relationships out in the world of conflicting goods.

There’s pragmatism as you understand it here and there’s being “down in a hole” as I understand it. That’s the gap that most fascinates me. How “out in the world with others” can one reject objective morality and not become entangled – as “I” – in the components of my own moral philosophy: nihilism.

Not from my point of view. You seem to place the emphasis on the number of experiences that one has. Whereas from my frame of mind having one experience or thousands of experiences does not make the components of my philosophy go away.

And it’s not that I “worry” about it “in general”. It simply reflects my preoccupation over years with the existential relationship between philosophy and the question, “how ought one to live?”

Philosophers either eventually get around to that or they become one of Will Durant’s “epistemologists”.

Another existential contraption.

As for this:

In thinking like this my “I” is understood to be fractured and fragmented. I am deprived of the comfort and the consolation the objectivists are able to embody. You then basically say “so what?”. And all this indicates to me is that you have been able to configure pragmatism “in your head” into a frame of mind considerably less deconstructed than mine.

How this actually “works” for you when your own values come into conflict with others is what interest me. And here I assume that you do not construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy as I do “out in the world” of actual human interactions in conflict. It’s like you just shrug them off and are then able to be “reasonably satisfied” with the behaviors you choose.

And “I” am not able to this.

Thus…

So basically if you find yourself in a situation in which your value judgments and behaviors are roundly challenged by another, you take your leap [or however you describe it] to a particular set of political prejudices; and that becomes good enough. “Yeah, sure”, you admit, “had my past experiences been very different I might be arguing on your side”; and, “yeah, sure”, you admit, “the arguments that they give are as reasonable as mine – if only coming from a different set of initial assumptions about the human condition”.

About abortion or human sexuality or the role of government or animal rights.

That’s how it works for me. It’s just that the consequences of that in my interactions with others perturbs me more than it perturbs you.

But it is certainly not about carrying a cross; it’s about my actual reaction to human pain and suffering that comes from being unable to take sides as the objectivists do: convinced that win or lose at least they know they are on the right side.

And that’s not nothing in a world where a staggering amount of human pain and suffering is derived precisely from the consequences of conflicting goods.

But again this particular reaction of mine was/is no less an existential contraption embedded in dasein. In all of the things that were/are beyond my control or beyond my understanding of.

Which is to say that each of us are likely to have points of view here that are in turn beyond our control and/or our understanding of.

I’m just more preoccupied with the existential parameters of that than others. But I would certainly not argue that one frame of mind here is more reasonable than another. Let alone that others ought to share mine.

My fragmentation is derived from the manner in which philosophically I construe the existential parameters of human morality in a No God world. And you may not call them “leaps” but one way or another you come to a decision to think this way about issues like abortion instead of that way. And in the manner in which you do so, it precipitates less turbulence, ambiguity, uncertainy and the like “in your head”.

As for the relationship between all of this and nihilism, I can only assume that this is no less an existential contraption. It seems reasonable to me here and now whereas there and then it did not. But what about tomorrow or next week or next year?

Or what if someone does manage to convince me that [God or No God] an objective morality does in fact exist?

Things only get all the more problematic here. Once nature is introduced into the mix, we are forced to consider “biological imperatives” that may well drive our behaviors. Or even the possibility that all that we choose is always ever only what we could have choosen in a determined universe.

No that isn’t how it works at all. I simply become aware of situations in which particular sets of conflicting goods generate contexts that generate conflicting behaviors that generate consequences that generate human pain and suffering.

And whereas I was once able to choose sides confident that it was the right thing to do, that is no longer the case. I find myself taking a position but I recognize how others who are not in sync with me are doing much the same. And whereas some are able to convince themselves that their reasons are more righteous than the reasons of those who oppose them, that, in turn, is now out of reach.

And I find that in pointing this out to others, my own frame of mind is even more disturbing to them. After all, it is one thing to take on another who believes in right and wrong but insists that he’s right and you’re wrong. And another thing altogether to take on the argument of someone who suggests that right and wrong themselves are largely “social constructs” rooted in history and culture and experience.

I disagree. If there are problems embedded in conflicting goods, I am always encouraging others to take the discussions down to earth. And this thread is certainly no exception. Though, again, my chief interest revolves around those that I construe to be objectivists here.

With you it revolves more around understanding how you can argue against objective morality and not be as fractured and fragmented as I am.

That just doesn’t make sense to me as other than a psychological reaction.

I see your pragmatic frame of mind here as a psychological defense mechanism. A way of feeling the least dysfunctional in your conflicted interactions with others.

And it’s not that I yearn to be an objectivist. It’s that I recognize no question more important to philosophers than “how ought one to live?”

Is this something that can be known?

The fact is it has always fascinated me given that I spent over two decades as a political activist.

As for this…

…it’s all just psycho-babble to me.

Instead, you have your own particular “likes and dislikes”; and you are comfortable enough with them that you won’t/don’t spend a whole lot of time thinking about how these “likes and dislikes” may well be rooted existentially in a particular sequence of experiences out in a world awash in arguments able to defend any point of view along the political spectrum.

You just don’t call this a “leap”.

Seriously, am I to accept a challenge from someone who reduces my arguments down to this?!! :laughing:

Note to KT: Please make sense of this for me. After all, you seem able to take him seriously. :wink:

Anti abortion is catholic. Like the air conditioners and space heaters, they developed a purgatory where all aborted children are raised as they should have been.

The biggest issue I see with you iambiguous, is that you lack imagination.

I knew that sooner or later air conditioners and space heaters would be involved. I just lacked the imagination to think of that first. :sunglasses:

I think there is a misunderstanding of Iambiguous, one that I have had, and perhaps he even has. Yes, he bemoans the inability to reconcile conflicting goods. He challenges objectivists, and uses the term as pejorative, to demonstrate some reasonable argument to resolve a particular issue, such as abortion. At face value what we have here is a nihilist who says that as far as he can tell there are no objective values and if there are he cannot see how one can know them ‘sans God’ as he says.

But what is he doing? What do we experience when we interact with him?

What he is doing is, as claimed, trying to find a way out of the hole he is in by looking for OBJECTIVE VALUES. This is his current life’s work, his only focus. It would be, he thinks, the only way out of his hole, if he could find out how ONE ought to live. He also thinks that since we cannot know what is good, we SHOULD stop pretending we do and value moderation, compromise and negotiation. I understand the logic, but on the other hand a nihilist cannot provide an argument, even with disclaimers, for what is GOOD.

He also, and often, points to the BAD consequences of values presented to him.

That’s right a nihilist points out BAD consequences and argues for a the GOOD methodology AND has made it is life task to find objective values. There are also moral overtones in this seeking. IOW it is as if one SHOULD look for how one should live even if this project seems doomed from the start.

I think what we are dealing with is a complex phenomenon, but that while yes, in a certain sense he is a nihilist, when he reacts to specific objectivists or even nihilists, he is also a meta-objectivist. IOW given that we do not know morals, the good thing to do is compromise. Given that we do not know, it is BAD to be an objectivist. Given that the only solution is to find objective morals, which may not exist, then we SHOULD try to find them.

This combination of nihilist and meta-objectivist, I think, is what leads to the problems in interacting with him. Because he will judge others morally, implicitly or explicitly, but then in the same or later post denounce moral judgments. He will say that objectivists have this comforting advantage since they think they know how to live, but at the same time present how one ought to live given that we cannot know how to live - compromise, moderation, etc.

It creates a cloud out from which come moral judgments and metaobjectivist claims and then nihilist positioning.

He has a BIG NARRATIVE of his life. He is a nihilist in a hole, suffering not knowing how one ought to live, and not being sure of anything.
That is the story he tells us and himself.

But that is not the life he lives. It is not how he interacts with others.

And since I am not in the hole he is in, I must be making leaps. He cannot see all the leaps in both his BIG NARRATIVE, leaps I do not make. He cannot see that his mode of living, his decision about what the only rational reactions to the hole are, are leaps, leaps I do not make. If I decided that I MUST know a solution to resolve conflicting goods, that I MUST determine ratinonally how ONE ought to live and then live like that, then I would be depressed. I would suddenly be in a hole. There is no reason that I must take on his BIG NARRATIVE. Just as I need not take on the Christian one, for example. He cannot see that added leaps are causing his hole, not the lack of leaps. I have plenty to worry about and plenty of problems and troubles, but I have not added on his Quixotic impersonal quest. And this is one reason I am not in his hole and also why I am less fragmented. I am vastly less impersonal than he is.

Iamb,
Let me try to keep this simple.
I think everyone is a pragmatist. Then people add on other stuff.
You really seem to want to see my not having a hole has to do with contraptions I have that you do not.
I see your hole as caused in part by contraptions you have that I do not.
Dogs do not pause before acting and try to figure out what all dogs should do and feel they cannot do things unless they can convince all other dogs it is the right thing to do. Dogs do not worry that perhaps they will not want to tree a cat in a couple of years or that it is not the real dog that wants this. My point is not that I am a dog, but that if we added contraptions like these to dogs, they would become depressed/neurotic if they had these extra contraptions. Contraptions can cause confusion, depression, anxiety as well as comfort.
It seems to me that your contraptions - that you must figure out how ONE must live, for example - cause you pain.
You, Iamb, are a pragmatist, at least also. You somehow feed yourself. Let’s assume you shop. Sure, you may feel torn between healthy food and desired food, but you do not make your order based on what every rational person can be convinced they should eat for lunch that day. Like me you make decisions based on desires, on what you want to experience.
If I met a woman and I wanted to spend time with her, I would not try to figure out if she was the right person for all rational heterosexual men. I would not try to figure out if all men should be in couples or having sex. I would not try to kiss her, should it seem welcomed, in the way that all men should kiss any particular woman. I would not worry that one day I might want to be celibate or realize I am gay or no longer like creative types.

When it comes to larger issues, political ones, I push for what I prefer, guided in part by my own preferences for my life and then also by compassion and my best guesses about what will increase the well being of what I care about. You add a contraption here also: you must know that your position can be proven to all rational human beings and that you have that argument ready to hand. You also must know that you will never change. Those two contraptions are tied together, but they are not quite the same and are likely triggered at different times. IOW they contribute to the hole in different ways even if they are also deeply connected.
Yes, my ideas might change over time. This has happened. I do not have the contraption you have that it is immoral to act in the world if you cannot prove to all rational people you are right AND you know you will never change your view.

And I couch this in moral terms because I think I can demonstrate, by process of elimination, that you have a moral contraption.
In real life MUST ONE in the IS world have a proof that the food you buy, the vote you cast, the woman you approached, you position on a moral issue is 1) a perfect expression of the real and permanent you and will thus never change and 2) you can prove to everyone rational on earth that they ought to make the same decision?

N0.

It is obvious that in the IS world one does not have to pass these criteria to act and make those choices.

People do this all the time. Some of them think that those who disagree MUST be irrational, but not all. And no one damns them, stops them from expressing their views, casting their votes, sending out flyers
because they do not have the magic bullet argument that convinces everyone. The IS world allows one to do this, as it allowed you in the past.

However —
In the OUGHT WORLD one certainly could have a rule, a contraption, that one OUGHT to have that perfect argument and KNOW for sure one will never change or one SHOULD not act in the world.
I think you are driven by a morality that you seem not to question and it is in the form of two contraptions numbered above.
I do not have those.
You’ve never said to me ‘How dare you push for your preferences when you cannot prove they are the right ones and you will never change.’ But I can feel it in there AND you are certainly saying it to yourself.
It would be a sin.
My having less fragmentation is not due to extra contraptions you do not have. At least in part it is because of extra contraptions you have. Whatever shit you’ve gone through likely plays a role and then how this all interacted with inborn traits.

And those contraptions also fragment because you do not come from yourself or ‘yourself’. You have a bird’s eye view of every person and have an incredible distrust of yourself and incredibly bureaucracies are in place in place to hinder your organism from participation in the world until you have met criteria you think it is likely you cannot meet.
Your most go to issue is abortion, an issue that I do not think is relevent to you now in any direct way. But more than that, the general pattern of coming at life as ALL RATIONAL PEOPLE, rather than this particular one, who lives here.
It is as if in a world sans God, you must have the knowledge of God, or it is immoral to act and one should flagellate oneself and any one else who dares to act, to choose.

Instead of just denying this. Spend a few days and really see…
Is It possible that Karpel Tunnel has less contraptions and that some of what seems obvious to me, Iamb, is actual a set of contraptions that cause me pain?

And not in your usual disclaimer way: oh, sure, I always acknowledge that’s possible, and then you go on clearly absolutely unaffected.

I am sure you can find a bunch of ways to focus on specific things I said and let this lead you to repeat things you say all the time and which I have read and understood. Instead of doing that, actually sit with what I said for a while. REally try it on. Let yourself be affected. Because you seem utterly unaffected by what people say.

What if a lot of what drives this project of yours

is guilt in the form of two contraptions?

In other words, the deontologists, the political ideologues, the religious fundamentalists, the folks like Satyr at KT, the new age gurus etc. etc., are in turn just “pragmatists” – adding on the assumption that they and only they know how to correctly distinguish between rational and irrational thinking, moral and immoral behavior, good and evil.

Right, in a parallel universe maybe.

And your own rendition of pragmatism isn’t an intellectual contraption embedded in the leaps that you made existentially to particular political prejudices; no, it’s something more in sync with the manner in which a serious philosopher would grapple with the antimomies embedded in identity and conflicting goods.

No, you are not a dog. And, no, a dog is not a human being. Why not just leave it at that?

The fact that mere mortals in a No God world concoct all manner of philosophical and moral and political contraptions and dogs don’t? This tell us…what exactly?

But my focus is always on the extent to which so much human pain is embedded [historically] in those sacred and secular contraptions that revolve precisely around objective morality. That and the pain and the suffering embedded in the “show me the money” mentality embodied by the moral nihilists that own and operate our state capitalist global economy.

All I can do here is to try to nudge as many folks as I can in the general direction of “moderation, negotiation and conpromise.” Knowing full well that even then the hole that I am in is still around. And that means a fractured and fragmented sense of self in a world teeming with both contingency, chance and change and the at times brutal consequences of conflicting goods.

I’m a pragmatist in the sense that one way or another I need to sustain my existence – subsist – from day to day. And, as I note over and again, for most of us lucky enough to live relatively stable lives, the overwhelming preponderence of our interactions with others are not going to result in conflicting goods precipitating conflicting behaviors.

But there they are anyway. To put or not to put Brett Kavenaugh on the Supreme Court. To build or not to build Trump’s Wall. To attack or not to attack North Korea. To accept or not to accept homosexuality. To eat or not to eat animals. To own or not to own guns. To choose or not to choose genocide.

The objectivists are snug and/or smug in their convictions here by and large. And pragmistists of your ilk manage to think themselves into embodying the least amount of mental and emotional anguish and ambivalence. You “push for what you prefer” and don’t give as much thought as I do to the manner in which that is just one more existential contraption rooted in dasein rooted in a particular sequence of experiences rooted in a particular time and place.

Yeah, sure, that’s all “out there” or “down here” somewhere intertwined in the life that you’ve lived; but why dwell on it. Just let it go, embrace your own particular political prejudice and move on to the next conflict.

If that works for you then that works for you. If that doesn’t work for me though it’s only because I haven’t learned how to equate approaching moral conflicts with going shopping.

The bottom line is that the objectivists do make these claims by and large. And that is where my focus almost always is here.

Like me, however, you don’t. But the manner in which you think about these relationships has enabled you to feel less fractured and fragmented. But that’s not the same as saying that you will never feel considerably more fractured and fragmented. To the extent that I am able to persuade you that the components of my own moral philosophy are more reasonable than the components of your philosophy is the extent to which your point of view about these things changes. And of course the other way around.

But what I sense most from you is this smugness that how you think at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments and political power is somehow more reasonable than the way that I do. Whereas I surmise that you have managed to come to the conclusions that you have precisely because psychologically they afford you more comfort and consolation regarding the choices you make.

Something that “I” do not “here and now” have access to.

What you claim to “have” or “not have” in regard to the manner in which you construe my own moral philosophy is no less an existential contraption rooted in dasein to me.

We just think about that differently.

But the bottom line [mine] is that the entirety of your argument here is embedded in a “general description” of human interactions.

To wit:

And then when you do focus in on a particular conflicting good…

…you offer nothing in the way in which I embed my own moral trajectory in this:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

Go ahead, give it a shot.

There is no definitive moral code for dealing with the human condition. Rather it is trial and error with no absolute answers. The root of morality lies in evolutionary psychology which given that it is evolutionary will be adaptive and flexible rather than rigid and prescriptive. The answer inasmuch as there is one lies in pragmatism that actually works rather than in the Utopian ideal of so called objective morality. Problems will always exist for such is the nature of human existence so pragmatic solutions have to be found that can best accommodate them. And as it is an eternal work in progress the answers cannot ever be objectively true only subjectively so

[b]
Let me take abortion as it is the go to example here

Morality A says that human life is sacred and cannot be violated

Morality B says that female bodily autonomy is sacred and cannot be violated

Morality A and Morality B are in conflict with each other and are therefore incompatible

There is no OBJECTIVE means of determining which one of them should supersede the other

SUBJECTIVE solutions [ Morality A over Morality B or Morality B over Morality A ] are not absolute

Some claim OBJECTIVE MORALITY but the existence of free will means that it can be SUBJECTIVELY INTERPRETED

Also OBJECTIVE MORALITY does not account for the evolutionary origin of morality which means it cannot be objective by definition

This lack of OBJECTIVE MORALITY is why I personally am neither pro abortion or anti abortion as I cannot resolve the two conflicting moralities

And this can be extended from the specific to the general with regard to ALL major moral issues which is why there will always be conflict surrounding them
[/b]

You didn’t even address my argument.

Zero sum worlds that violate consent are evil.

Non zero sum worlds that don’t violate consent are good.

Consent is intersubjective for all beings to the extent that it is objective.

Inter subjective consent for all beings is negated by free will which means it cannot happen and as a concept it is just meaningless
Also no one is under any moral requirement to obtain inter subjective agreement with anyone let alone everyone less they want to
The best way to achieve a non zero sum world that did not violate consent would be by eliminating free will but this is not possible

You haven’t read the thread. Hyperdimansional mirrors solves that problem

My challenge is simple:

Objective good = consensual realities that are non-zero sum

Objective bad = non-consensual realities that are zero sum

I will argue that in the context of being in an objectively bad reality (our current one) objective good is determined by what is more consensual and less zero sum.

You cannot have universal consent because of free will so it will always be zero sum for that reason
You can try to keep zero sum to a minimum but it works better in smaller units like a neighbourhood

If everyone is in their own constructed reality using hyper dimensional mirrors from platonic forms, it’s impossible to violate consent.

Explain exactly how consent cannot be violated using these mirrors
Also how long will it be before this is reality not just science fiction

Well… platonic forms exist in an eternal dimension outside space time. We are already co-reflecting them with our being. Without such forms, it would be impossible to name motion, like the act of walking or even a mountain. The forms are “walkingness”, “mountainness” and even “ecmanduness”

Each form has a signature, such as a form signature or a consciousness signature.

What a hyperdimensional mirror does is reflect the platonic form in an immersive reality.

An analogy is imagine me holding a mirror up to your face and punching your face in the mirror, it’s still you perfectly, just in 2 dimensions, and when I punch your face in the mirror, it doesn’t hurt your face at all.

Hyperdimensional mirrors do the same thing, but in every dimension.

You can also bend the mirror to change the shapes or nature or frequency of the consciousness signatures being reflected from your being. Changing the frequency of the consciousness signature or form signature will change biological and conceptual age.

The reason we live in a bad reality is that we are co-reflecting in the same reality together… there really are 7 billion eternal forms in this reality together instead of each one having its own reality.

Consensual realities using hyperdimensional mirrors are a matter of raising vibrational frequencies in our being to perfect the system using focus, concentration an meditation.

It’s harder for an individual to do it than if everyone on earth wanted it done all at once.

Edited for additional content