Nothing is perfect

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Nothing is perfect means two different things.

The absence of everything is perfect
When something exists, it’s imperfect.

I think about the US constitution when I ponder this….

“A more perfect union”

If you’re an existent, you’re imperfect.

When I work on making things more perfect, I realize it’s about making self contained universes with you highest self catering to one of its aspect selves.

In other words…

Marionetted playacting philosophic zombie universes.

That way…. You’re not putting it on anyone but you to cater to you, and you will always delight catering to you.

I realized that nobody wants the job of catering to everyone. I could hypothetically do it, but I’m not an omnisexual. Just an ordinary hyper sexual heterosexual.

Technically, ‘god’ could parallel process an infinite number of universes giving everyone everything they want when they want it.

But this doesn’t occur. Apparently, ‘god’ doesn’t want that job.

So I had to look at it as your highest self catering to you personally.

Since I’m a male heterosexual, I don’t want to have sex with myself in a woman’s body…. That would make me gay. I’m not gay. There’s nothing wrong with being gay, I just happen to not be gay.

That’s why I settled upon marionettes philosophic zombie universes.

Things like that…

So basically…. Nothing at all can’t exist, simply because I’m typing the message.

So it’s about finding a more perfect union.

2

I’m sorry … I apologize. Please define (or remind us… I mean me) of the meaning of marionetted playacting philosophic zombie universes.

And remember. If it isn’t a function of reproduction, it isn’t sexual.

If it is cultural reproduction call it … hmmm … hypercreative … or omnicreative … but certainly not transcreative. Who wants to transcend creativity? Only those who want to control the future. But that’s acreative.

I like to consider myself … hm. Let me think about that one. Co-immorto-synthetico-evergreen-conscious? Meh we’ll work on it.

[What can be perfected, will be perfected. You can’t perfect what doesn’t exist. Perfection is a quality of being.]

3

You can reproduce in those realities if that’s your fetish.

We were never born and we never die. Reproduction is an illusion.

It’s very, very, VERY important to not be a dictator.

I’ll tell you the first part…

You always get what you want when you want it.

That’s true of everyone, no matter how many different styles of this that they have.

Once you’ve outgrown this is the end part…

At nobodies expense.

Currently in existence once the end part is your soul, there’s nowhere to go.

I’ve trash talked the species all I need to.

Now I’m devoting all my time and energy to fulfill the last wish…. At nobodies expense (including yourself).

Basically your oversoul is puppeting non sentient beings to your pleasure without harming anyone or anything.

And Ichthus…

Understand this.

I won either way. I’d either get to see pretty breasts or I can call everyone unfit to stand trial.

By losing to me, you won.

I bet the gods that if truth incarnate came here that women wouldn’t fuck it. I was correct, they don’t.

You don’t have to stand trial.

4

The idea that “Nothing is perfect” opens the door to discussions about the nature of reality, human limitations, the pursuit of ideals, and the philosophical implications of imperfection in various domains of thought. It touches upon several fundamental philosophical concepts and ideas, such as the nature of reality. In many philosophical traditions, there is a recognition that perfection may be an idealised concept, and imperfections characterise the actual world. This idea aligns with the philosophical notion that reality is often messy, imperfect, and complex.

In Platonic philosophy, perfection is often associated with the realm of Forms or Ideas. According to Plato, the physical world is an imperfect reflection of these perfect Forms. The statement “Nothing is perfect” may resonate with the idea that perfection exists in an abstract, non-physical realm, and nothing in the tangible world can achieve absolute perfection. From an ethical standpoint, the statement can be related to human nature. If humans are inherently imperfect, their creations, actions, and endeavours must also be imperfect. This perspective has implications for ethical theories and how humans strive for moral ideals despite inherent imperfections.

It can also be interpreted as a critique of utopian thinking, where individuals or societies strive for an idealised and perfect state. Philosophers may argue that pursuing perfection can lead to unrealistic expectations and potentially detrimental consequences. It also suggests a recognition of the limitations of human understanding. It acknowledges that our knowledge is always incomplete and subject to revision, emphasising the inherent uncertainty in our attempts to comprehend the world.

So, now the door to discussions about the nature of reality, human limitations, the pursuit of ideals, and the philosophical implications of imperfection has been opened, is anyone prepared to speak seriously about the subject?

5

Maybe try actually being you, but according to self=other.

Have you, or have you not, attempted that?

Because I’d wager whatever would be right to wager… you did not ever once attempt that and make it through the withdrawals.

Neither have I, to be honest.

It’d be like a lover’s leap. We both stand to lose.

pphhh!!! lol I’m so f***in delusional right now!

Anywhayz.

sigh

Kant was so right.

6

Bob.

We incarnate with limitations to expand creation.

7

are we sure the expanse expands… what with… conservation

quality expanse, not quantity expanse

i’d run on that platform if you would

8

Existence can’t expand without limits.

No limits?

Everyone is bored with everything.

There are lots of laws I haven’t told the board yet.

One of them is that everything needs to be unique in order for existence to exist. Otherwise everything would be exactly the same and existence wouldn’t exist.

9

limits
quora.com/How-do-differenti … 3667926761

10

I have doubts about self-proclaimed “experts in spirituality” because I feel that truths have a dual nature, one conditional and one comprehensive, whereby the comprehensive truths are still circumstantial. This was highlighted in an Essay by Bernardo Kastrup on the UAP (UFO) phenomena, in which he made an intelligent stab at how our intelligence and cognition are not shared by most species on the planet, meaning that communication with these species is not just a semantic problem, our very concepts are only our own – and even in our species they are up for debate.

If the intelligence and cognition of other earthly species is so diverse, what would it mean regarding possible alien contact if that is true? Secondly, there is the time question, meaning that a species so far advanced that they can span galaxies would possibly find our perspectives childish at best. He also proposed that Non-Human Intelligence (NHI) could plausibly, given the timescale, be earthbound but, in most cases, able to avoid our perception.

It may seem to be a jump, but he was pointing out that if consciousness is primary and gives rise to life in the universe, the diversity on our planet could be just an indication of the enormous diversity potentially in the universe. What does that say about concepts of spiritual enlightenment or self-proclaimed prophets? It also makes the exclusivity of Abrahamic religions and the squabbling that goes on among human beings seem ridiculous.

11

There are commonalities shared between all cultures/religions. Let’s call those “essentials”. What a culture/religion considers essential, in such a way that criticizes other cultures/religions/denominations who don’t consider it essential — those are things that need to be worked out with conflict resolution skills. If the essentials violate self=other, some muckety-muck or group of muckety-mucks is exploiting the system & won’t likely relinquish the narrative to public dialogue and scrutiny.

If a being can communicate, then they have self equals other, which is basic in every communicating being. The sender and the receiver have a common shape to modulate a wave between them. But they are not the same, or else there would not need to be any sending or receiving. That makes sense out of Logos incarnate being sent from the Father, and going back to the Father.

If they (who you term aliens) are not of human genetics, we probably would consider them angels or demons or some other name of that sort from various cultures. Whenever that comes up I always like to ask people to read the book of Jude.

If what the prophet says violates self equals other, you can dismiss anything else they have to say. Does it, though? That is the question. In the past they had some pretty strict consequences for making a prediction that didn’t come through. Obviously they didn’t always follow through with the consequences, or there wouldn’t have been all those narratives about false prophets.

I bet people who want to control the future have some pretty strict consequences when a program fails to see something coming… or pretends not to see. Or pretends to see what they don’t. Question is … and I’ve asked before … How do you tell when someone smarter than you is lying?

Meno_.

12

I think you missed my point. There are species on our planet that cannot communicate with us because our language is inadequate to understand their matters of concern, quite independent of whether they themselves have a language. We, as a species, can only interact and communicate because we have those “essentials” as you call them, but even we have issues that differ due to circumstances.

First of all, I believe that either we are all God incarnate, or none of us are. Secondly, the wisdom that we can gain is often between the lines or in an ephemeral moment that has just passed. The confrontation with a contradiction often jars our concepts just enough so that we see beyond our assumptions. This is wisdom’s mystical nature, the reason it is so seldom found, and why it causes amazement when it becomes incarnate in a person. Unfortunately, it also causes opposition, which is why we have so many wise people killed.

Much of what is called philosophy is not the love of wisdom, but the love of words, “logophilia,” or love of books, “bibliophilia” – this is especially true of Abrahamic faiths but also of many academics. Confronted with wisdom, the pious are very suspicious and, like most people, can be just as violent as anyone else.

In German, we have a nice saying that prophecy is not so much predicting as revealing (prophetie ist nicht so sehr vorhersagen als hineinsagen). That means that the prophet speaks into a situation, but considering that according to tradition, all the OT prophets were incarcerated and/or killed, and the Jews are waiting for fulfilment, I’d say that they were saying things that power didn’t want to hear.

???

13

Some people like their ant farms more than their own kind.

This is true of ET’s as well.

Just like ants teach humans, humans teach ET’s.

You have to have a certain disposition to learn from everything, even if your intelligence is higher as bob was suggesting.

Existence is teeming with life.

14

youtu.be/Eq5inG547JA?si=hwKNSp_gWQH4oew1

15

So. I’ll articulate something the cosmos is asking me.

I came to earth as embodied truth. The bet was that no woman would have sex with it. If I won the bet, then women are not fit to stand trial and the men who abuse the mechanism aren’t either. I won the bet.

What would have happened if a woman did choose me, would all the rest be sent to hell?

No. There’s the proximity problem for one. That has to be taken into account.

More than that, a woman who picked me would be competent to stand trial, but she wouldn’t be found guilty.

It was a very simple bet in the god realms. The bet was taken by me to protect you. The gods had already condemned you.

Does that make me a messiah? From your perspective it might …

I have to build a new dimension to be the messiah.

Getting all of you off on technicalities does not make me the messiah.

16

I’ll explain a little more. If you were not my female psychologist with a male partner, the bet didn’t work.

I was just studying the rest of people.

The bet required that a woman who had nothing (from our perspective) and everything to lose (from their perspective) wouldn’t have sex with truth incarnate.

It had to be people where the stakes were high for them, to break the law to do the right thing.

Once the study was complete …. I argued that nobody is competent to stand trial here. I also argued that we should use disempowerments instead of hell realms (a slap on the wrist).

This is how gods work. Now you know.

17

I skimmed your posts and I will read the rest if you can clarify one little thing for me before I even think about reading the rest of what you wrote.

I’m sorry, I’ll probably read it after I post this, even if you don’t clarify it, but I would like some clarification.

By “breaking the law to do the right thing” do you mean the law they would break is “the law to do the right thing”, or do you mean breaking a law that does not allow them to do the right thing? I would never break the law to do the right thing. Correction: I have done that and will probably do it again. However, I should just inform you, it is super easy to break laws that prevent someone from doing the right thing. They aren’t really laws, anyway. They’re more like funny money. Real money is debatable, because it might also be funny money…like if it violates self=other. Granted, there are consequences for anything you do, whether it violates the law (funny or real) or not.

So.

Some clarification, please.

18

The law they’re breaking is a human construct.

It was always right to break the law to protect and free chattel slaves.

A psychotherapist can lose their license to have sex with me. They worked their whole lives for that license. They also have a partner who abused the no means yes problem to be with them, whilst I’m not abusing it.

I won the bet. Truth incarnate doesn’t attract women as a male heterosexual.

That means you’re all protected from hell. You would think that sends you to hell … it’s the opposite, you’re all declared incompetent to stand trial.

19

First of all, perhaps she doesn’t even have the license you think she has. Perhaps she stopped working towards that license because a) education is too damn expensive, and b) perhaps she needs therapy herself…more than a therapist needs. Second of all, perhaps you should find a mate that is not (in a professional fashion) your psychotherapist or psychiatrist or whatever you wanna call it—because wouldn’t that indicate (yes, it would!) they are not ethically up to being your mate? If she had the appropriate boundaries, she would not entertain the attraction or encourage it. Yes you are male (unless you’re a “funny male”) yes she is female (???), yes this is true everywhere across the universe of people who are male and female. It is not appropriate in the context — the law does not violate the law to do right. “I had to have sex with him. It was the right thing to do,” — would never be said in this context with any … ethical import (and by that I mean there would be no context—within this context—in which it would be “really” ethical, as opposed to “funny” ethical…funny like funny money, not funny haha).

There it is. This is why I waited.

20

I stated that it seems like you are as smart as me… and that I’m not used to that. The reality is that you’re not as smart as me.

I have the karma of Jesus too.

Demons want to possess me to poke my eyeballs out with my own fingers. Some Bible passage about what Jesus said…

My prior incarnation was Prometheus. I was a primordial god from your small perception. In reality, you’re all high beings in your own right.

For now, I just happen to be top of the bell curve in existence. That can change any day.

I’m not looking for pity sex. That’s abhorrent to me.

I’m looking for consensual sex. That’s impossible in humans. It actually saved you all from hell.