Once more…
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 3#p2928443
responding to this video:
youtu.be/eyLg1AYpCc0?feature=shared
Is it possible that there is only one heaven and that’s why Jesus says so many times that yada yada yada will not enter the kingdom of heaven? Because you’re right (10:21) that it doesn’t work to put people in heaven that don’t want to be there. It’s not heaven for them.
Can you tell me how the protoexperiments went in your daily life such that it was hell for everyone instead of heaven for everyone?
How did you get brain damage?
If everyone in a sentient individual’s reality is a non-sentient marrioneted philosophic zombie — they are still in the same reality — the hyperdimensional omnibenevolent being. Why can’t the sentient being just get a “toy”, if they do not require the companionship of a sentient being, but would be fine with a non-sentient marionetted philosophic zombie? And how do you know the grand Creator who is omnibenevolent did not make this happen? Note at 12 minutes you call the one living their life (sustained by the Creator’s sight…) a puppet… perhaps because their whole reality/otherness is being puppetted for them? Did you know that you did that? So in order to avoid turning us all into puppets, do we not need a reality that, instead of being a non-sentient illusion …is an unveiling of sentience?
Another thing that comes to mind is, instead of just giving the hyperdimensional omnibenevolent being the consideration that you’re talking about so that we don’t make it difficult for them (or egotistical for us…13:44) to give us what we want … why don’t we be considerate of others in that way? Why don’t we be good like we expect the omnibenevolent being to be good instead of letting them decide which wants to grant so that people’s consents are not violated in a major way (3:35)… Why don’t we decide for ourselves (Luke 12:57) to follow the golden / rainbow rule?
I’m going to have to take issue with there being no difference at the highest level. And you may want to redefine what you mean by highest level. The hyper dimensional omni-benevolent creator subsumes all difference. All otherness… always already. That’s kind of the whole point between the last will be first and the first will be last and I am the first and the last. So if this whole thing began complete…sustained/subsumed in an eternal creator… being from Being… is there ever a state of disembodiment for reality?
I like your use of the word architecture. If it’s already there, why do we have to restructure it?
Is the laughter at 8:34 & 14:05 a tell? Were these videos for an acting class or something?
I mean how are we contingent beings going to “make sure” that THE supreme being is good & can’t get hurt? Drop the act, Ec. We can “make sure” with each other. But only if we are real and not nonsentient yada yada yada… So if we’re making sure, then we are real, and the omnibenevolent yada yada did it right the first time, rather than deceive us by handing us counterfeit people to “make sure” are good & not hurting.
15:57 Who do you have in mind that almost no one wants to hang out with? You just haven’t found your people yet. I want to hang out with you. Maybe it’s you that doesn’t want to hang out? Maybe you’re having too much fun in your own head? Pleasurable exclusive access and all that. Rude.
Last question. Do you think the being who can give you everything you want doesn’t have to deal with all the crap you bring to the table? How does that work?
further discussing this video still:
youtu.be/eyLg1AYpCc0?feature=shared
“deal with all the crap” (16:42) nihil
-
dealt with on cross (but not a magic trick)
-
it’s not what goes into a man that defiles him (Matthew 5:11-20)
-
The thing you already said earlier in the video about he loves us anyway, because he’s good (8:44…9:54 …. fine… I’ll be that way).
p.s. I love how you say we can test this idea. (9:28ish) -
Maybe somebody might like the things that you (were “taught wrong” to) call crap (or laugh at… sometimes appropriately… in the neighborhood of 7:00).
(p.s. at 8:15ish you seem to indicate you don’t understand how Being subsuming time “experiences”… is that still the case? I mean… it’s okay if it isn’t. We’re all beings subject to time, except the one omnipresent, omnitemporal Being subsuming us. That is kind of hard to envision. For very long.)
If you are actually congenial (15:31), why are you trying so hard to find a way around others’ noncongeniality that still avoids hell? Is that your problem with Jesus? That is like the sky calling the water blue.
Unless, of course… you’re not actually congenial.
The thing you have been telling yourself to survive your delusions and test them is to make them conform to “everyone gets everything they want at nobody’s expense“. You think that’s you forcing them to be good, or you’ll ignore them. I can relate to the spirit of that, but I think I have shown you that it is confused. The thing that you should make them conform to instead is this:
The only way to survive cognitive dissonance hell (apart from meh-cynically laughing through it—but is that really living…thriving?) is to keep reminding yourself that the only one who can actually accommodate your “heaven adjacent-ness” died to show he always knew you were gonna f*** it up and loves you anyway. If you use that to go do stupid sh**, and you know what stupid sh** means, you entirely missed the point.
Ec,
I was watching video #16 & something from Kant hit me.
Can you conceive of a reality where what everyone wants is to violate consent and have their consent violated? That self-destructs—to want the opposite of what you want.
If you want the opposite of what you want, then you don’t actually want that thing, and it is not a part of you. You want it gone. This is different from competing wants, because with competing wants (conflicting desires), all of the wants are wanted and part of you… but are they essential? If you learn they are not essential, you can stop wanting them and start wanting them gone. You only want what is essentially you. You are the wants that are left after all the nonessential wants have been pruned away. That is the image of God.
The appropriate way to deal with competing or nonessential wants is measure them against self=other, us=them… (consent respect)… which, granted… you have to want to do, if you’re not just programmed to do it (if you have the ability to defy the program—then you have the ability to … instead of defying it … willfully adopt it as your own). In the case of God, he is free to defy it, but because true freedom (power) is running/initiating it… he willfully never defies it.
When you have a desire that you don’t want (especially when/if/because it violates consent), but you act on it rather than making it “get with the program”— you are a slave to it. So—because of scenarios like that—it is not necessarily the best thing in the universe to get what you want/desire.
There is a higher level of wanting/desiring we all hunger for—that’s why it (various versions of the Golden Rule) is recorded in every major culture in history. None of the lesser wants can fill that hunger.
That is the source of cognitive dissonance we usually call guilt.
When we let the lesser wants to take the place of that higher want, it results in alienation internally and between others. When we try to make our lesser wants align with the higher want, we are doing something most people struggle with or don’t even attempt… so interacting with them when they aren’t even attempting it, or are in the midst of a related struggle (which can trigger defense mechanisms until the struggle is successfully resolved)… presents more opportunities for competing wants (of self & other selves) to be measured & resolved against the golden rule. Or war, if at least one of the stakeholders is defying the program. It really does self-destruct…wrecks itself if left unchecked. The opposite of all consents being respected (given the same weight if they are consent-respecting consents) — is mutually assured destruction.
Well it’s interesting. You’re obviously talking about the culmination of the categorical imperative.
So. Here we are. A person who never wanted to exist speaking to those who still cling to life. I don’t cling to life because I want it, I cling to it to build a new dimension so I never have to return here in a universe with more than one person when I’m summoned again from the dead.
If I was a normal person, part of clinging to life is walking everyday. I hardly do that. It’s all about efficiency. My body is falling apart. I need to focus on mind.
Anyone with an ounce of sense is a protector.
I was talking with this guy about men and women, and he was having the argument that if you expect an outcome by not making them uncomfortable that they’ll smell your desperation and avoid you.
Insane right.
I happen to think people like Jeri Ryan and Amanda Tapping are amazing. But if you offered me both of them at once as my wives. I’d choose oblivion instead.
The human species has what’s called sex dimorphism on the male side.
The mechanism has 4 features, which cause the no means yes problem. Not every species has this problem.
You can’t see infinity like I can, so I have to teach it to you.
Everyone eventually diverges. You have romantic ideas about ‘the one’. I understand that. That’s not the way infinity works. We’re naturally curious people and we travel to someone else out of curiosity …
Ultimately to everyone else.
Then when you get old enough and realize the pain of others by moving on, it’s starts to become obvious …
A universe with more than one person never works forever.
And then you’re in my shoes.
ICYMI:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 3#p2929003
I wish you would answer every part of what I say, because I feel like I’m wasting my breath otherwise, and I feel like if you actually put what I said into your brain and answered every question I ask individually…
…I dunno… something good would happen.
Ec…
On the one hand you say that you can’t have a good day/time if there’s anyone else in the universe that is not having a good day/time.
On the other hand you have this video that completely conflicts with that:
youtu.be/BHAg29AjYdg?feature=shared
I understand that sex is not like a sandwich (different vid). However, … you say that you use sex as a metaphor for everything…
You have all these conflicting thoughts swirling around like a tornado.
Maybe we shouldn’t minimize good consensual sex? Maybe we should appreciate it like we appreciate good comedy/art?
If not… why not?
Dimorphism? There’s always going to be someone who excels at something more than you do. That should not stop you from doing it. You don’t have to be the best at something to enjoy it.
But I think it’s because sex is NOT like a sandwich that makes folks not share it with everyone. It is like the most condensed, potent form of consent. To monetize it or give it away like it’s nothing is to fail to properly recognize & acknowledge it. That’s not something you want to “agree to disagree” (different vid) about.
Unless you like soup sammiches.
wasted deep sigh
I deleted those videos because I thought they were worthless. Someone hacked my account and put them back online. Then locked me out of my account.
I have a yahoo account now.
I used to say that every moment I live, I become exponentially smarter.
Now I’m in the flow.
You can ask me any question about structural existence and I have the answer immediately.
What I don’t like about people is that they’re trying to apologize for life when I can do anything I want but don’t want to exist. Life is just a stupid Nintendo game. Why live in it ever?
What if you met a person who wanted to change the Nintendo game in the same way you want to change it—without violating consent—without being curious about others because you respect consent & have learned everything & aren’t a badass?
No more bandages on gangrene.
True love? I don’t believe in ‘the one’. I believe in everyone.
I have an infinite number of beings I came here for.
All the really old ones who want to sleep forever.
Humans interfere with things they shouldn’t. They call them back from oblivion. It’s just curiosity, but it’s also really bad karma. I repeat. Do not disturb the dead.
A being like me has done everything. There’s an infinite number of us I’m here to protect from being conjured back.
I may take over the entire universe if I need to, to finish the job of the new realm.
It’s really bad karma to resurrect the dead. They earned their death. Let them sleep.
You make a point that is both poignant and parsimonious.
Ec,
I finished watching all your videos.
it isn’t no means yes across the board.
because No does not in every case turn into a yes.
of course a yes starts out as a no, otherwise you could not have a yes.
but some No’s stay no.
just because a no turns into a yes does not mean consent has been violated.
and a no is more likely to stay a no if consent violation has taken place.
Persuasion is not rape. Force is not rape. We know this because the force of an argument can be entirely ignored and a mind can stay unchanged.
not all ornamentation is consent violation
not all dominant behavior is rape
There are ways to be “larger” (or more dominant) that are not physical
to be the largest (first) is to respect the most consents
The smallest (last) violates the most consents
s/he who is forgiven more loves more
consent respect is the golden rule and is found in every major culture in history — you’re not saying anything new
You argued against marionetted/remote-controlled universes - you practically gave us a theodicy defending why God doesn’t do it - then you forgot (“died”) - you need to remember… Watch all your videos over again. You can still pray to the maximally great being, which is not death, because death is a privation. It could not exist without life, which is the maximally great being.
my challenge to you is: redo the rich man and Lazarus parable, but instead of water, use the sex analogy. You will see that the hell realm the rich man is in …is a hyper dimensional mirror reality.
The solution to the problem of consent violation is to respect each other’s consent—to acknowledge each other as consent structures — the signatures are actual persons…
You said if I solved it, you would dedicate a song to me.
Now I wait.
Unless you changed your mind.
Think with:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 5#p2930055
@Ecmandu, pm me your gmail to consolidate/update:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L0B8ckERPYyg_XqVr6eITxtPfDZ_1ZtKsag_ojbwe6A/edit
I’m gonna bring you down… to the Ground.
All god, or no god… or wrong about God?
Cross out the absurd and exit the collapse whole.
I have no problem if someone looks at my life. I built a system in the universe called memory overlap.
You experience my life as a dream in real time (only 48 years) (compared to infinity that’s nothing) and then you wake up to yourself remembering the full dream.
Just a tiny nap compared the cosmic scale of things.
This is not an order. This is an option I created.
If you nap my life for 48 years, you’ll know everything.
Maybe you should wake up & stop suspending judgment.
Think that I said prior to 
but then again , what are conscious as opposed to unconscious versions of the original, or better said
…how low can one go?
Oops I did it again? , the more uncertainty the lower you go. Know me no failing, experience over political expediency. Oh my.
This comes over the thousand eyed cyclopse:
“be wait or be fair”
You’re nuts Shirlee, just as me thought, gotta get a grip, after all there is a clear difference between meno and Meknow, you just a small fish in a Big Pond, fries with that?
no but supersize it
(Jus’another waterboy, lisping affected, sorry Ec, only the best tune-a gets son kissed)
Tips thin man hat, and totters out