I think that there is an external world/universe.
So not everything is “pure imagination”.
We have thoughts about that external world which may, or may not, match well with it.
“Good” and “dastardly” are not properties of the external world.
It may be useful to attach those labels to people or it may not. Depends on the situation.
My understanding is that the only thing not sentient is platonic forms (eternal forms). I don’t think of them as “the perfect triangle” like Plato did, I see them “triangleness”… what allows us to see triangles.
The reason I think this is because every triangle is infinitely different than every other triangle, and without the concept of category (which is not in itself a sentient being) - we’d have to give each triangle a different name. We’d be unable to abstract the category “palm trees” Etc…
Other than that… shifting through a massive amount of spiritual planes… I can solidly say that everything else is a sentient being.
And this is how crazy the universe gets.
You need ten concrete workers to incarnate a sidewalk, just like you need sperm and ova to incarnate an animal.
Now here’s the mind blowing part of it. The sidewalk can decide to let you walk on it or not. The air can decide whether to let you breathe it or not…
This is where it gets mind blowing …
All sidewalks are made with something called “aggregate”… little rocks mixed with the concrete.
Each of those little rocks is also a sentient being… the whole can be found within the parts.
Basically… what I’m trying to say here is that we are CO-IMAGINING ‘all’ of this (besides categories - eternal form dimensions).
That is not a solipsistic view of all of this.
There are an infinite number of beings macro and micro, and they all represent each other as a part of the whole and a whole of the part with individuation
How does it prevent you from doing anything? Or is this just more consent violation?
And if I choose to think about them as non-sentient, inanimate objects … what changes? The interactions won’t be exactly the same?
They “must not be ignorant of” in order to achieve what exactly?
That’s my point. We need a context.
Take your point about how Buddha “taught [us] how to overcome suffering.”
If you are a person of color in a racist society, a woman in a sexist society, a homosexual in a heterosexist society, a Jew in a Nazi society etc., you can suffer as a result of any number of community policies that revolve solely around the color of your skin, your gender, your sexual orientation, your religion or ethnicity.
What of Buddha’s advice then?
I would argue that you must not be ignorant of the fact that the only way to lessen or to eliminate that suffering is through political struggle. Organizing with others suffering the same things that you are and revolting against “community standards” that exclude you. Even enslave you or send you to death camps.
Now, in regard to my own main “thing” here…connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then…what constitutes ignorance then?
And, again, more to the point, how do you go about demonstrating to others that what you believe one must not ignore all other rational people must not ignore either.
With ecmandu rationality doesn’t seem to matter here: “It’s not and never has been a matter of rational or irrational…”
Whereas with me, it matters a great deal. But: what are the limitations of rationality given any particular context?
Along the lines of Wittgenstein, sure, but involving my own arguments as well.
You need to be EXTREMELY offensive for a sidewalk to be mad at you. The ONLY reason I’m still alive on earth is because I offended just about every spirit that exists. I’ve been through the sidewalk hells before, I know what they’re like, because I lived it. Anyways… I wasn’t allowed to die so that I could be tortured.
That’s why it’s not about rationality, it’s about lack of ignorance. Anything can seem rational. Not being ignorant (learning) is a higher state of consciousness.
Another thing iambiguous is disturbed by is my methodology for proof; of the proof is false, you can’t exist or existence can’t exist. To the best of my knowledge, I invented (or discovered) this proof technique.
That’s why iambiguous is incorrect to use rationality as his standard. People learn. They have less and less ignorance.
Phyllo. ANYTHING that bothers you is consent violation… ANYTHING. You can define it yourself.
When you expand it to how others define it for themselves and you, yourself… you’ve jumped a punctuated equilibrium of spirit.
None of us truly die. It’s complicated why I was kept here.
Since I was forced to stay alive in hell realms for about 3 decades… I’ve become … there’s no translation for it.
But this is how harsh the spirit world is at times.
Everything I spoke that sent me to hell was just ignorance. And I’ll explain even more. My 16 year old self could have understood everything I have to teach now. My hell was meaningless. Absolutely meaningless. I had to figure out all the things the human species had never been taught before.
That’s why I say, “they’re done”
Don’t be bothered by ANYTHING.
You’re trying to be clever. I hope you never live those words.
I gave you the Buddhist answer.
Let me go a little further with this…
(Btw I edited that last longer post about 4 times, don’t know if you read all the edits)
You’re defining yourself as a “no boundaries dude”
So here’s what happens to you…
Spirits will still defend you. You know why?
Because they know that you have no clue about the implications of what you just spoke and that you’re trying to sound intelligent or wise while being none of those.
If that was your point, then you would not keep asking general questions without a context.
You can look that up online. I don’t need to waste my time writing it out.
That’s your solution. It’s not Buddha’s solution.
More generalities.
I’m not a Buddhist. I’m not religious. I’m simply, natural.
My credo is very simple.
Everyone NEEDS, and this is the highest and most basic NEED… everything they want forever at the expense of no possible being (including you and me) forever.
You’re also unrealistic.
Isn’t that what everyone considered great has always been told they are?
My motto is I’m not great until everyone is great.
Have you ever put both feet into the spirit world?
The learning curve is insane.
I’m going to implement a new plan for existence with the consent of all beings.
We were never born. We’ve made an infinite number of new plans before.
I’m the nexus for a new one. And like everyone before, hopefully, the last one. Perfect.
People don’t need to get whatever they want in order to be great.
One can be great while living within limitations.
So now you’re a dictator? Telling everyone what their individual perfect is?
“Be great only in dichotomy, so that there a few winners and lots of losers, forever”
Requiring that everyone gets what he/she wants is unrealistic.
So I’ve been told. I also know that spirit can do anything with the support of all spirits (except destroy existence).
Take a look at my newest video:
My entire video series is dedicated to explain all existence to you in a concise manner. So we don’t suffer the TLDR problem.
I’m condensing all the information in the cosmos into vignettes.
Oh c’mon… Maia can’t understand this.
Yes. It’s sexually provocative, but she’s been blind her whole life.
The larger truth is that women basically wear millimeter thickness body suits to show themselves as naked as they can without being actually naked, and then think or even say that men are perverts for looking at their bodies. It’s fucking absurd in its face.
What’s more absurd is that you can’t control yourself as a man.
Do we live in an Islamic culture? Not yet, hopefully never.
Ultimately it’s up to you men to control yourselves.
Maia, on multiple levels, is not to blame. You are.