Yes and another way to put it is : choose to realize it or not, that is if realization is contingent on forming a modality within which such choice can be made.
So our choice is contingent on a modal form that has not yet been realized ( or made perceptively conscious)
Therefore all forms of such realization have to be pre-conceived, therefore choices such as these are necessarily exclusive and inconceivable. Our choices are by definition exclusively predetermined. The choices are illusions as they are paradoxically necessary,and fallacious.
.
Then
Ec says :
"We have a choice to manifest it into form or not.
Until we do. It’s not form."
Yes, and then it becomes a form even if, a choice is not made, as a necessary illusion that is a form even prior to becoming one.
And finally, such necessary illusions have to reconnect with their assumed reality, to make sense out of their necessity, and de-differentiate reality with illusion (necessarily as a modal requirement.
Therefore the primal difference between reality and illusion is obfuscated.
The same goes as far as heaven and he’ll are concerned.
Doubt becomes dimunitive, the evil genius a necessary part toward realization, and Faust laughs all the way to the bank.
My philosophy chair/professor was beginning to go into categories in a way that made them sound very … I dunno … post hoc. I feel like we barely scratched the surface this semester with Kant (he wasn’t the instructor… not sure if that would have changed things) … except for Kant there are very few presentations. I need cognitive science & philosophy to get married gosh darnit. Or get undivorced. Prototype versus exemplar. And how that also shapes / is the structure of language. Yeah. The mawwiage of analytic and continental I dunno. There is not enough time to process everything.
How about blue? and yellow 1st buddhic station contentious green( not envy greed etc,) red and transparent the third and who/what is on second but RED. Your brain is esplodin’ mine has been long gone ticket exploded .- but no ticker thanks you so far. AWAY it goes.
A poorly quoted orally transmitted account written decades (at best) later, is not about what this particular person J. ben Josef might have said or meant, but all about the people writing it down much later.
We know that because there are such discrepant accounts, and downright contradictions.
In truth was cannot ever tell if JC is one person but many.
And you have to ask what is the opinion of a poorly tutored Rabbi worth from the early 1st C CE? Or, indeed the fanatics who are supposed to have carried his words to the next generation?
Who’s Grace? Is she the friend of Dawn? I saw her coming up yesterday. She did not bring Grace with her. Maybe it’s a different Gracie you are talking about? Gracie Watt?
It is important to believers in Jesus to know what he did not say, if they base their lives on what they are told he said.
I"m not trying to defend Jesus here. I’ve read several books about faulty translations and additions and deletions of early Christian manuscripts. To dwell on that is to miss the actual message of Jesus, which is “You can be as I am”.