Will heathendom (pagandom) bring freedom back to us?

Never saw such a nonsense coming from you before, Contra-Nietzsche.
A few weeks ago you made a big fuss about leaving ILP. Now it seems as if this is the only place where you can get rid of your frustration.
(I’ve seen on KTS they call you “Contra-Diction”. Good choice of words.)

Contra-Nietzsche or Contra-Diction or whoever you are, please try to read the thread and try to notice that the topic of my thread is a QUESTION.

Quitting again, Contra-Diction?

This thread is no thread for frustrated warriors!

People can merely be relatively free, as I said a number of times. Even the most powerful people are merely relatively free. However, there is a great difference between relative freedom of the most powerful people and relative freedom of the most powerless people.

All “freedom” is relative. But the question still remains, “How much of what kind of freedom and for whom?

Something just occurred to me. Paganism is actually devolved philosophy and hedonism is the lack of philosophy.

When a society is being coerced into change, hedonism is promoted as it helps hide the subtle trickery.

Why should paganism actually be “devolved philosophy”?

Yeah, at the top of philosophy, everything is understood and there is but one God and thus a monotheism. At the bottom, there are no gods, hedonism (merely pain and pleasure void of reasons or reasoning). So between the two, there is paganism wherein a little thought is proposed concerning cause and effect. Paganism (or Heathenism) proposes that one person or entity can cause “magical effects” upon others. Whatever is responsible for the magical relationship is called “a god”, so there are many “gods” or “causal agencies”.

Since the Monotheism has already arisen and now is decaying, thoughts are “devolving” into a prior state of paganism. And as it continues, will lead into pure hedonism (just before being completely whipped out).

Are you sure that “monotheism … is decaying”? And if yes: why are you sure that “monotheism … is decaying”?

Why is it that nobody seems to know what hedonism is? I have been getting ticked at the word being thrown as it is.

Hedonism and monotheism. Okay. And what is your “real statement”?

Hedonism has been existing for a long time, and when it “will lead into pur hedonism”, as you said, will that be the “black hole” as a social metaphor, the “singularity” because of the most extreme individualism?

No. That would be the opposite, “an ambient field of chaotic affectance”, soon to automatically particlize. And create the nastiest form of dictatorial rule ever imagined. One creates a dictatorial regime, by trying to annihilate it.
“What doesn’t kill it, makes it stronger.”

According to the current physicists the pre-condition of forming a “black hole” is the mass of a stellar object (mostly a star with more than 3.2 masses of our sun [cp. the so called “Oppenheimer-Volkoff-Limit”]) which later becomes this “black hole”. But what is the pre-condition according to your RM:AO?

All it takes (as the physicist are aware) is an increase in affectance density (“energy density”) over a larger physical space than a particle could sustain.

That is why they suspect that it might dissipate. As a particle, it would have to shrink. But what they don’t show the understanding of, is that the new “super-particle” would automatically begin absorbing “mass” from the space itself, something that they cannot detect or currently imagine it seems (although Krauss has indicated some understanding in that regard).

What it takes to cause a black hole is not a huge star, but rather merely a high concentration of energy into a small space, larger than a monoparticle could sustain. Once it is formed, if it is not seriously isolated from any mass field (as in far, far into the inter-galactic space) it stands a good chance of never stopping from absorbing energy endlessly.

When I say "according to the current physicists“, you don’t accept that, do you? Not seldom you seem to overread the term “according to the current physicists”. I mean the statements of the current physicists, although they are mainstream physicists, „exist“, don’t they? This mainstream physicists say that the gravity is probably the most important force, you say that affectance or electromagnetic force is most important. Why should they always be “wrong”? They say a mass of 3.2 masses of our sun are needed for forming a “black hole”, you say: “What it takes to cause a black hole is not a huge star, but rather merely a high concentration of energy into a small space, larger than a monoparticle could sustain”. Who is right?

“Who is Right” has become a critically important question, even more important than “What is right”. I have found that there is a large gap between truth and mainstream. And that is why Science was founded on “Nullius in Verba”, “take no one’s word”. And that is also why I created RM, so that individuals, without billions of dollars of equipment and education can find out for themselves what is principally true.

When it comes to the principles of the universe, anyone who can logically deduce, can know what must be true, without being told by mainstream anything.

I also have found (for a very long time, b.t.w.) that there is a large gap between truth and mainstream, and I am interested in what you have created.

Which religion or religious confession would or should be appropriate for your sam corporations, James?

SAM doesn’t care. SAM allows for and expects learning. In the long run, Reality is what it is and will be leading the way. Although more altruistic people would be far more comfortable learning to be intimately honest.

“SAM” works only when the number of population of the “communical particle” remains very low.