The second consciousness divided itself into a multiplicity of separate beings is the second evil was born. Only in a state singularity, true singularity (no “we’re all one crap) can negative externality be avoided. When it’s considered that unequal beings who are lesser than the creator exist it becomes clear how sick this design is.Abrahamic, karmic, niche religions all teach that you’re derivative property. It’s just wrong.
Ok niggaGo somewhere with no noiseClose your eyesDon't breatheDon't smellDon't tasteDon't listenDon't seeDon't touchLive in this blackness nothingness for as long as you can. Any sensory stimulation is a fail or this mental simulation of base reality. Then tell me what is more 'evil' (and what exactly is that definition)? The present moment where you can type this from your comforts? Or base reality?
>>42391142#Slow down buddy. Re read the OP. I said when separate beings were given consciousness. In theory, a simulated environment could be occupied within without running into this. (Like a solo Minecraft game or something) Don’t conflate any creation with the creation of other beings. It’s also myopic to do what you said considering sensory experiences are predicated upon a body operating within a physical realm and all that shit.
>>42391124how do you define evil and consciousness? i guess the first poster sorta beat me too it. your glass is half empty.
>>42391178#Consciousness is meant as being aware of being within an environment. Control over some variety of form. Expressing a will. Evil is meant as - Having to experience pain or suffering as a result of factors outside of one’s own control. Being subject to the will or general dominion of another. I’m not sure what you mean by half empty. I don’t do half full either. It’s better to just say it’s at 50% capacity. Ergo, others are not given the privileges that another has had. The creator monopolized a lot of shit.
>>42391124Yes, and?
>>42391149Sorry for presenting belligerence. I will await the agreement of the definition of evil.If such an exercise is short sighted, then how would you simulate or bring knowledge of "death" or "base reality"? And once you have an accurate simulation, how do you decide if it's more or less evil than the reality we are experiencing now?
>>42391197#Naturally, I want to see what others think. >>42391206#I defined them in a response to another poster here it’s like the fourth post. Why equate base reality with death?And where is the want to interact with an environment coming from if one hasn’t been created?I could tell it was better by the absence of suffering caused by the environment or general negative externality. Also by the absence of deliberately created inferiors and totally uneasy power structures.
>>42391221>I want to see what others think.I agree with you
>>42391124The pattern of reality is not one -> many -> oneIt is many -> one -> manyThe many become one, and are increased by one as one among many.>This is the central metaphysical formula from Alfred North Whitehead's *Process and Reality* (1929), and it's one of the most compressed and elegant statements in all of Western philosophy.>Whitehead calls it the expression of **Creativity** — his "ultimate" category, the universal of universals.>Here's what it means, unpacked:>**"The many become one..."**>Every new actual occasion (a momentary unit of experience — Whitehead's fundamental building block of reality) arises by *prehending*, or taking in, the entire universe that precedes it. All the many prior occasions are unified into this single new becoming. This process is called **concrescence** — a growing together.>**"...and are increased by one."**>Once that occasion achieves its unity, it "perishes" as a subject and becomes an objective datum — a new fact added to the universe. The many that were is now the many *plus one*. Reality has been genuinely augmented.>**"...as one among many."**>That new occasion, now complete, takes its place alongside all other occasions as part of the extensive continuum — available to be prehended by future occasions in their own concrescence.>The elegance is that the formula is **self-applying**: the sentence describing the process is itself an instance of it. And it captures several deep commitments at once:>- Reality is fundamentally **relational** — nothing arises in isolation>- Reality is fundamentally **temporal** — each moment genuinely adds something new>- Reality is fundamentally **creative** — the universe is not a closed system but an open, ever-expanding fabric of experience>It's also quietly anti-reductionist: the "one" that emerges from the many is not reducible to the many — it has its own subjective aim, its own synthesis.
>>42391191The wind is evil.The cold is evil.Excessive heat is evil.Hunger is evil.Therefore all the suffering that drives base reality is Evil?I think this definition of Evil is wrong. Let's look at the dictionary. Welp I looked at the dictionary and they have about 20 different definitions for the same word.The breeze on a hot summer's day is good.Cool water after hard physical exercise is good.A hot shower after a long walk in the snow is good.Eating a cheeseburger to gain it's nutrition is good. Abstaining from food to better my health is good.Not knowing where my next meal comes from is suffering. But is it evil? Have you seen a bird work all day to find bugs? Does a bird know about evil and morals? What is the objective definition of Evil?1 why equate base reality with death?Great question desu. Because in death, all is one. Me and you become one. What can be more based than that? I don't want to reveal any more at this stage.2 where is the want to interact with an environment, when there is no knowledge of such? The "want" is anything but the black void of base reality. And here we are.Suffering is the mechanism of the illusion of separation. It is necessary to forget that all is one. Did you try the exercise?
>>42391191consciousness is control and evil is a loss of control? as the other poster said you dont really have the context of the nature of other places to compare to but your doing the same with people, your imagining a hypothetical perfect life and comparing it to what you have now same way you were doing with the world. the glass is always full vaporous bigot, but worse then that, this is how youve Chosen to suffer.
>>42391142dam son u so retardethe perception of nothingness is also a separation from base reality
>>42391191>>42391252evil is the unnecessary experience of suffering
>>42391955Yes I am retardeNo you have not refuted the point until a better understanding or description of base reality is provided.>>42391992Don't wordalise me you turdaloid. Pleasure is the antithesis of suffering. You like pleasure don't you?_Anon said that Socrates said, the greatest good is knowledge (of truth, not Pokémon stats), and the greatest evil is ignorance.
>>42392061false dichotomy
>>42392083Hb I slap my floppy dichotomy all over your mum's face how about that
>>42391124>The second consciousness divided itself into a multiplicity of separate beingsWhen did this happen, and why didnt it happen before that?
The world exists because I love women.
>word salad....and the big sadMuh consciousness
>>42391124Now think of alternatives to division of consciousness. If dividing consciousness and creating a loved world is an "evil", than alternative to that would be an eternal wholeness.But there is 2 main problems with that idea. First, if it's eternal, it is not eternal. Eternal means things are in the state of actualization, meaning, from any position of eternal life time, the only reference is the beginning, or rather end of the eternal. Meaning state of being eternal is not possible since the only reference is the beginning.Second. Even if you managed to attain consciousness as an eternal being in your eternal slumber, you realize how meaningless and boring things are. It's really unimaginable.
>>42391124>he’s getting /x/fatigue >he wants the hellsoup lol. deep breaths, OP.evil, as you know it, is borne of choice, plain and simple. the creation myths all talk about some “entity” *choosing* to create the universe, which seems silly until you realize that “preferences” are baked into our physics on a quantum level; the reason it happened isn’t important, not so much as the purpose. before, there was no distinction, no choices, no agency. the separation of souls created “Good”, “Evil”, AND the opportunity to tell the difference between the two. that is the miracle, that we’re not some contiguously mangled bloody goop orgy constantly fucking itself - the same goop Science acknowledges as “primordial” and the cabal wants to return us to, btw - that can’t tell the difference. we GET to choose, and that’s really something if you understand what’s really at stake. most squander this opportunity every single day, complaining about “suffering”, “blame”, and the like. sorry kids, good and evil “exist”, and now it’s your job to figure out what to do about it, which is way better than constantly having to share a consciousness with your enemies. >Abrahamic, karmic, niche religionsfixating on religion is a child’s mistake. be constructive, big boy britches don’t pull up themselves y’know>>42391142>base reality is not Hell. i’ve been to Hell, it’s a bad time.and yes, i’m implying our origins are closer to Hell than anything else we know of it.
>>42392126retard
>>42391252#OP here (first since last night) All of your notions for making physical weather good are dependant upon suffering without them. For example the extreme heat only good to avoid freezing to death. This is shit insisting upon itself. The question about food is redundant. It’s pointless to need to eat. I’m not sure we become one in death. And maintaining ownership over my being and memories sounds more bad than those cube aliens from Star Trek desu. ASSIMILATE ASSIMILATE (sounds like a demons eating you)2. Yeah you basically said meditation is the worst thing ever. If your goal is ANYthing but the black void then this is far from optimal. Like I said it could’ve been like a single player Minecraft game or something.
>>42391262#Yes being in control of yourself is good. Would you say be subjected to another’s will is good? That’s a slave. Yes it’s a hypothetical or else are you so narrow skulled that all that is “realistic” to you is predicated upon this one reality we are experiencing?I’m not saying it would be perfect otherwise, just that without a plurality of beings evil would be gone. If people never wanted improvements over what was you’d be wallowing in some slum. I can’t fathom why the idea of a better world disgusts you. I don’t know what you mean by choosing to suffer. If you’re one of the people where you can just put yourself in a headspace that’s just lying to yourself.
>>42392273#A “loved” world? Whatever that means. And you could argue it’s just as hated or viewed with neutrality as “loved”. Do you mean people who settle?Eternal versus whole. It is not impossible to posit that a creator entity could have maintained singularity either within or without an environment without other sentient beings. Meaningless and boring? In that circumstance the meaning would be invented and its salient artificiality would be disgustingly. Boring? Then god could’ve played a video game. Boring is the motivation of psychopaths (here we are)
>>42392313#So you’re just happy to be able to make choices. The rest insists upon itself and doesn’t really address my points. Yeah I could’ve said general spirituality instead of niche religions. Whatever.
