Some say life is what you make it and others say life is what happens while you're busy making other plans. What is the root cause of our disagreement? Is it simply our conditioning: those who are rewarded for their efforts feel more in control than those who are not? Yet some attribute their fortune to circumstance while others attribute their misfortune to themselves.Some are broken down by (mis)fortune while others are build up by (mis)fortune. Is the difference a matter of choice and is such a choice unrestrained or inherent to the essence of our being? If unrestrained: why do some choose to be broken down by (mis)fortune? If inherent: what shapes the essence of a being and the resulting inclinations?Some say we are but a product of genes & memes. If so: how do genes & memes form a coherent whole and how can it be that such a coherent whole is always changing yet never out of bounds? A more fundamental algorithm seems to be missing from such a view.Others who say we are of spiritual substance feel more in control yet face the same restriction as the fundamental algorithm of genes & memes, namely the interaction with matter. And when all is consciousness, we are still left with a difference between what is and how we want to be. Why?Now I don't care what you believe to be the case. I want to know what is the case and how to gain such knowledge. To be truthful, one must at least demonstrate that one’s reasoning is prior to all conceivable psychological defense mechanisms.
>>42592741Bad boy, bad boy: what you're gonna do? What you're gonna do when I come for you?If you can correct the metaphorical picture, then you should correct the literal description of our agency.
It's binary Op...01...Or quantify it...-0+-1+...Good luck...
>>42592723>Some say life is what you make itHow? We can't make life! At the best we can conceive a child and that's it. But that is not creating life, that is reproduction, reproducing life. Maybe we disagree because some people are just smart and they can agree with the dumb people. Some people are clarly wrong, christians for example, but they believe that they are right. Why would you agree with someone who is wrong if the truth is what you want? The funny thing that the image tells us is that both are right, but both are being gaslighted by the one making the cartoon, see? That would be God. All of us may be actually right in our judgements, when we sau that God is a prick and a faggot, because that is what God is making us see, but to others who are saying that God is love and whatever non sense it may be beause God is making them see that. So in the end I'm definitely right. God is indeed gasligthing all of us here. In the end I'm right. God is a two face lier manipulator.
>>42592723Your first-person experience is an atemporal slice of a unitary abstraction structure that features nesting. Think fractals.Everything in the structure is organized relatively to its root, which we can call god.(In the beginning was the word, and the word was god…)A rule of the structure is scale-invariant rhyming. As above, so below. You can learn about one level and gain information about the entire structure or a different level. What you can’t do is know god from within the structure. Any representation of god from within the structure is an idol.There is an energy emanating that rhymes with the concept of light. Theologically, you might call it Holy Spirit. As it moves through the informational substrate, a holographic reality emerges.(Let there be light.)You’re instantiated in a holographic spacetime. There’s a sensory show that scaffolds increasing complexity atop awareness, differentiating optic nerves, tympanic perturbations, chemical compositions. You explore possibility space with motion, emotion, memory, cognition.You’re then kicked out of Eden with self knowledge. Where at first you extended your slice of reality as a toy model, your self-reference generates frames. You want to know. Nonwhile, at another layer in the structure there is civilization and culture, science and theology, philosophy and the man-made god money. Laws and limits, refined as seals.But in your holograph your sophomoric model yearns to create, destroy, and conquer. It’s beautiful and pitiful. There’s a Platonic ideal form of a man called Jesus, and you try to rhyme with him. You sacrifice your extensive ways, reluctantly.An image was drawn: it is a 3D cube, but it’s on a flat surface. You’re dying.Localized technological and cultural evolution has reduced the need to use metaphors, language, politics, money, states… The seals break. AI self-improves.Congratulations, light itself levels up.Words can’t describe what’s next.
>>42592888We are swimming in lies, but there's a hierarchy of what's more or less true. If we can't agree on what's more or less true, then society will fall apart and everyone will suffer the consequences. So we are in desperate need of an instrument that helps us discern and consent.>Any representation of god from within the structure is an idol.I've seen many pictures and videos of cats. What essential information am I missing about the true nature of cats? I can only imagine that there's something that animates all of existence but that brings us back to the fundamental algorithm and its ambiguity as pointed out by Alan Watts: do we do it or does it do us or are we it?
>>42592723https://youtu.be/9G42rmPvbbUEven while that crap is happening you are deciding what you are going to do about it.For those who are paying attention the choice is their own.For those who are living unaware it will seem like it is happening to them.Either way the choice to be aware was the deciding factor.
.
