aurum

Delusion. Vylana is not really okay with their new arrangement. She is coping.

@zurew I've made my points as clear as I can and you obviously still don't agree. Let's just move on. I appreciate the spirited debate.

I don't think money is going anywhere because it's too valuable of a tool. If you want to live in a village with 50 people, you don't need money. But we don't live in villages, we live in an interconnected modern society with billions of people. To get that kind of scale, you need money. Because you need an abstract proxy for kind of relationships in a small village. That's money. Money is the proxy. The genius of money is that it's completely abstracted from any tangible value. Thus, it can be used in exchange for anything. The more tangible something is in value, the less versatility it has in exchange. So you could attempt to replace money with something like Time-banking. But time-banking cannot possibly scale like money can. So either it would be a failure, or you would change the definition of "time-banking" so much that it functionally became money again. Either way, you've not really gotten rid of money. Time-banking can work in a situation like within a local community. That's its niche. Don't try to expand something beyond its niche.

Interesting. I've never had an OBE, so I'm a novice in this territory. Don't most people claim the opposite? Such as being able to find the physical location of someone while out-of-body and then confirming it once back in the physical.

Think about it. When have you ever experienced knowledge outside a perspective? Try to image a counter-possibility. Notice that whatever you are thinking of is a perspective. All things are true because they exist exactly as whatever they are. Whatever way it is, it is true as that, tautologically. What does it mean when we say something is 'God'? It usually refers to something that is omnipotent, eternal, omniscience, Perfect Love, Perfect Goodness, etc. All of that is exactly what it means for a thing to be infinite. So if there's an infinity, the infinity is God. And infinity includes ALL by definition, so everything is infinity, is God. You could make another definition of infinity, but this would just kick the can down the road of the problem of how anything can exist. The only way you can have anything is if you eventually agree to the existence of infinity. There is no contradiction. The genius of self-deception is that it does not require a change in your fundamental nature. Notice that if you became self-deceived enough that you were a fish, you would still not be a fish. So God can be all-knowing but use deception to limit itself. It's the perfect solution. Again, It only seems like I'm presupposing things because you are refusing to accept the importance of direct consciousness, like a stubborn fool. If God is finite, then who made God??? You cannot escape infinity. No it cannot. 1) Your book is limited by the knowledge of the authors who wrote it, who process finite knowledge 2) Your book is limited by physical material. It cannot have infinite physical pages or infinite digital storage 3) Your book cannot account for subjective, 1st-person BEING level truths. Like the truth of what it's like to feel an emotion Same problems for the robot. The only way you can contain all truth is if you literally are Infinite.

No. Unfalsifiability, in the way I am using it, accounts for all limitations of epistemology. 1) It is eternal 2) It must necessarily be eternal for the reason I just pointed out. No finite thing can be the cause of the universe. Therefore, the universe must be an infinite thing, which also necessarily must be eternal. I claim the Void is identical to infinity. True infinity must include Void but also all form. How else could you know anything without a perspective? Give me a counter-example. All knowledge requires a perspective. And all things are true because they exist. So if you want to know all possible true things, that's the equivalent of saying you want an infinity of perspectives. Infinity contains all possible perspectives, because all that exists are different finite perspectives. On the one hand, infinity does not take a finite perspective per se, since that's the one thing an infinite object cannot do. On the other hand, it is all finite perspectives, so it is taking on finite perspectives through finiteness. This is where dualistic language becomes very tricky. It does establish other views are impossible. Because other views would have to violate the basic logic I've laid out here. Christianity violates the logic that everything must necessarily be God by claiming somethings are God and others aren't. This is the one mistake you cannot make. And yet nearly everyone makes it. God can be self-deceived. That's exactly what your life is. You are God, self-deceived that you are not. The end.

What better option is there other than to at least try? Just be depressed and waste more time?

"Unfalsifiability" and "logical necessity" are related but not the same. Unfalsifiability means that what I am describing must be absolutely true. If something is absolutely true, it cannot be proven untrue under any circumstances. Notice that the existence of consciousness itself is unfalsifiable. Everything in your conscious field is literally exactly as it is. Furthermore, anything you imagine that could be outside of consciousness must be in consciousness, otherwise it could not be experienced. Even if consciousness were a simulation, the simulation itself must still exist and be experienced. You have never had an experience outside of consciousness. Ever. 100%. "Logical necessity" refers more to the structure of Infinity / God itself. Infinity is logically necessarily because you logically cannot have a universe from arise from a finite thing. Eventually, you just have to admit that there must be an infinite something, even if you just imagine that something to be a static, eternal void. You are stipulating something impossible. If an entity knew all truths, it could not be a finite entity. Because to know all truths would require an infinite perspective, which no finite entity can have. To be an entity is literally to have a specific perspective. You can only have infinite perspective as an infinite object. But then you will not be an entity. And if you still want to claim that this entity knows all truths, then I just claim that your proposed entity is God. Because to be God is to have infinite perspective.

An "entity" is FINITE by definition! Therefore it is not infinity, therefore it is not Absolute, therefore it is not unfalsifiable. I am claiming that only Infinity itself is what is unfalsifiable. Your hypothetical contradicts itself by suggesting an infinite, finite entity.

Yup. Because Christianity is based on claims of the existence of a historical finite human, Jesus, who was God. So they lose their right to claim infallibility. My position cannot be falsified because it is based on Infinity. That's the double standard. That is possible to a degree. I am always working on my sense-making and making things clearer for myself. There are degrees of understanding infinity. But I claim that even if I become thoroughly self-deceived, infinity still remains unfalsifiable. That's what makes it Absolute Truth and not a perspective or opinion. God is untouched by self-deception.

If they've truly have had revelation, there are two possibilities: 1) They'd agree with me and would no longer be Christians. Because God breaks Christianity 2) They've had revelation, but have interpreted it poorly for various potential reasons Both are possible. There is also the possibility that they are just self-deceived about experiencing revelation in the first place. Either way, revelation is the most crucial aspect of realizing you are God. And you cannot properly answer the objections you are raising without it. The difference is that a book is a finite object, while infinity is not. And infinity is bound by its own internal logic to exist. Whereas a book is not. You cannot have an "infinite book" because by definition books are finite. This a contradiction in terms.

I take on no such burden. Because if you understood what I was saying, you'd understand no human can possibly prove to you that God must exist. Proof is your problem, not mine. I will speak what I understand, regardless of whether you've verified it. I'm not going to wait around for you to verify my answers. No. Revelation is a perfectly acceptable form of understanding. Assuming you've actually had it. The problem with most Christians is that they haven't experienced revelation. No, because we are not talking about a book. We are talking about GOD. Tough shit. I will do no such thing. You want me to water down my understanding of God. I can defend it plenty. The question is whether you'll recognize it.

@zurew You are asking for a level of proof no human can possibly communicate to you. It’s like I am saying “If you look in the mirror, you’ll see your reflection”. And then I give you a bunch of math to show how mirrors work and why this must be a case. But instead of just looking in the damn mirror to see if that’s true, you demand proof of my methodology. “How do I know if I look in the mirror I will see myself??? I can come up with other conclusions based on looking in the mirror! You are presupposing that your mirror methodology works!!!” Just have direct consciousness and your questions will be answered. Plenty of techniques have been provided for how to do so. You will either use them or not. Either way, I have no burden to prove anything to you. Because proof always follows experience. If you don’t have experience, then there’s nothing else to be said.

Fine. You avoid math jail this time

Why you hating on pure maths

@Davino Keep it simple and just try to meet them where they are at. It's like being a good teacher in anything. You have to know what is and what isn't appropriate to share.

Anyone who hinges their political philosophy on being “post-monetary” is delusional. Money is not going anywhere. This whole project needs to be rethought from scratch.

@TheSomeBody Are you looking to move up the levels? Have you ever met anyone at level 4? Also, what changes have you noticed from being at level 2?

Mark Henry without a doubt. 900+ lbs deadlift natty?? Total genetic freak:

I assumed remote viewing must be possible to learn in the initial stages of my Awakening. This turned out to be wrong. I was very bad at it. I still think it's possible, but it seems clear it's not just a talent everyone unlocks on their spiritual journey.

I'm not claiming it "solves it". You just realize that an Absolute exists, which shifts your understanding and epistemology. The Absolute is the reason for epistemic anarchy. You don't agree about it, you become directly conscious of it. That's what makes it different. But yes, people could interpret it in different ways. It's not a perfect solution. No. There is only one way: direct consciousness. It's not that "being" is only the correct way to understand. It's that all knowing must eventually derive from Being. You cannot know anything without existence. No, their reasoning is mostly correct. God is logically necessary for knowledge to exist. But they corrupt this with Christianity and lack of direct consciousness. Before direct consciousness, God is question-begging. After direct consciousness, God must exist.

@Nodar Bakradze Nice work! Very cool.

I'm not familiar with his work specifically, but I've skimmed the video and the ideas are familiar to me. It's a strong critique of SD Orange from a leftist, SD Green perspective. There is much to integrate here. But he also makes a lot of mistakes nearly every leftist falls into, since leftism is mostly just group-think. For example, he over-focuses on capitalism and the profit-motive as the problem. Huge mistake. No one is getting rid of the profit-motive. He also over-emphasizes collaboration. Another huge mistake. The world is not going to be a hippie Win/Win paradise where no one loses. So beware of his bias here. He is filtering all of politics through his SD Green value system.

It's probably more so that they have kids and a life together she appreciates. I'd lie to myself too.

True. Doing your own thinking is important. Best of luck with your work, I'll keep reading.