aurum

The issue is that this definition of being is far too limited. Being includes, but is not limited by, anything humans do. It is not merely the act of understanding what people, places, or things are. Existence as a whole has being, or more precisely, is being. At this level, being is not contextual. It is a metaphysical absolute. Which means: its ontology is absolute, not merely situated. In short, there is no category error. The only error is mistaking reality for something purely contextual or situated. Reality is the infinite absolute of contexts.

An absolute ground epistemically would be the most fundamental justification for all knowledge. But while you can make a distinction between an absolute ground epistemically and ontologically, in this case, I am collapsing that distinction. Claim: If an absolute ground exists epistemically, then it must exist absolutely. Therefore, it is also ontologically absolute.

Here's an interesting personal story about infinity for anyone who wants to read. When I was a kid, my family and I would regularly attend church. Often times the priest would talk about heaven, which essentially was described as some eternal, holy place you go after you die. Anything eternal is infinite. So for the first time as a kid, I can distinctly remember trying to grasp infinitely. I would think about what it would be like to be dead, and then live somewhere forever. Where things just go on...and on...and on...until? It was too much for my kid brain. I would freakout and try to bury the thoughts. But still, I couldn't help but think about it. So I kept coming back to trying to understand what an infinite experience might be like throughout my childhood. It took me years to understand the significance of some of those early experiences. What a twist of fate

Nice!

I use the vampire strategy. Meaning, I have to sense an invitation or at least an implicit opening from them. Kind of like vampires entering people's houses. Also, I prioritize my own clarity of mind above everything else. Including helping others. If you place helping others above your own clarity, you've just fallen into self-deception.

Convincing other humans about truth-seeking is mostly self-deception. My solution is to be extremely selective about when and how I share Truth.

A lot of non-denominational, Christian churches are like this. There's also the Unity organization: https://www.unity.org/ They're a lot closer to SD Green.

Fair enough

What was the point?

That’s a disparaging frame. The feminine path is a legitimate path.

You can describe reality in that way, but it's actually a less profound description than it could be. The two poles feedback into each because reality is Absolute. The Absolute is the whole circle. This is false. Absolute ground is needed for any partial, relative knowledge to exist. You are describing the Absolute but just not saying it. Nothing can be cleanly separated because Oneness. I'm hoping you take this as constructive criticism, because I do think you're doing good work. I just think there's another level available if you want to go there.

Beyond what you mentioned, the problem is really that Absolute Truth exists. No strict relativist can accept the existence of Absolute Truth.

The clarity on this one was truly profound. Logic is far deeper than I ever realized.

Become conscious that they are your own mind. That will humble you a lot.

Companies buying Trump crypto to influence tariff policy: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-coins-freight-influence_n_68153967e4b03d516aad99d3

He seems pretty based though: I thought the cardinals might do a hard conservative pivot after Pope Francis, but it appears not. Looks like they are committed to moving the church in a more moderate, but somewhat still liberal direction. Also, he has a BS in mathematics from Villanova and a doctorate. Very interesting guy.

I never remember being able to use the paragraph key for splitting sections. My issue is that I sometimes have problems quoting multiple sections within a single response. It will only let me do one quote, which I have to manually override with copy + paste. This was not an issue for me before.

But they shove it by selling themselves as the solution. That's the opposite of what lefties do. You can't control it a 100%. But you can control it enough to make a difference. You don't need to explicit hate trans. You just need the normalcy part. Normalcy is exactly what most people want. Only progressives don't want normal.

They were still bigots who didn't care about trans-right. And they still don't. And I grew up in a conservative small town too, so I can also play that card. "Minding your business" is not about far left issues. They will care when it's shoved in their face. And even if they didn't care, that also means they will have no issue if trans-rights are taken away. No! The trans hate boner is primary. Right-wing propaganda is secondary. Because of how unpopular trans-rights are. You can frame it that way. Just don't expect it to work.

No, no, no. That frame was NOT normalized. It was normalized for progressives. That is not the same. I think it's wrong, but I also understand most people are freaked out by trans-people. And they do not care about trans-rights.

Yes, but you also need realistic expectations about how effective that is going to be. It is not going to work as well for progressives as it will for right-wing media. Progressives need to strap in for the long-haul. Progressing society is slow business and requires much more than just advancing the status quo. But they almost never understand that and expect society to already be onboard with their agenda. We could say right-wingers understand power better. But really, it's mostly just a function of their lower state of development. Lower stages of development are more power hungry. They also have less ego identification, so they are less concerned with externalities. And in general they value truth less. So overall they are more willing to play dirty. Also, right-wingers are playing into the status quo. So of course they have lots of funding and influence. Wanting progressives to be as good as right-wingers at the game of power is a lost cause. Again, realistic expectations. Progressives need to pick their battles. They do not need to win every issue and always control the frame. They also have to assess whether some policies were ever good policies to begin with, as Leo pointed out.

You are talking about elite, instituitonal, non-partisan media. They may have skewed liberal but barely. And even that didn't last very long. Rush Limbaugh was already coming up in the 80s.

The distance is absolute truth! Imagination becomes reality.

I am the simulator

Simulation is not the right framing. Simulation implies there's a real thing (the simulator) and a fake thing (the simulation). And often the simulation is meant to mimic the reality, but isn't actually it. This is loaded with ontological mistakes. Look around at your experience. This is as real as real gets. There is not another, deeper, "more real" layer of reality.