cookiemonster

You're focusing on the wrong issue. LGBTQ has never been dangerous.

That's a very big and uncomfortable iceberg, my friend. Some things are best left beyond the scope of comprehension.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. What do you mean by priori in this context?

It's precisely because they're not operated by any government that makes them defacto private militaries. Despite having ideological tenets, such organizations would simply cease to exist were it not for the huge amounts of private money flowing into them. This is true not just in respect of purchasing infrastructure (e.g munitions, vehicles, uniforms) but also in respect of individual combatants themselves. Mercenaries, effectively.

You think ISIS, Boku Harem, and Al-Qaeda are not private military organisations?

There's a flipside to that. The amount of people who I've seen taking psychedelics in their teenage years without any ontological understanding of what they're doing is too many to count. No wonder people end up in asylums, jumping off bridges, converting to organized religions. If it was down to me I'd have people studying Plato's Cave, the Cartesian Evil Demon and all of the main scriptures, before they even thought of going near their first psychedelic. You need to have solid ontological foundations, else you'll never defeat the possibility that you're merely just insane.

Yes but isn't it true that God is omniscient, and so therefore knows all infinite permutations even within an infinite set? It seems to me that if God knows what can be created, then the creation already exists in potential, and therefore cannot be considered 'creation' but rather merely retrieval / access.

@The0Self Well it's interesting, because as a musician I've always associated the act of composing music as an act of creation. But this video above (referencing the aforementioned exercise in melody permutations) inspired a radical think. Technically, if the music already exists, then how can composing it be an act of creation? After all, one doesn't create prime numbers. It's merely just a rediscovered performance! But yeah, maybe it's just semantics: Creation = Discovery = Creation. Or maybe as @Leo Gura alludes to, God has a special bag of unique creative tricks? IDK.

Sure, but that wasn't really the main point. The main point was to use the example of melody permutations in parallel with finite-experience permutations as a way to demonstrate that imagination isn't so much an exercise in creation as it is an exercise in exploration. Your finite-experience, the "Leo Gura Experience" is a unique finite-experience analogous to a unique finite melody, or a unique finite prime number. Despite the fact that such an experience is a unique product of imagination, the imagination never actually 'created' such experience, but rather discovered it from a directory of never-ending permutations. Or in other words: God doesn't create. God explores.

Glad to share such discoveries with you. May all your future discoveries be brilliant and awesome. ?

+1 I'd urge caution with this thread, not because there isn't an issue worth talking about, but rather because the issue shares some common traits with toxic green, toxic protectionism, and faux-compassion. That said, the maternal instinct becomes toxic when the desire to protect derives itself exclusively from the subjective at the expense of the objective. AKA: Small fluffy animals, good. Lizards, spiders and toads, bad. As with any form of toxicity, it's the failure to transcend (or quarantine) the neurochemical instinct.

@Inliytened1 @Batman @WelcometoReality To use computer lingo, one way to visualize the difference between humans and animals might be analogous to RAM (Random Access Memory) and ROM (Read Only Memory):- Animals as 90% ROM and 10% RAM. Humans as 90% RAM and 10% ROM. For this reason animals appear to have in-built sophisticated comprehensions of reality without having much space for learning. Humans on the other hand are born pretty stupidly, but have enormous scope for learning which can be passed down orally/manually through subsequent generations. If humans happen to lose the ontological wisdom of God, then such wisdom is potentially lost quasi-permanently through all subsequent generations until a chance encounter or random re-discovery rekindles the wisdom back into our collective culture. Potentially, this isn't the case with animals, who because of their ontological instincts (codified in ROM) always are aware of the ultimate nature of God, and therefore don't take death so seriously when it happens to occur. For example, birds may spend all year building complicated nests and spend large amounts of energy bringing up their chicks. But the moment one of their chicks randomly dies, the parents simply dispose of the body as if it was meaningless. Just like a video-game. Play to win, but don't sweat it when you lose.

Life is seemingly a paradoxical blend between the will to survive, and the understanding that death is an illusion. Animals seem to understand this instinctively. Play to win, yes, but do not take it so seriously when you lose (or lose your loved ones). Humans on the other hand seem to be missing this second part. Death to a human is seemingly a catastrophe. A malfunction even. It is as if humans are missing the ontological instinct that understands that it's all just a game. Do we humans take death far too seriously?

So true.

LOL "There must be some kind of way out of here, said the Joker to the thief. Too much confusion, I can't get no relief." - Hendrix That's true, but the skills that animals posses instinctively are extraordinary. For example, the moment Blue Tit chicks hatch, they instinctively know not to 'poop' in the nest. They quite literally wait until the mother or father returns to the nest with food, so that the poop can be removed by the parent. This happens within moments of the eggs hatching, and so isn't something that is taught. Humans on the other hand literally have to be be potty-trained else everything turns messy. If animals can have sophisticated instincts in the realm of socio-industry, can it not also be the case that they can have sophisticated instincts in the realm of philosophy and ontology? That is to say, even though animals have limited scope for learning and introspection, are they perhaps fundamentally (instinctively) connected to God in a way that for humans requires each generation to have an education and/or rediscovery?

There is simply no long-term data to support that statement and you're not in a position to do so. You use the words "simply" as if to say the objectivity can be expressed easily, and yet you haven't done so. Your personal belief that the risks are 'simply much bigger' does not equate to science through your own faith/assumption alone. A curious supposition with hues of irony. What evidence do you have of this unfounded assumption? What would I be afraid of, and how does that invalidate my words previously written. I'm not going to accuse you of projection but you need to support such statements. Otherwise it's just a weird thing to write. That's your own subjective judgement, but I'm starting to see where your mindset is now, particularly in regard to the curious injection of this 'being afraid' thing. You cannot boil down morality into a simple algorithm of "take my solution or else". It's clear you don't really know what you're talking about and seemingly lack the necessary faculties to talk about such things.

It's not a question of being faster. It's about being rushed, poorly tested, and at best ineffective, inefficient and unsafe. It's true that Pfizer and Moderna are mRNA vaccines. The others are adenoviral vectors. But this is all irrelevant, because the issues concerning vaccine malfunction in all cases don't pertain to delivery method but rather the emerging problems that relate to the spike protein. In all cases, the end-product of the COVID vaccines are the spike proteins. With that in mind, we now know that:- 1) The spike proteins are not behaving as expected. (e.g They are moving around the body randomly). 2) They are more cytotoxic than first thought. Malone, Kirsch, Weinstein et al have discussed the implications of this, with particular reference to accumulation in bone marrow, the testes and the ovaries being a significant alert signal. Yet the primary takeaway (as of now) is that no-one knows how this is all going to play out. Therefore the vaccines cannot possibly be described as 'better tech' until we know what the long-term data is. Anyone taking the vaccines right now should understand that it is experimental technology, and you have to take full responsibility for any problems that might arise in the future. Or in other words, if you develop blood cancer or are rendered permanently infertile in the future, you're just going to have to suck it up. It was your choice and you understood the risks. Same with Cyberpunk 2077. Means nothing. That's true. But it doesn't change the issue of the spike protein. According to Malone (based on data emerging from Israel) for every 3 lives that the vaccine saves, it takes 2. So as of now on net the vaccines are just about winning, but it rests on a knife-edge of gross inefficiency. For one thing that data has not been age-adjusted, so where the majority of deaths from COVID are occurring in the elderly and immuno-compromised, the burden of risk from the vaccines is shared across all age groups and all health conditions. If you factor in that the vaccine deaths/injuries are only the short-term indications and speak nothing of the longer-term indications, then the risk/reward ratio becomes more murky.

If you're familiar with video-games, the best way to think of the COVID vaccine is analogous to Cyberpunk 2077. It's a money-driven, rushed production, full of bugs with a risk of crashing your machine. This is why choosing not to take the COVID vaccine is not the same as being anti-vax. It would be like saying that being critical of Cyberpunk 2077 is equivalent to being anti-videogame. No-one has an issue with vaccinations in general. The problem is that these particular COVID vaccinations are really crappily produced.

If civil war ever does break out the Republicans don't stand a chance.

So I Just finished watching this 4-5 hour epic conversation that Curt Jaimungal had with Rupert Spira on Theories of Everything. It got me thinking whether it's only a matter of time before we see @Leo Gura speaking on this this show perhaps?

Boom!

Okay that's fair enough, but your original post was a little vague as to what you were referring to as conspiracy. There seemed to be a cross-pollination between what you referred to as 'crazy stuff' and 'vaccination', as later on in the post you referred to vaccine dangers relative to the dangers of Covid which as you have just clarified is a different topic. The issues pertaining to the vaccine are updating constantly. New information is coming in every day and the consequences are very real.

Why not use the opportunity for self-improvement through introspection and self-doubt? By your own words you said:- "They are everywhere... in my circle of friends, in my professional life, in my extended family, in the bus, in the train and so on." So based on this observation alone, it would appear that they are the large contingent and you are something of an outlier. How then can you be certain that it is not you that is the foolish one, and they that are not the educated ones? You even go on to say:- "And the worst part is not all of them are even that stupid or complete idiots." So why then would you not at least pay attention to the content of their observations and review their claims? Or to put it in the inverse, what is it about your outlier position that is objectively superior and valid? You said:- "Look I am not a professional virologist or anything close to this field so I don’t really have a professional opinion, basically I said there is always some danger with any vaccine, but may be that’s the lesser evil compared to Covid." Which I'm sure you'd agree sounds pretty vague as a basis for a strong opinion about anything, let alone a place where there is demonstrable dissent and counterpoint. So with that in mind, what is the basis for your self-confidence that you are right? This isn't something that necessarily requires an answer, but something that at the very least you might want to think about before resorting to judgmental ad-hominem.

@mandyjw @Nahm @tsuki @kinesin Thanks. All great perspectives.

First of all, please don't watch this if you are ultra-sensitive to graphic wildlife. It depicts the termination of a stork chick by its own mother. I am having great difficulty processing it, and have spent the past few days thinking over how I feel about it and how it fits into the bigger picture of God, consciousness, love and reality. Here's what I can process:- I can process it objectively. In this respect the narrative is very straight forward. The mother stork determines that the survival of the strongest three chicks is dependent on the termination of the weakest chick. Maybe the incoming food supply is too low to feed all four chicks, or perhaps the weakest chick has an illness that could spread. In any event, the mother stork appears to make her judgement and the little one is thereafter killed. This is all understood. I also understand that this isn't just some rogue outlier, but rather that the phenomenon of animal infanticide is common to the species and common to other species also. All of this is objectively logical within the context of the natural world. But when it comes to processing it subjectively I run into problems. I invoke an exercise I sometimes use for the purposes of empathy and compassion: To virtualize the experience in my mind from the perspective of the subject (to the extent that I'm able to guess). That is to say: "Okay, here I am as God, currently incarnate into the body of this little chick." How is this experience going to play out in this moment? So let's talk actual suffering metrics- I can just about process the premise of physical pain and physical suffering. I can just about process the premise of animal vs animal violence. The natural world is rife with it after all. I can just about process the objectivity of the mother having to kill one of her own chicks in order to save three. But what I cannot process is the total subjective sensation of lovelessness that appears within a vehicle ordinarily designed for the very opposite: The loving trust and bond of a parent/child relationship. Indeed at one point quite far in to the video, the little chick who is now on the very outside of the nest instinctively tries to huddle back toward the protection of his mother despite the injuries she has already afflicted on him. And with that, suddenly I'm crying my eyes out. And I cannot process. When people use the phrase Worship God, I always prefer the phrase Protect God. And so when I see that little dude struggling as he does, I know who that little dude is. It's GOD! And so now every atom of my being is screaming in the darkness. Screaming and screaming and screaming. Am I projecting? Do humans take death and suffering far too seriously? Is this just a game? Do animals have ontological instincts just as much as they have soci-industrial instincts? Does it not work like that? I sometimes theorize that ants function as a kind of hive mind. Each little ant doesn't have its own finite mind per se, but functions like a braincell in a larger brain (the ant colony) albeit that each brain cell just happens to have legs and its own mobility. Perhaps the 4 storks and 1 mother stork functions in a similar way. That is to say they are not 5 independent minds, but a kind of singular maternal hivemind that shares the suffering of the little chick between them. I don't know. Maybe that's just crazy talk. But like I said: I'm having difficultly processing it.