cookiemonster

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.

Great insights. It's almost like something appearing to be nihilistic, but in actuality is the opposite of nihilism.

All good points in general, and I empathize with the overall energy.

Thankyou for adding this. I do feel this angle also. Aside from being a relatively simplistic organism in general it was also a very immature version of that organism. Thus I hope that the actual suffering experienced was very minimal, to the point of triviality. It's just a very difficult watch for us humans (or at least me!)

Great data. Thankyou. I do feel that as modern humans we have very dysfunctional relationship with death. It's interesting though. On the subject of infanticide, we humans are on a totally different page from the animals. Post-utero infanticide within the human space is considered totally immoral (even evil). To many animals, apparently it is not an issue at all. Furthermore, as humans we tend to want to protect the weak and be indifferent to the strong. For many animals it seems to be the inverse: Protect the strong and be indifferent to the weak. This raises the question: Which position is the correct position? Humans or animals?

The problem is that if every race or ethnicity demanded their own state then the world would turn into a depressing clusterfuck of ethno-nationalism. Where would we stop? How would we draw the division in respect of who owns what land and from which time period? As Malcolm X correctly points out:- "Only a 1000 years ago Moors lived in Spain. Would this give the Moors of today the legal and moral right to invade and drive out citizens, set up a new nation where Spain used to be, as the Zionists have done to our brothers and sisters in Palestine?" Hell, why even use race and ethnicity as a cultural reference? How about a state for bald people? Gay people? I like eating Roast Beef - can I have my own state? "We the Roast Beefish people are a people without a homeland!" It's crazy, and is the opposite of high-consciousness. Ethno-states are degenerative in the sense that they retreat back into the primitive mode of group preference, group strategy and tribal identity.

Sort of, but it gets weird because of the illusion of time. Notice you specifically asked "WILL God?" as if to imply a future event. You could have just as easily asked "HAS God?" as if to imply you have already passed through all such incarnations. In truth, God neither has, nor will, but strangely has, and will. But having said that, there is no consciousness other than God consciousness, so if it appears to be conscious, then it should be assumed to be God consciousness.

The entire premise of punishment is archaic, spiritually insane and borderline sadistic. As individual finite-nodes of God, the only ones that we punish are ourselves. Therefore, if it doesn't serve a constructive purpose, other than a foolish sense of vengeance, then it should be avoided. There are many hi-conscious ways that we can use to maintain law and order, but punishment for the sake of punishment is about as silly as the Old Testament.

I think resistance can be broken down into smaller components. You mentioned it yourself with 'so and so just can't let it go' which implies a lack of freedom (to let go), which can be broken down again into ignorance, simply because 'so and so does not know how to let go'.

Because if it's not a problem then it's not suffering. For example, BDSM is not suffering. Torture is.

Ignorance leads to lack of freedom leads to suffering. I have the freedom to put my finger in the candleflame, and the freedom to take it out, hence even if it hurt like hell it wouldn't be suffering as it was voluntary. Moreover, if I didn't know how to remove my finger from the candleflame then I wouldn't have the freedom to take it out, and hence we arrive back at suffering. Therefore ignorance is the root.

Reposting original link as it was lost in the forum data loss. In this video, Bret Weinstein talks to the inventor of mRNA vaccines, Dr. Robert Malone.

@Micca 27 years strong and still relevant. Tunes like this just get better and better. Total masterpiece.

@Preety_India You might not actually be logged out. Try refreshing your browser instead. I've noticed that the forum CMS automatically loads a local version of the site instead of refreshing in real time, which could give the illusion of being logged out.

@fopylo Try this.

It tends to follow a dimensional spectrum similar (albeit different) to some of of the other dimensional spectrums pertaining to sexuality: a dimension uniquely based in trust and emotional assessment. One could say that it is feminine sexuality at it's most feminine, but it is not necessarily the same as the assertive/passive spectrum, nor dependent on biological binary. Nonetheless, it is easy to make a biological analysis:- A male creates millions of sperm every day. To use a Casino metaphor, he walks in and he's literally slamming down those chips on the Roulette table all over the place. There's no real need for an emotional dimension. There's no investment risk, because in a few hours he's simply going to regenerate a whole new bag of chips. It's like this: Bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam. (Thankyou ma'am). A female walks into a Casino, she has just one chip, and she's not going to get another one for a whole month. That's a totally different investment strategy. She can't just be slamming that one chip down willy nilly. She's going to take her time, peruse the landscape, hang back for a while. make telepathic/psychological appraisals of each croupier, each table, each little variable. She has one bet. That's it. So she needs to know:- Is this man safe? Is he diseased? Is he a psycho who will kill me? Will he stick around for 9 months (at least)? Can I trust him? Does he have stable economics? Does he have a warm place under a roof which is dry? Can he fight with lions, and tigers and bears? Can he make fire and protect my baby?Does he have access to clean water? Does he have an orchard or a basket of fruit? Can he put up shelves? Will he stay loyal? Can I trust him? And so on... Once those conditions are met, you put your chip on the table, make your bet, and then it's fireworks like everyone else.

How can Change occur without Time? If Time is not an ontological primitive, how is there Change?

@PepperBlossoms Memory is a deliberately soft sensation, so as to create sufficient sensory dynamic for the experience of time to occur. It is the softness of memory, relative to the hardness of the conventional senses, that gives the illusion of time. If memory wasn't a soft sensation, all of experience would be one timeless chasm of chaos.... at least until the point of silence.

Great - go for it. It would be interesting to know whether such experiments led to any great revelations. Unfortunately, a lot of people make the mistake in thinking that masculinity implies assertiveness, and femininity implies passiveness. In actuality, there is both assertive masculinity and passive masculinity, just as there is passive femininity and assertive femininity. So for example: ...would likely involve energies typically associated with passive masculinity. Which is all fine and dandy. The key understanding is that passive masculinity is an archetype in its own right, and does not imply femininity. Similarly, assertive femininity is an archetype in its own right, and does not imply masculinity. For example, the types of energies associated with assertive femininity are wildly different from the energies associated with assertive masculinity. For this reason:- ...does not imply borderline homosexuality (or attraction to masculinity), but rather is an archetype in its own right: The passive masculine disposition with an attraction to the assertive feminine disposition. It can be helpful to understand such nuances when trying to figure out who you are and what you actually want.

Senser - Age Of Panic (1994)

@Vzdoh Wow.. that's freaking nuts!!

List of demons in the Ars Goetia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_demons_in_the_Ars_Goetia

Wow this is great. This symbol is often seen in kebab shops and Turkish restaurants and I have always wondered what it meant. Thanks!