cookiemonster

Generally speaking, which of these 8 statements do you most identity as:- 1. A man who likes to penetrate women. 2, A woman who likes to be penetrated by men. 3. A man who likes to penetrate men. 4. A man who likes to be penetrated by men. 5. A woman who likes to penetrate women. 6. A woman who likes to be penetrated by women. 7. A man who likes to be penetrated by women. 8. A woman who likes to penetrate men.

@machiavelli It's your Facebook page. Don't apologize for decorating it with your Truth, especially if it's the actual truth (which it is). Now, on the other hand, certain people aren't ready for certain themes, and the phrase "I am God" has a controversial air about it. As Alan Watts might say: "Don't give the game away." They are having fun, lost in the wilderness of a temporal ignorance. But personally, I find it beautiful. To share the wisdom of reality surely comes from the highest place. And like I said: It's your Facebook page. You're not preaching. You're merely decorating your garden in the manner that you wish it to be decorated. It's a part of who you are. Don't deny that of yourself.

I find these responses quite curious and I'm not sure some of you are getting it. You are Hitler. At some point in Eternity you will be incarnated (beyond a veil of ignorance) into the experience of being Hitler. Consider it like a kind of rollercoaster or amusement park ride: Hitler! The Experience! The experience will be from birth to death, and it will be no different from anything Hitler experienced when Hitler experienced it. You won't be able to say: "Oh, but when I'm Hitler I'll do things differently." No. You won't do things differently. You'll do things exactly how they were done. And that will be the experience. So this isn't an exercise in moral vanity or obligatory compassion. You don't have to virtue signal how beautiful you are just because you love (or don't love) Hitler. You are Hitler. To love him is an exercise in self-love, just as to hate him is an exercise in self-hate. It's up to you.

Yes but materialism isn't accurate. That's the point. We know for certain that consciousness is possible, and we know for certain that absolute unconsciousness is impossible. Therefore consciousness is ever-lasting. The materialists have no authority to contradict this. The question in respect of solipsism pertains to the implications of an ever-lasting consciousness:- Specifically: Does it imply the experiencing/knowledge of every permutation of possible state? If yes, then solipsism is irrelevant: Your ego and my ego shares the same silent witness, because the silent witness knows all states.

Consciousness != ego. Consciousness is provably ever-lasting.

It's not necessarily impossible. Consciousness is provably ever-lasting. Therefore the question becomes: What are the implications of an ever-lasting consciousness? If the implications of an ever-lasting consciousness includes the experiencing of every permutation of experience there is to possibly experience, then this will include my ego experience, your ego experience and every other ego permutation and finite variation limited only by imagination (which is limitless).

“The distance between insanity and genius is measured only by success.” – Bruce Feirstein

"Let them eat cake." - Marie Antoinette (1789)

It goes beyond that. There is no Off.

There's no such thing as a beta or alpha. Forget you ever heard the terms. The terms originate from the BDSM community as a consensual ad-hominem to practice consensual humiliation / rejection as a theatrical demonstration of (mostly) female assertiveness. It was built on the premise that the sum of all fears for men (of a woman) was humiliation / rejection, whereas the sum of all fears for women (of a man) is violence / sexual violence. Sure, there was a vaguely pseudo-scientific backstory of the terms having something to do with the mating habits of wolves, but for the most part it is total horse-shit (and consensual theatre). It was only really when fickle BDSM guilt-trippers carried their post-orgasmic shame into the real world when these kinds of terms started to enter the mainstream (non-BDSM) lexicon, and thereafter became non-consensual ad-hominems. This is especially wielded by genuinely insecure so-called alpha males who are most guilty of propagating the term non-consensually as a means to top-up their investment in their personal identity as a physical dominant. You can tell who these people are: They go straight to the gym, straight to the weightlifting equipment, and very rarely touch the cardio-vascular equipment. Do not fall into this trap. In the mind of the insecure alpha:- 1. Sex is good. 2. Physical dominance equal sex. 3. Therefore I must be physically dominant. This kind of masculinity is literally called animalistic masculinity, and logically cannot be anything other than regressive. The human experience can be thought of as a temporal spiritual adolescence, with the Kingdom of Animals on the one side, and a nameless new archetype on the other - the best phrase that does it justice is Kingdom of Angels. Just as teenage adolescence is a temporal experience with the experience of being a child on the one side and the experience of being an adult on the other, inevitably all children turn into adults and so too do all animals turn into angels. The problem is that during this state of spiritual adolescence it is a very confusing period (as with teenage adolescence), and some people are at different stages than others. As we slowly move into the post-human experience, the difference between the two genders starts to collapse into meaninglessness, which can often be confusing and frustrating especially if the animalistic side of you still is seeking sex. Which therefore begs the question: What do you actually want here? If it's just sex then just buy it. If it's a meaningful connection with someone meaningful, then you're not going to find it using the methods you outlined.

Agree with this, absolutely. It's actually pretty tragic, that what once began as broad theoretical brush strokes of ideological and intellectual think-tanks (both political and religious), ended up generating actualized hatred between the ordinary people... people that perhaps wouldn't normally care about any of this stuff, if left to their own devices. I just pray that the various different ethnic/race issues elsewhere in the world don't descend into similar cycles of ever-increasing actual common hatred.

The I AM lives on, From song to song. Where she goes... ...nobody knows.

That's not necessarily true. To say that it is 100% a political conflict doesn't account for the eschatological pursuits of either the Christian Zionists nor the broader (Judaic) Messianic Zionists, both of which require a Jewish State as a necessary condition for the fulfilment of biblical prophecy. While it may not involve religious hatred stretching back thousands of years, the incipient desire for a Jewish State by certain religious schools absolutely goes back thousands of years, and it is very unlikely that any political desire for a Jewish State would have succeeded without the economic or logistical support from any of these Messianic groups. And on the subject of Political Zionism, the idea in root-cause being British colonialism is something of a convenient and recently-become-fashionable smokescreen. For one thing it understates the passions of the early Political Zionists who were already building the structures of delivery right from the very moment Theodore Herzl put pen to paper in 1896 - a good 20 years prior to any of the events of WW1 and almost 50 years prior to the Nazi Holocaust. In fact, there are some who believe that Political Zionism has always been merely a front for the Christian Zionists (and broader Messianic Zionists) and that Herzl was merely supplying a political narrative that the ordinary European Jews could get behind.

In this more recent clip Finkelstein explains the reasons for why he used the term 'crocodile tears'. To quote one part:-

Eh? That's not what he's doing at all. Finkelstein's relationship with the Holocaust deserves a particular respect because of the direct involvement of his mother and father as survivors of both Auschwitz and Majdanek respectively. This is in addition to the total extermination of his extended family on both sides. What he's doing is calling out the hypocrisy and moral vanity (and as a direct consequence of the lessons learned through his mother and father) of those who wax lyrical about Jewish suffering (without direct experience) and yet stay silent or refuse to educate themselves impartially about the Palestinian issue, particularly in regard to operations in Gaza circa 2008, 2012, and 2014. To say that he's downplaying suffering, or experiencing Stockholm Syndrome or having a breakdown, is nothing short of outrageous radical ignorance: precisely the dangerous kind of ignorance that he was trying to draw attention to. Maybe you should learn a bit more before making trigger-happy judgements:-

Why?

You're not factoring in the omniscient state. Think of your 5-year old self compared with your adult self. Notice that they are two different states sharing one fundamental identity. The adult state knows 100% about the 5-year old state, but the 5-year old state knows 0% about the adult state. Similarly, the omniscient state knows 100% about your current state, and your current state knows 0% about the omniscient state. However, the omniscient state knows all variations and permutations of all states. That's what it means to be omniscient. To know all. So just as I know my 5-year old state, and you know your 5-year old state, so too does the omniscient state know my current state just as it knows your current state. Therefore, you and I are merely two different states sharing one fundamental identity, which is the identity of God.

What you really mean is that you don't remember asking for any of this shit. Not sure if you're aware of the vintage phenomenon they call Red Dwarf, but this old clip really sums up the situation. Once you delete your memory, your memory is thereafter deleted.

Thankyou Leo. This is food for thought. By the way, does your detoxification protocol involve Colestyramine by any chance? I detoxxed heavy metals and mold using Questran with pretty good results. In combination of a low carb diet my mind became pretty clear and free from gunge. The only problem I've found with Colestyramine is getting hold of it. Where I live, I need to have good reason (i.e bad cholestereol) in order to legally purchase it. Otherwise, it's back to activated charcoal...

Very nice. This works well in conjunction with the recent video that Leo made on God realization. I've heard it said that the Maya and the Satan are the same concept, though perhaps there is room for a more nuanced analysis:- One could say that the Maya represents the Game in general, whereas the Satan represents the oppositional force within the game. So in your example, Pacman as the overall game would represent the Maya, whereas the opponents within the game would represent the Satan. Symbiotically though, you cannot have a game without an oppositional force. Therefore, the Maya would imply the existence of the Satan, just as the Satan implies the existence of the Maya. Thoughts? @Leo Gura

Thanks for replying. For clarity, I understand that the boredom aspect isn't to be taken literally, but that's not the aspect I was trying to draw attention to. I'm more interested in the becoming aspect. So for example, in your reply you wrote:- "But at some point God will also move to experience finite dreams." This referencing of "at some point" and "moving" implies an animated process, which by definition would require some kind of time-based super-structure. The "at some point" implies a before and an after, and the idea of God "moving" into finite dreams also implies a before and an after. All of this implies God is under the authority of some kind of higher transcendental timeline. I don't understand how, if time is an emergent phenomenon that flows out of consciousness. that God can be subject to animational processes which apparently facilitate the various different cycles between non-duality and finite dreams. How can such cycles and oscillations occur without some kind of higher timeline that God itself is subject to?

@Leo Gura Hi Leo. New subscriber here. I felt compelled to join and participate in this discussion because it seems (IMHO) that there are aspects to your new video that are somewhat paradoxical. I've noticed that Alan Watts appears to make the same mistake. The concept of God becoming bored is effectively a process, and such a process would require Time to exist as a higher enveloping structure. God essentially would have to be under the authority of some kind of higher transcendental timeline, in order for the animated process of becoming bored to manifest. But we know that time is an emergent phenomenon that flows out of consciousness, not the other way around. We know that the non-dualistic state exists prior to the formation of time (and space). How can we account for the animated process of God becoming bored, without time functioning as some kind of higher super-structure?