Ziran

Psychotic people are distinguishable because they cannot take care of themself. Psychosis is a disease. It's defined by adaptive behaviors which are detrimental to their quality of life and the lives of those in their sphere of influence. This definition doesn't work for things like nuts, bolts, and nails.

All the other possibilities are surrounding the phone. "As close as close can be."

If the mind is also literally infinite, then, it possesses all the nearly infinite combinations of sanity and more without becoming influenced by them.

First, In your perspective there is much more than "a phone" and "a room". All rooms have a floor, and walls, and in theory a door. A window. Ambient temperature. Humidity. Relative pressure. It also has a color scheme. Etc. Second, In the unlikely event that the totality of one perspective only includes those two members; then, necessarily, there are only 3 words that can be articulated: "a" - indefinite article "and" - conjunctive "phone" - specific category of objects "room" - specific category of objects. Reality? Reality was not included in the proposition. The category of events in discussion is "all that exists".

"... only God and the Government will know."

Axioms are true, both, in general and in particular, at the same time. In this thread, please share optimistic axioms. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Example: "Every leap is weightless, at the top, regardless of its size. "

@Breakingthewall, Please compare the original description with the second one. The unyielding tiger has very little in common with "If you look at it directly, it collapses quickly, in minutes." It's clear to me that you're offering little more than a knee-jerk reaction.

The result is unchanged. Use yourself as an example. Name 1 thing which is not included in NOW and/or is not included in your perspective. Even prior to articulation, anything you contemplate is included. If not, name something. I'll gladly accept the correction.

Proposition ( unless I misread ): "Now is all that exists" Contra-position: "Now is NOT all that exists" Evaluation, if false: "Now is NOT all that exists" = False NOT ( Now is NOT all that exists ) = NOT ( False ) The negation of "NOT all" is "at least one" NOT Now is at least one that exists = True "Is" in this context is "equivalence" NOT Now = At least one that exists = True Reordering for clarity... At least one that exists = NOT Now = True Conclusion: The contra-position is False; because, there is not at least one thing which is not incuded in the category: Now". Challenge: Name 1 thing which undeniably, absolutely cannot, in any way, be included in the collection of events described as "Now". Past recollections are happening now. Future projections are happening now.

"the early bird, catches the worm" "Simultaneously, the easiest-and-hardest thing to do, each and every day: choice"

Technically in English, you're not describing "knowing". It's better described as "trust", or more completely, as the relationship "wisdom <<< born-from >>> understanding". Knowing, in English, is a pointed, penetrating, certainty. It's coming from direct experience. That's why the translators of the Bible choose the euphemism "Adam knew his wife..." to convey copulation. In English, in contrast to "Knowing", is "Understanding". Most succinctly, "Knowing compared to Understanding, is like a dot compared to a cloud." Wisdom is typified as the "closed non-existence which collapses". Well said. Wisdom is knowing which "keys" belong with each and every "lock". The "lock" metaphorically, is the vacancy you're describing. Pure "Wisdom", in the English language. Is this helpful?

At the moment when he surpassed his natural inclinations and pierced his own eye, I vote, he had achieved communion with "the-most-high". The superlative is from Newton's perspective, which is all that matters. Because, Newton is creating his own world, within his own mind, just like the rest of us. If I pretend I'm Newton, looking at it from his point of view, the moment of incision would be, beyond, literally, what I can do to myself. It's in the transition, the "transitioning", is the medium through which communion can occur with "the-most-high" I hope I expressed that clearly.

It can be logical, but it doesn't need to be. It can be felt in the heart. ... and in your penis. Evidently.

The contraposition is false; which renders the proposition 'true'.

Forgive me if this has already been addressed? But, are you sure, about this? It's true the mind cannot appreciate simultaneity. It skips over it, for good reason, in order to render the oscillating-energy-bath ( of reality ) into sensory feedback which presents as a stable ( "rock-solid" ) construct. However, the emotive faculties routinely process and experience simultaneity. That's where one can find long lineages, overlapping, within a human-shaped-vessel. Maybe think of it this way? The "-ism" suffix, in English, indicates that the word is describing a pure-example of a complex idea. Problem: In the material world, there aren't perfectly pure examples of anything. But, because it's much easier to study the pure-example, the extreme-cases, during inquiry, this inherent fault is over-looked, temporarily. Then from this inquiry ( of the hypothetical pure-example, which is approaching the extreme-case, but doesn't intend to reach it ) one can consider the trend. If the trend is consistently pointing towards the ideal, then the "-ism", regardless of context, is "valid". But, naturally, any attempt to embody the "-ism" or to find evidence of it ( "Is it true?" ) will fail. Only imperfect examples will be found of any "-ism".

Are you aware of Newton's "Eye-Poke" experiment? I don't think it's possible lacking significant dissociative cognition. OTOH, the same can be said about a lunatic...

I really like this one. I think I watched it twice, consecutively. Maybe I'm due for refresher.

" ... Who am I, who?" LINK

"Always Be Closing" David Mamet's: Glengarry Glen Ross

Meditation-Student: I've realized non-duality. My ignorance is your ignorance; therefore, I want a discount. Meditation-Master: Oh dear, If my ignorance is your ignorance, I need to charge you double.

"Come into my garden, ... said the spider to the fly".

It's a prophecy about Jubilee. During the Jubilee year, per scripture: Lev 25:13 In the year of this jubilee you shall return every man to his ancestral possession In 3rd Enoch, which was popular at that time, at Jubilee, there's a special angel, the Son-of-Man, which opens the gates of purgatory so that this verse is literally fulfilled. And this explains the Son-Of-Man narrative. In context, it's not illogical. That reminds me. Hopefully this will cover the last of the major complications, conundrums, confusing points in a broad manner. I suppose the last major criticism of the Bible as illogical that I see and hear a lot involves the Trinity. It's difficult and illogical for us, as modern people, but it wouldn't have been difficult for the target audience of the Christian bible, at that time. And this is the part that Jewish people, academics, publishers, etc, have suppressed over the years. At the time when Jesus would have been preaching, Jews had a common belief in angels and demons in addition to a God which is categorized as "The-Most-High". By today's standards these ideas are bizarre to say the least. Yes, it's idol-worship in all but the edge cases. ... None the less, my ancestors, my people, believed and did some strange things. For an individual to invoke, to become deeply inspired, within themselves, by one or more of these angels ... or demons... was a thing. We're not supposed to do it, but, they did it anyway. There's an angel, in Jewish legend, named "Metatron" who is conjoined to another angel, its mate, "Shechinah". When examined closely, it's true, contrary to the opinion of many, there is a strong Jewish base which supports the Gospel and the Trinity. As a result, these ideas were suppressed and denied to exist. In special regard to whether or not the Trinity conceppt is illogical: I'll admit. This is complicated. And it's in a language that's foreign to many. But, the concepts themself are not difficult to describe or visualize. Once that's done, the Trinity is not a problem at all. Shechinah comes from the root word Shochain, "to dwell". The Shechinah, the "divine presence", in Jewish legend, is credited with bestowing miracles, healing, and insight via the Ruach-HaKodesh, The-Holy-Spirit. It's not known precisely where the name of its other half originates. But, when its function is understood, then the name can be understood as well. These two are, energetically, becoming three. The underlying mechanism which permits this is the same manner of paradox which permits apprehension of a Trinity lacking cognitive dissonance. Metatron in legend is referred to as the "Little YHVH", the Son-of-Man, the first of the angels, etc... Metatron is spelled: Mem-Tet-Tet-Reish-Vav-Final-Nun. "מטטרון" Etymologically, there is nothing to compare it to. That's why there's no consensus on its root meaning, valence, origin. Broken out: the first letter is a prefix. The last three are a common suffix, "diminutive" . The double-Tet "טט" in the middle is certainly the root, but, it's completely unique in the entire canon. No other person, place, or thing, in Hebrew scripture possesses these two letters together. So, there's no contextual basis to begin forming an opinion on the meaning of the root. Metatron's function is "courier", but, it operates more like a turnstile. It flips, and inverts. Like a pipe, or a tunnel, or a straw, that flips 180-degrees, taking from one side, below, and bringing it up above. Then back again. Top to bottom, bottom to top. Instantaneously, it's simultaneously inverting-and-not. If this function is considered, "a miraculous, wormhole, turnstile, courier service", flipping and inverting, ... the name can be understood. See below, using block script from a scribe: The Tet-Tet pairing "טט" is literally flipping and inverting, flipping and inverting. Metatron's conjoined twin, the divine presence, rides on his metaphorical shoulders. She is at the edges of the "exit ramp", so to speak. She's at the lip of the pipe. On both ends. This seems illogical, but it isn't. If the angelic courier is considered as a sphere, then, a single conjoined twin can enwrap itself completely around its spherical partner such that it is both above and below, simultaneously. From the earth-bound, finite, perspective, gazing upwards at a literally infinite orb, one would only see the tip on the other-side, because the finite individual is being enveloped within the sphere. Like looking at the knot on an inflated balloon , through the other-side of the balloon. Because of this, even though it's all the same dwelling of divine presence, when considered in total, there is only one energetic principle in spite of how it appears from the finite, earth bound view. But, because it would be a misnomer to call the divine presence as it exists beyond the material as a "dwelling", instead of Shechinah, the angel takes a different name, as the metaphorical crown "Keser", above and beyond. And that's the earliest extent version of a Trinity in the region. It's called "Mercavah Mysticism". Mercavah means "Chariot". Metatron is written about metaphorically as a chariot which can be metaphorically constructed for ascension, or, one can catch a ride on the flip side in descent, go through hell, and then ride the metaphorical elevator back up. Catching the downward flow was supposed to be easier. This was prevailing accepted "common" knowledge at the time when Jesus was, theoretically ,walking the earth. Jesus, though, according to the scriptures, at the end, made himself into a metaphorical chariot. Instead of invoking the Son-Of-Man, he completely emptied himself and received The Will of God. That's why no one in the Christian bible objects to invocation of Son-Of-Man. They get upset when Jesus attempts to go beyond that, which is a quantum leap identical to the flipping and inverting of the divine presence as perceived through the other-side. That last part reconciles the Trinity. Here's how. A triangular prism is unique among the others; because, when gazing at the flat face, both of the other two faces are seen within it, flipped and inverted, through the other-side, if it's perfectly clear and refined. But, when the prism is looked at from one of the edges, all one sees is the edge. That's the way the trinity is logical. It's a special relationship of three. When all three sides are perfectly balanced, closed, and clear, the three are one included within each other. See below: Below is the conventional way of looking at the Trinity. While on earth, Jesus was connected to the other two, but only Jesus is proximal and present. After Jesus' ministry, the "Spirit" replaced him, is still wholly and completed connected to "Spirit" and "Father", but only "Spirit" is proximal and present. From this vantage, there's 3 distinct constituents, and only one is apparent. The other two are hidden. Below is another way of looking at it. Here, the constituents are mapped to the faces of the triangle instead of at the points. While on earth, one could see "the Father" and "the Spirit" within Jesus who had in an unprecedented manner emptied himself to receive the Will of The Most High. In this way, all three, Father, Son, and Spirit are equally, consistently, one and not the same, which defies common logic, yet, it's true. Classic paradox.

... none get to the father except by me. Why? It's a palindrome. The "way" is the reciprocal, in general, "above", in the heavens, to its compliment, the "life", the manifestation of Jesus' ministry, in particular, "below", on earth. Truth in the middle, spelled in Hebrew is Aleph-Mem-Tav, the Aleph and the Tav are the first and last letters corresponding to "The Alpha and the Omega" standing at the border, like watch-posts, around the "Mem", which is energetically pouring blessing down like Mayim, "waters", which is spelled Mem-yud-Mem, which is another palindrome. Palindromes occur at various significant points in the text. The obvious one is "I am in the Father and Father is in me." However, there are others. The book of John, in Greek, verse 1 is a clear palindrome. Which harkens back to the first verse of Genesis, which is also a palindrome. The book of Numbers, if I recall, begins with a palindrome as well as the book of Psalms. For the most famous one, to me, it's highly significant that when Jesus is quoted, he positions himself as the outer-layer. I am in the father AND the Father is in me. ( Jesus ( Father ( Jesus ) Father ) Jesus ) From this vantage, yes, no matter how a person approaches, from the left or the right, from the inner, from the outer, Jesus is the gatekeeper. What is the original source for this? Not surprisingly, the earliest extent record of this sort of messiah comes from 3rd Enoch, the prophecy of the Son-Of-Man, not from the OT. And that's the connection that reconciles most confusion about the Christian bible, because, looking for Christ-Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, in the OT doesn't work. That prophecy came from somewhere else.

good-grief Plot twist: People are masochists But seriously... Challenges based on logic and contradictions are almost always resolved by looking to the original language and applying the context which the critic removed. One of the the most famous contradictions that's discussed online are the so-called "two different creations" in the first two chapters. However, those contradictions disappear when the original text is checked. In chapter 1, in English, it appears that there are two contrasting and divergent statements of the origin of humanity. However, these two chapters don't clash when read in the original language. The reader has a completely different experience because, in Hebrew, the two chapters sharply distinguish , phonetically, between the word choices, in general, the inception "above" in the "heavens" in chapter 1, with the physical manifestation in particular, the cycle of life "below" on earth. Also, in comparison, the Hebrew language in the original texts, is much closer to Chinese. Each word possesses a concentrated valence which always requires many many more words in translation. Because of this, the first verse, the opening of the book, is clumsy in any other language. Naturally, there will be ceaseless debates regarding how to translate it, when the original text is ignored. The solution is simple, not unlike any other inquiry, the best info comes from the original source, or as close as reasonable. There are websites with long lists of contradictions. I've been through a few, top to bottom. There are very few actual contradictions. The Jewish critics focus on the "inscrutable" dual narratives that occur throughout the early story telling. This, they believe, is conclusive evidence of multiple human authors, "none of it is holy". There's an old theory about the authorship, the "Documentary Hypothesis" which is taught in the Reform and Conservative and increasing Orthodox congregations and seminaries. But, the DH had many problems from the onset ( very late 1800s ). In 2011, the last nail in the coffin, objective computer analysis, there are only 2 voices, not 4, in the text, which was rigorously asserted by the DH proponents. But, this information is not publicized among the critics on youtube. If anyone's curious, I'll share more. The other accompanying criticism to illogic is the level of violence that the OT God inflicts. The "Law" appears to be draconian and cruel to the natives, positioning one group over the others unfairly. People read it in English and think that rape is condoned. That girls are sold into slavery. It's not like that, but, it takes patience to unpack the ancient text, include all the laws, not just the ugly ones, and most people don't have any interest in spending the time. But for those that do? Please refer to prior plot twist. If people don't need the bible, and they're choosing it, is the God to blame?

yes... Their own actual realms are ... "their own". By definition. Their statements are governed by their own actual will, which includes ( but is not limited to ) the will-to-deceive, both for help and/or for harm. Question: ? How do you propose to evaluate this ? Suppose that all communication is inherently deceptive to a degree. How so? In the translation of thought into words, the phonics act as a veil cloaking and packaging the speaker's thoughts. If so; then, any attempt to evaluate the **actual** honor-based qualifications will fail, lacking consent to share their unfiltered thoughts. Attempts which lack consent are a violation of privacy. Further, if all communication is inherently deceptive to a degree, then, even if the intention is truthful, the mind is already neglecting its own deceptive capabilities. It's a redoubled deception. Because of this, it's easy to slip into deception, because the mind is already cloaking and veiling for the purpose of abstracting and relating the thoughts into words. thoughts << abstraction >> words The abstraction is inherently deceptive. If the speaker intends to speak honestly; then, they'll need to ignore this inherent abstraction. The neglect is a type of deception. The abstraction is a type of deception. That's a re-doubled deception, which is why it's so easy for people to lie to themselves and others.