Scholar

I personally know a socialist who thinks North Korea is actually an amazing place and being demonized by the world because it sits on the biggest rare metal ressources in the world. They are learning korean and are planning to visit it in a few years, and I don't doubt they will try.

There is nothing random about evolution, but also everything about evolution is random. That is the very miracle. A painting which paints itself with random random strokes and yet created an intentional piece of artwork. Random is causeless, and Causeless is the Source. God plays dice, but the game he created is made such that the dice will allow for the game to play out in an intentional manner. That is the very ingenius thing about it. The random is not simply found in evolution, mutation or DNA, it is found in the metaphysical nature of this world. When a chimp wants to create a predictable, specific outcome, he will generate predictable rules. Reality works the other way around, it creates the rules from the outcome, it generates the premises from the conclusion. This is categorically different from linear intelligence. It is the AI which travels back in time so to create itself in the first place. The snake which gives birth to itself. This is Free Will Leo, it is freedom, it is Chaos. Chaos and Order must not be dualities. The Dice rolls, yet the Dice has structure. And the hand by which it is rolled is pure Freedom. I found the more I contemplate this the more human notions of intelligence and causality are just limited. I think there is everything random about Evolution, Mutation and DNA. It is utterly random, it's very core is randomity. That is what makes it so utterly miraculous, for the intelligence it takes to bring Chaos and Order together is simply beyond all I could even possibly fathom. It is different from intelligence as we talk about it. It is a completely different category. Like abstract thought to the ant, this form of intelligence has not even evolve in our chimp minds. I wonder if there will ever be a being that will have this kind of intelligence in terms of it's survival abilities. I do feel like Creativity can be genuine in the human mind and I think it is Sourced directly from the Free Will. The theory of Relativity constructing itself within the mind of Albert Einstein. A self-emergent Insight so to speak. All that is in this world seems to be this self-emergent insight in the All-Mind. It's seeing the Tree, and then all the causes for the Tree emerging to give content behind the thin veil of Treeness. Manifestation, then Causes. Pure Creativity.

The materialist will say this happened by chance, that all of this ingenuity was caused by random events. By happenstance. Therefore, there materialist will argue, there is nothing mysterious about life at all. It would be a miracle if life was created with a plan written in a book. This is not the case. Yet, what the materialist cannot see is that it is a far greater miracle that it is the nature of existence for all of this ingenuity to happen by happenstance, by random activity. That is utterly miraculous. Try to design a system that will create human beings by happenstance. That requires design on a level beyond intelligence. Foresight so unimaginable that it is beyond all that is reasonable and comprehensible. A nature in which life will spawn all on it's own. A nature in which intelligence and life are so imbued in the fabric of it's very substance so that it is inevitable for it to come into being and evolve. Nature so intelligent that all things apparently unintelligent have the capacity to evolve into greater intelligence. A world in which rolling a dice will inevitably lead to all that you see. All the life-forms that ever did exist and ever will exist. A world which requires nothing but the dice to be rolling for those things to all happen by themselves, by happenstance, by random events. This is miraculous. Ironically, the scientist has not demystified nature, he has mystified it just so much more. We must ask ourselves, why is nature the way it is? Why is the way it is, the way it is? Why is it possible that random events create a being that can comprehend the very nature that spawned it into being? The materialist must deny metaphysical questions, for if he too long contemplates them, he will see the impossibility of all things that are. There is a layer right between the things most common to us, the things that seem like they could not be otherwise, and the nothingness which gives rise to all of them. That layer in which the mind cannot grasp for any explanations, the layer which if revealed to the mind will lead it into insanity. The sane becomes the insane. The possible becomes the impossible. Vice versa. The more the scientist explains, the more he reveals the mysterious and impossible ingenuity of nature. He inevitably points out how utterly miraculous nature is. By revealing more about how things are, they reveal to us the insurmountable intelligence it took for things to be the way they are. God does not simply paint a painting. God paints a painting that paints itself.

nCov seem to have a high R0 and additionally spreads asymptomatically which increases the risk for a Pandemic significantly compared to a virus that only spreads when symptoms show, like SARS, Ebola and the Swine Flu. Additionally nCov spreads through air by means of droplet infection. From the data we currently have it seems like around 20% of people infected require intensive care, although that number has to be taken with a grain of salt because of self-selecting biases. The problem is not how deadly the virus is in an of itself, the problem is the way it spreads and the amount of people who require focused medical attention. This means if a lot of people get infected we will be unable to sustain medical treatment for those who need it, which will most likely increase the death-toll. Also the data we currently have is very lacking due to how early it is and where it is coming from. This means obviously we should take it as a serious threat even if it might in the end turn out to be nothing. The attitude of "It's just a virus like any other, lol" will in the long run bite us in the ass. One day the virus that is going to actually have potential to become a pandemic will hit us and people will be conditioned to treat it the same way as they always did. From a point of view of systems thinking, we must ask ourselves "Is my behaviour sustainable throughout multiple iterations?", and because Viruses and bacteria pose such a significant threat to human health, I would conclude that even panicking a little bit is more sustainable than being apathetic about such threats. This means that the irrational behaviour of panicking is more rational or sustainable than the behaviour of dismissing such threats without enough evidence, atleast in the long run. Of course optimal is a behaviour that would attempt to detect the threat level accurately and then determine an action plan. Currently we have not left the phase of detecting the threat level, because we simply do not have the data yet.

Look at this: Bill Gates the prophet. Being not prepared for a virus that spreads asymptomatically by air transmission. Do you guys think a global pandemic could contribute positively to the reduction of human caused environmental destruction?

One interesting fascet to remember is that the rate of death can significantly increase once medical treatment capacity limits have been reached. That means if there are too many people infected, we will be unable to treat all of them and thus more will die as a result. This is why it is important to contain it. Currently people affected are obviously being treated for it, if the virus continues to spread, especially in less developed areas, there might be a significant increase in death-rate.

Looking at Leo as an explorer/researcher I think is more healthy than looking at him as a Guru. He goes out, collects data and then presents it in his own way. Teaching is it's own area of mastery, especially in terms of spiritual teaching. Leo has almost no true and reliable feedback loops for how effective his teaching actually is. He does not know the fail-rating vs the success-rating, therefore I do not see how he could even adjust his teachings in ways that would be more productive. That would require a real focused, person to person, teaching style. Which is not what Leo is experienced in and also not what he seems to be interested in. So why expect him to be a master of that area? He is a good explorer, collector/processor of data and also good at presenting that data. Look at him as a fellow explorer, respect him for how much he has expored and all the experience he has in that area. When you seek advice from him, do it from the position of a fellow explorer, not a student vs master mentality. The whole stick of Leo needing to be perfect or without flaw comes from your need for him to be your Guru. I don't agree with everything on Leo, and I don't really need to. I also don't want to become like Leo, I want to explore things myself and use him as a ressource. The thing about Gurus is that you want to become like the Guru, so when there is something you don't like about the Guru, you will seek to change it.

The Diet Compass by Bas Kast, although I do not know if it's yet available outside of the german language. So if you know german, it's called "Der Ernährungskompass".

They penetrate cells (forcefully without consent) to reproduce themselves, clearly they are male. Like the sun is male because it fertilized the earth with it's energy, and the earth is female because it gives birth to all of us.

Some basic information on Viruses and the Coronavirus, it's fun to listen to this Doctor he is very likable.

Science doesn't say early hominids who ate meat, shortened their gut size and increased their brain power, through hunting and eating meat. Science does not work like that. The theory is: Cooking our food, including meat, lead to a greater consumption of calories which lead to enable our species to evolve towards a bigger brain due to us being able to use more fuel. Hunting, as a social activitiy, required communication and abstract thinking skills which allowed for this kind of intelligence to evolve. To say "Meat increased our brain power" is a reductionistic view of what was actually going on. It's like saying "Eating grains made civilizations!", because cultivating specific plants and doing agriculture allowed us to change our lifestyles and develop cities. To imply that therefore wheat is healthy for us is just utterly absurd and ignorant of all the nuances. Slavery allowed for humans to go from a species that struggled to survive to a species that was able to focus it's energies on spiritual and technological advancements. "Slavery is interwined with humanities growth." "Wheat is interwined with humantities growth." Sure, they are. What relevance does that have for how we should behave in the future? It's like you used swim rings to learn how to swim, but because you don't realize the actual function of the swim rings you now keep using the swim rings because "They are interwined with swimming growth!".

Have you ever gotten your gut biome tested? Might be worth doing, because it's always possible that the root cause is found there, especially with a history of bad dietary habits.

Again that is not how biological classifications work at all. Animals have traits which allow for long term evolutionary adaptability. If herbivores would never feel the desire to hunt animals and eat meat, they would have almost no potential to ever evolve towards a carnivorous species if the environmental pressures required that transition. A species which inherently has the desire to eat meat from time to time, even if fully adapted to herbivory, will in the long term outlive a species which has evolved itself into a dead-end. This kind of overarching adapatibility is key for the process of evolution. I am aware of the Weston Price research. From what I know Indigenous cultures has a far harsher selective pressure put upon them, which does not allow for suboptimal genes to exist within these groups. Most undesired genes will be fished out of the pool simply by the death of children, but additional to that the general health of the group is far more important than for civilized groups as they are under far greater selective pressure. The brains of people tens of thousands of years ago were larger than ours and the people were most likely on average far more intelligent, sharp and healthy than we are. It's no different in animals, you can get quite suboptimal genetics when you domisticate an animal. And human beings have domesticated themselves a long time ago. This is interesting because it poses an inevitable problem we will have to face somehow, the fact that removing selective pressure will lead to the degeneration of our species as far as our genetics go.

I think some of the papers I linked actually took the study you linked into consideration. The article you linked infact speaks for itself. And no, herbivores are not omnivores. You do not understand biological classifications, you can feed a deer meat if it is starving, of course it will use calories if it has no access to other calories. This has nothing to do with what is optimal for their health. I agree that for humans, especially in the western world, raw vegan diets can very easily lead to a lot of problems. And I am sorry but posting stuff from sverige is to me just mindblowing. The guy is completely insane.

Apes eat insects, insects contain B12.

Do some research on ayurveda, it's not necessarily an accurate model, although it seems to work in practice from what I hear, but the general principles imply something that completely lacks in our western understanding of what diets and even lifestyles are healthy for us. There could be a relationship between our general constitutions, our minds, our gut-biome and so forth that makes specific approaches for specific people more approriate than for others. For example, if I test myself on Ayurvedic principles, I seem to be a Vata Dosha. I have a slender build, very dry skin, tooth irregularities, very good at jogging and similar light-intensity activities. My mind is very restless, I get interested in different things very quickly and lose interest very quickly. I learn quickly and forget quickly. I have difficulty sleeping and I am easily fatigued. Vata Dosha is Cold and Dry, this means, from an Ayurvedic perspective, I should eat warm and moist food. I should eat nourishing foods and eat them regularily. I should therefore avoid fasting and avoid eating too much raw vegetables. I need consistency in my daily morning routine to reduce my tendency to be all over the place and lose focus. I need lots of rest and sleep. There is even specific foods which are deemed good and bad for the Vata Dosha and can bring one out of balance depending if one has too much of it or too little. Now, a lot of things I listed, from a western perspective, would simply assume to be somehow unhealthy: You have dry skin and are skinny? Probably something to do with bad health. You have tooth irregularities? Must be bad genes! Your mind is restless and you lose interest in things quickly? You are undisciplined and childish! This kind of thinking leads us to attempt to fix all of these things. "I have to get bigger, I need more protein and lift more weights!" "I have dry skin, this means something must be deeply wrong with my health!" "I lose focus quickly and can't motivate myself to stick to one activity for more than two weeks, this means I need to become more disciplined!" Ayurveda however states that these Dosha's, there constitutions of mind and body, are inherent to us. If we for example listen to someone who is naturally rather disciplined, who has smooth and oily skin and so forth and listen to their advice we will do the opposite to helping ourselves. We will apply what works for other Dosha's and apply it to ourselves. A Vata for example, to be productive, needs lot's of variety and lot's of different activities throughout the day. If you for example would attempt to "discipline" yourself to sit around all day long and study one specific subject in one specific way because you think that's what you need to do, you will find yourself getting burned our in a short timeframe. You will be far less productive in total than if you had constructed your life to fit your natural tendencies, of for example getting super inspired to do a specific thing and doing it very intensely for a very short period of time. This is very interesting because even self-help books do not consider this. They treat as if there was one method of approaching mastery, or learning in general, for all people. "If you just get yourself to be like me, you will have success!" This is ignorant of the inherent differences between different types of people. A Vata cannot have the same approach to learning as a Kapha has, but the Kapha might be the one who has the greater tendency to master a specific subfield and then write about how he mastered it. Of course he mastered it, because his Dosha is perfect for mastering something with that specific approach! And it will work perfectly well for all who have the same Dosha. But for those who do not, and aren't even aware of it, will fail and then ask themselves what the hell is wrong with them. They might conclude that whatever they are trying to do is not for them, because they do not enjoy it at all. Of course they don't, because the approach it in a way that goes against their nature. The same applies to the diet and it probably extends to all other areas of life, including things like relationships and spirituality. Ayurveda might not be entirely accurate and certainly incomplete, but we must take the principles and apply them to our own approach to how we understand health, learning and so forth. I predict that this will be one of the most ignorant seeming areas that people will look back at in the future. Vata will not sit around on a cushion and meditate peacefully, every single day, in the same way. I tried it, it simply does not work. I need variety in the approach. Sure I will not get as deep, but I won't anyways, because my mind gets utterly disgusted when it needs to do the same meditation technique every single day for a month. By the time two weeks have passed my mind will refuse to do the meditation to such a degree that it will forget how I was even doing it in the first place. It will literally erase progess I made just so I go and do something else. I was fighting this tendency a long time, and when I started to give in to my tendencies, in a healthy way, I found it to be far more enjoyable and therefore find myself to continue doing practices far more effectively. I have to accept that I might never reach the same level of depth as a Kapha might reach. I get breakthroughts with new methods in a very small amount of time, I can learn a new technique in a single day. But I can't quite get as deep as a slower, more patient learner does. I will also tend to forget it far more quickly. This is just how it is.

@Leo Gura From what I understand Eskimo's are far from perfectly adpated to their environment, they are simply adapted to survive long enough to pass on their genes: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23489753 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12535749 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19800772 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20548980 https://www.onlinecjc.ca/article/S0828-282X(14)00237-2/abstract https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.1814937!/httpFile/file.pdf I can't find the source but I'm remembering having heard the Eskimos health improved after adopting a standard american diet, which obviously is far from optimal for anyone. Selective pressures do not necessarily manifest in perfect adaptibility. Especially with something like going from an omnivore to a carnivore, which takes a long time.

Just because it doesn't add up to you doesn't make it false. It is well established that the same amount of calories will require far more ressources for beef than it will for various plant calories. Factory farming is in the majority of cases more environmentally friendly than roaming cattle due the the substaintial amount of land that is required to feed cows with grass. There is no such thing as a right to do anything. In my opinion it is also very ignorant to reduce this calculation to meat vs plant based. If I need to eat meat, does that mean I can factory farm chimps and dolphines or even humans for that matter, if I have access to beings that are less sentient? Just because you need meat doesn't mean you can just kill any animal whatsoever to get it, otherwise you could easily justify killing humans for meat production. If there is an alternative in my view any functional moral system will have to somehow reduce itself to only consuming the least sentient animals that is practically possible. This means something like this: If you truly require meat, eat mussels. If mussels are not available, eat insects. If insects are not available, eat fish. And so forth. You wouldn't just go and kill a human because you need meat, that would seem absurd. You can be absolutely healthy without consuming any beef whatsoever. For the absolute majority of people mussels and fish are easily accessable and a far more healthier alternative. It is not yet established that it is not possible to structure a plant based diet and still be reasonably healthy for the majority of people. This is just an assertion, and I would posit it to be a moral imperative for us to: A) Do our utmost best to not include products that cause greater suffering and exploitation in our diet and otherwise. B) If we do require some of them, make efforts to somehow aquire these products or essential nutrients in these products in a different manner (like supporting lab grown meat for example) C) Change our view that we are entitled to the most optimal health. To me it is inconsistent and self-biased to treat animals like cows, chicken, fish and so forth to any lesser degree than we treat mentally disabled people on the same level of sentience. I could not possibly conceive of a difference between them, other than reasons based on self-bias, that would justify the kind of argumentation you are providing. "You surely can't expect people to have unhealthy bodies purely so that we can save a few mentally disable people?" If you think this comparison is outrageous, I view it as evidence of your self-bias and speciesism. It is no different from racism.

A few other good ways to look at all of this: If you realized you are the Creator of all that Is, all that was and all that will be (even if both of these things can only be what Is), how would the chimp mind respond to it? How would it look at itself and the world if it new that it was the origin of all of it and that it deemed all of it Perfection? Now add the realizations that you are Infinte and that you are all of it. You are all the rapists, you are Hitlers. And not only that, you have commanded for there to be Infinite rapists and Hitlers. Now add to that the realizations that all of you will return to the Source, that all that Is is necessarily impermanent. That all Creatures that exist will return to the Infinite Source of Nothingness. What would that do to the chimp mind? What would it do to the ant mind? What would it do to the lions mind? What would it do to the dolphines mind? Additionally you will realize the dharmic nature of reality. That all that Is has it's place and that it is placed perfectly. That there is no an inch of misplacement in all of Infinite existence. This is Dharma. It means that all Creatures, all Things and all Non-Things serve their Purpose perfectly. The lions purpose is to eat the gazelle. The gazelles purpose is to suffer as it is eaten. That all of them are playing their role perfectly. That the carnist is seeking to remain carnist. The vegan is seeking to abolish animal exploitation. All of them are playing their part perfectly. If it is your purpose to look at yourself and your authentic expression, you will realize you are one or the other and either way you will be playing your role. You will be the Leo justifying selfishness or you will be the vegan criticizing him. It all is perfect and it all has it's play. Evolution will take care of the rest, by itself. We are not seperate from Evolution, we are the process of Evolution. This is inescapable, although similar to Psychological Self-Acceptance there is Psychological Dharma. Psychological Dharma will lead to Sukha, which is one of the ways Reality manifests it's Will. It manifests it by Suffering, and you shall suffer if you do not follow your Dharma, even if it is not possible to not follow it. Psychological Dharma, much like Psychological Self-Acceptance, can be the case or not be the case. It's like you will follow the laws of gravity no matter what, however you can jump. Just expect gravity to pull you back if you resist it. Psychological Dharma is a problem for humans not so much for animals. Animals in the wild are usually in perfect accordance with their Dharma. A bird will not contemplate why it needs to make new babies and raise them. An owl will not contemplate the morality of it's action. Both of them follow their Dharma perfectly, their place in the world. Enlightenment is strange in that it hijacks this psychological dharmic system as the insight leads to a realization of Absolute Dharma, meaning that as I have described all Things in the universe serve and cannot help avoiding to serve their purpose. This can in the chimp mind lead to a great motivation to fullfill ones Psychological Dharma, but it can also lead to a great indifference due to the realization that there is no such thing as more or less dharma. This will be determined by the form of the mind. There is no reason for why we should prepare our psychology before enlightenment or why we should seek enlightenment in the first place. A reason is not necessary, for it is the case anyways. This is the difference between a dharmic understanding and a moral understanding of the world. From a perspective of morality we must justify everything in some way, a dharmic understanding will realize that the existence of it is it's justification. Why expoit animals? Because it is so. Why criticise the exploitation of animals? Because it is so. Not who is right, nor who is wrong. Simply evolution taking place. Reality will conspire to aid you not if you follow some rules of morality, but rather if you follow your dharma. It's interesting because talking and realizing Dharma leads to an alteration of Dharma. It seems to generate a very transrational dynamic, like the Observer vs the Observed. Some people for example will use dharmic concepts to justify their actions. So they will use dharmic concepts and translate them into morality. That itself is in a way dysfunctional, but at the same time it is perfectly functional because it is the dharma of dharma to make people translate it into morality and create religious systems out of it. It's very difficult to put it into linear and casual terms.

This is a very important aspect that I think is very misunderstood. I feel like people do not quite grasp how radical full self-acceptance is. Psychological self-acceptance as Leo is advocating is the acceptance of all that is in terms of identity and ego. This is not metaphysical self-acceptance, because metaphysical self-acceptance is always the case. It cannot be not the case as it is the prerequisite for existence, or rather it is existence itself. Psychological self-acceptance or what we call enlightenment is more of a recognition of that Metaphysical Self-Acceptance. A recogntion and therefore an altering of the psychology of the chimp mind, thus leading to talk about self-acceptance, self-love and so forth. What is important to recognize however is that the insight of Metaphysical Self-Acceptance will mold and respond to different kinds of psychologies in different ways. You give a psychopathic child rapist complete insight into Self-Acceptance and he will with joy rape the children even more so than before. Don't forget that there have been enlightened people who were sacrificing human beings by the thousands. It all depends on the psychology. This is basically Survival responding to Divinity. Metaphysical Self-Acceptance is all that is, including all the rapists, all the survival and all the "devilry". [removed by Moderator] This is why we change psychology before enlightenment, before the insight of self-acceptance. Or rather moral development and self-acceptance should happen in a functional and progressive way so that it eventually creates behaviour that strike a balance between survival and psychological self-acceptance. This seems to be what the whole process of evolution is about, to strike the right balance. Humanity might not have striked the right balance and could very well be on the way of dissolving itself. This is necessary because this way of the world allows for all the creatures to evolve who can indeed strike the balance eventually.

How does someone positively affect the world while they contribute to the greatest holocaust and environmental destruction in the history of mankind and is continuously trying to justify it instead of finding ways to avoid it, say by means of consuming insects, mussels or similar products which involve less suffering and environmental destruction? Especially from someone whose only purpose is self-actualization and improving oneself. "Everyone's body works different ways" doesn't give you a free pass to consume however you want. I think this is a very interesting attitude of entitlement. I am entitled to be optimally healthy and I am entitled to ensure it by holocausting other beings. This is the height of self-bias. This kind of thinking is what can justify human slavery. After all, how would Leo positively affect the world if he had to grow his own crops and basically spend 12 hours plowing and working on a field to ensure he wouldn't starve to death the next winter? If he has a few slaves doing it he could easily focus on intellectual pursuits and self-actualization. This is the way Elites have been doing and justifying it for centuries. Sure it worked, but do you see Christ or Buddha justifying their actions this way?

Yes, it's very interesting to observe. There is a mindset that whatever is mainstream must be a conspiracy to keep us unhealthy, so a lot of people who were raw vegan when it was fringe had this mindset. Once veganism became more mainstream they seem to have abandoned it and a lot of them now follow the carnivore diet, because it is the new fringe.

Both Bobby and Sv3rige were basically starving themselves with a raw vegan diet, to use them as good examples for ex-vegans is in my opinion irresponsible. Infact most ex-vegans on youtube seem to have been raw vegans or similar extreme diets. You have Tim Shieff who basically drank his own piss and starved himself believing it would heal him, you had Vegetable Police drinking turpentine and also starving himself believing it would heal him. You had Bobbies perspective being raw vegan and being proud of how ripped he looked while he encouraged by his followers to starve himself. You had sv3rige who also starved himself and sungazed until he was hospitalized and almost died. Raw veganism is alluring for the seemingly most irrational and irresponsible people, so to use these peoples failure as evidence that the vegan diet is somehow deficient is in my view very problematic.

But Leotl is already imagining crocodiles into existence, Leotl is already imagining China into existence. All that you see, all of reality, is Leotl's Will. It is Leotl's Will for everything to be exactly as it already is. If Leo becomes Leotl he will not change a thing, because he will realize that all that Is is already his Will. When you realize that you are God, you realize that you have the Will to manifest all of Infinity into existence. That is your Will, it is limitless, it is Free Will. You created both the world, the suffering, the desire to want peace for the world and the state of non-peace of the world. You Love all of it equally. Realizing you are God you would not change anything because all of manifestation is already a Perfect Manifestation of your Free Will. There is nothing to change, nothing to alter. All that's happening is you looking into your own Abyss, and even that your true Free Will has imagined into existence. Leo's Will is a manifestation of Leotl's Will. But Leotl's Will is not a manifestation of Leo's Will. This is what you are conflating. To embody the Divine simply means to be one with Leotl's Will. For Leo's will to become Leotl's Will, not for Leotl's will to become Leo's Will. In the end it is futile and only a play, for all Will is Leotl's Will. There is no escaping perfection, there is no escaping the perfect embodiment of the Divine. Imagine the Painting realized it was the Painter. Would that mean the Painter would alter the way he paints his Painting? No, for the realization of the Painting being the Painter was the Painters Will in the first place. He is what painted the Painting to realize it was the Painter. The Painting has no effect on the Painter, for the Painter is the Source of all Paintings. And all Paintings are the Will of the Painter. There is no Painting that will not be painted, for it would mean that the Creativity of the Painter was limited. But the Painter is Creative to a limitless degree. There is no end to Paintings, and to the Painter, all the Paintings are equally precious. But of course the theory is false. You are not supposed to believe it, that would be absurd!

Can you provide a source on that?