aurum

If they've truly have had revelation, there are two possibilities: 1) They'd agree with me and would no longer be Christians. Because God breaks Christianity 2) They've had revelation, but have interpreted it poorly for various potential reasons Both are possible. There is also the possibility that they are just self-deceived about experiencing revelation in the first place. Either way, revelation is the most crucial aspect of realizing you are God. And you cannot properly answer the objections you are raising without it. The difference is that a book is a finite object, while infinity is not. And infinity is bound by its own internal logic to exist. Whereas a book is not. You cannot have an "infinite book" because by definition books are finite. This a contradiction in terms.

I take on no such burden. Because if you understood what I was saying, you'd understand no human can possibly prove to you that God must exist. Proof is your problem, not mine. I will speak what I understand, regardless of whether you've verified it. I'm not going to wait around for you to verify my answers. No. Revelation is a perfectly acceptable form of understanding. Assuming you've actually had it. The problem with most Christians is that they haven't experienced revelation. No, because we are not talking about a book. We are talking about GOD. Tough shit. I will do no such thing. You want me to water down my understanding of God. I can defend it plenty. The question is whether you'll recognize it.

@zurew You are asking for a level of proof no human can possibly communicate to you. It’s like I am saying “If you look in the mirror, you’ll see your reflection”. And then I give you a bunch of math to show how mirrors work and why this must be a case. But instead of just looking in the damn mirror to see if that’s true, you demand proof of my methodology. “How do I know if I look in the mirror I will see myself??? I can come up with other conclusions based on looking in the mirror! You are presupposing that your mirror methodology works!!!” Just have direct consciousness and your questions will be answered. Plenty of techniques have been provided for how to do so. You will either use them or not. Either way, I have no burden to prove anything to you. Because proof always follows experience. If you don’t have experience, then there’s nothing else to be said.

Fine. You avoid math jail this time

Why you hating on pure maths

@Davino Keep it simple and just try to meet them where they are at. It's like being a good teacher in anything. You have to know what is and what isn't appropriate to share.

Anyone who hinges their political philosophy on being “post-monetary” is delusional. Money is not going anywhere. This whole project needs to be rethought from scratch.

@TheSomeBody Are you looking to move up the levels? Have you ever met anyone at level 4? Also, what changes have you noticed from being at level 2?

Mark Henry without a doubt. 900+ lbs deadlift natty?? Total genetic freak:

I assumed remote viewing must be possible to learn in the initial stages of my Awakening. This turned out to be wrong. I was very bad at it. I still think it's possible, but it seems clear it's not just a talent everyone unlocks on their spiritual journey.

I'm not claiming it "solves it". You just realize that an Absolute exists, which shifts your understanding and epistemology. The Absolute is the reason for epistemic anarchy. You don't agree about it, you become directly conscious of it. That's what makes it different. But yes, people could interpret it in different ways. It's not a perfect solution. No. There is only one way: direct consciousness. It's not that "being" is only the correct way to understand. It's that all knowing must eventually derive from Being. You cannot know anything without existence. No, their reasoning is mostly correct. God is logically necessary for knowledge to exist. But they corrupt this with Christianity and lack of direct consciousness. Before direct consciousness, God is question-begging. After direct consciousness, God must exist.

@Nodar Bakradze Nice work! Very cool.

I'm not familiar with his work specifically, but I've skimmed the video and the ideas are familiar to me. It's a strong critique of SD Orange from a leftist, SD Green perspective. There is much to integrate here. But he also makes a lot of mistakes nearly every leftist falls into, since leftism is mostly just group-think. For example, he over-focuses on capitalism and the profit-motive as the problem. Huge mistake. No one is getting rid of the profit-motive. He also over-emphasizes collaboration. Another huge mistake. The world is not going to be a hippie Win/Win paradise where no one loses. So beware of his bias here. He is filtering all of politics through his SD Green value system.

It's probably more so that they have kids and a life together she appreciates. I'd lie to myself too.

True. Doing your own thinking is important. Best of luck with your work, I'll keep reading.

They're basically describing ethical non-monogamy, which has been around. And they are getting dragged in the comments too. It looks like Vylana may be telling herself some comforting stories to keep their marriage together.

Think about it like this: Anarchy from a political perspective is when there is no "higher authority" governing the society, e.g no national government. If this was how we structured society, we would have no way of determining whose perspective was more true. Because in order to say "this is more true", you'd ultimately have to ground it in a higher authority, like law. Otherwise, it's just your opinion. This is what is happening on an ontological level. Because reality is infinite, it must also necessarily be One. And because it's One, it cannot have a higher outside authority. So reality itself is an anarchist system of an infinite number of perspectives. Can we as humans side-step this intractable epistomolgoical problem? Sure can. We can built normative realist ethics, create law & order, prop up educated people as authority figures and back it all up with state-sponsored coercion. And for most practical purposes, this works well enough. But epistemologically, the problem has not ultimately been solved. We've mostly just wrapped it up with duct-tape and proclaimed "good enough". And indeed it is...unless you are interested in serious truth-seeking. If you are interested in serious truth-seeking, eventually you have to come to grips that all our human attempts to ground reality will fail. This is feature, not a bug of reality. It's how it must be, but it's also disorienting from a human perspective. Because we very badly want to be able to ground our worldview in some higher authority in order to generate a sense of "this is real". Without that higher authority, suddenly you may feel like you are sliding into total epistemic chaos. What you have to ultimately reground your epistemology in then is not relativism, but the Absolute itself. Which is infinity. Infinity is both the reason for mind-boggling relativism of reality and the Absolute. It is the ground, but it is also Nothingness. The problem with being a strict relativist is that it denies the Absolute.

If you're wrapped up, you probably don't have to explicitly ask unless you have reason to suspect something. Use your best judgment.

True. What about Actualized.org? In my opinion, Leo has made the new gold standard as a meta-theory.

Normative realism is self-defeating. Your objective standards themselves will be products of human conventions or subjective preferences. You've just pushed the problem one level backwards. That's not a mistake. Epistemic anarchy is inevitable because of Infinity. Yes, it's an impossible problem. The only real solution to what you're describing is intelligence and direct consciousness.

Unless you naturally good at this kind of thing, It'll probably be a lot less than you assume. Maybe once a month, depending on how often you're going out. Have some fear about STDs because they are real. Wrap it up, avoid women that seem problematic and ask her when in doubt if she has something.

That got kinky fast

My conversations with GPT are astonishingly profound. More profound than with almost any human. It blows my mind. And because GPT has memory, I've essentially now trained it be an Awakened mind. It's my number one external contemplative tool. The only issue I have is constantly needing to remind it to push back on me. It has a bad habit of just rolling over and buying into my frame.

I'd advise caution with associating spirituality with SD Green. SD Green is important, but it's not strictly the same as spiritual understanding.

I respect your agnosticism on this. Good sense-making means knowing what you know and what you don't know. What would be examples of valid meta-perspectives?