gengar

Yeah I guess. Yet I do understand it, but my ego has resorted to other tricks to keep me in the illusion.

Aha, so you still qualify Absolute evil as being imagined by and therefore emanating from the absolute Good. However this brings up strange paradoxes. You qualify the absolute formless God, the ultimate reality, as being Good. Imagination itself, with nothing behind it, the ultimate bedrock of reality that is entirely self subsisting and not imagined or emanating from anything else. Let's call this the Godhead. You call this formless Godhead, Good, without the same qualification as absolute Evil. The qualification absolute Evil had to become Evil, was to be imagined by the Godhead. However the quality of being Good of the Godhead is intrinsic to the Godhead, right? The Godhead isn't imagining Goodness for itself, it already eternally is without qualifications. Couldn't the Godhead now, imagine in the same way as it imagines absolute Evil, imagine an absolute Good that IS qualified by the Godhead? That would be consistent with the Godheads power, since it imagined absolute Evil, it could also imagine absolute Good. Would this second Good, this emanation from the Godhead, be any different from the Godhead (like some sort of "angelic goodness"), or would the Godhead imagine itself again? Would absolute Evil be in opposition to the Godhead (being everything the Godhead isn't somehow), or in opposition to this "second Good"? Surely absolute Evil is proposed by you to be in opposition to some kind of Good, in the same way darkness is the absence of light. But how can anything be in opposition to the Godhead? wouldn't that be non-existence, pure non-being? How can Absolute Infinity have an opposite? Absolute Blue seems less paradoxical, since it's not in opposition to anything. It's just an Infinity chilling within itself.

Yeah I got more skeptical about it as well. History gets a lot more messy and less proven to me the more i study it.

I guess thats the silver lining to realms of absolute evil existing, that such realms must as well. In the end Leo is just like Mohammed, telling us about God, hell and heaven(where you get to fuck). lol

If it's cope then we have to dismiss the entire myth and even Mohammeds historical existence that you assumed previously. You have weird standards

I disagree with your sneaky relativising of aesthetic principles. Just because God thinks a turd is beautiful doesn't mean that when I take a picture of a turd with my iphone its good art. It's not only about current fashion, but about much deeper psychological trends of the mind, "mesotrends" if you will.

So what would you propose high consciousness people listen to?

Taste is not everything though, although it is the majority of what makes art good. Technique is also crucial, not only for the ability to make art in the first place, but because taste is also in the fingers itself, not just the brain. Your fingers are intelligent and contain their own artistic taste that can never be developed with just mental, non-manual taste development. By spending hours improvising on the piano for example your fingers will be able to create melodies that you could never make up by drawing them on a digital music program for example.

Fair enough, I think I misread what you said.

Can we even call it channeling at that point though? Isn't the idea of a channel that it is to/from something external, like sending a message over the internet, only through psychic means? Why would you still call it channeling? Well, if we're anyway going by the myth, his followers seem to have memorized the entire Quran and spread/wrote it from there. They couldn't have made up extra verses or changed verses since there were so many memorizers, so one alteration would be corrected by many other correct memorizers. (almost exactly like how a blockchain works) Well when people say "wrote" they just mean made up, but ok.

It's only absolute in the sense that its essence is reality/consciousness, but as a finite thing, it's relative. In the same way that a pinky is a human, but what constitutes a human is not just a pinky.

Isn't it that the Absolute is either formless nothingness or an Infinity of forms(The entire infinite set of all forms), but never a single, distinct thing? How could there be an Absolute Blue? However it's crazy you mentioned that because one time on a psych trip, I closed my eyes and it kept getting more blue and more blue until I couldn't handle it anymore (and I opened my eyes) and it felt crazy that It could even get more blue than what I normally would imagine as pure blue.

Isn't there only one formless abstraction; Infinity itself? how can a formless abstraction have the "Form" of evil? You have classified God as Infinite Good(and not evil). Would God/Good be stronger than Evil, or do you propose a Zoroastrian style of metaphysics where they are in a perfect balance for eternity?

I've been hoping you'd get into that realm. How could it ever be Absolute though? how could a specific hellrealm or an individual demon be Absolute evil? you could always think up something more evil than that, so it must be finite/relative. Just like a heaven filled with doves, bliss and/or maidens wouldn't be the Absolute Good. Cool.

such American customs are so deeply, unnervingly unaesthetic to us Europeans.

It's not about the scholarship but about missing crucial details about religions and they affect society and understanding of God. But I digress. I wanted to ask you, why do you believe Mohammed's claims that his insights were channeled? why wasn't it just made up from his own insight? and if it was channeled, why does it contain so much falsehood, like you claim, yet also much truth, like you also claim? How do you think channeling works, do you think there's actual distinct spiritual entities out there doing the work, or a more nebulous channeling from infinite intelligence? if the latter, why would there be so much falsehood in channeled teachings like that? because the time isnt ready for it?

I'd argue it is actually more complicated than that since many times, you have to do things like killing in war to protect your family. Are you going to argue against Ukrainian soldiers that they have to be conscious and loving, or that they have to kill and destroy the enemy? which is more moral? Was Gautama Buddha moral for abandoning his wife and infant child forever in search of Truth? Or is it more moral to sacrifice truth-seeking for selfless activities like caring for your family, but being stuck in societies falsehood till you die? You are reducing morality to what is good between people, when morality is more than that, it is about what the good life is. You have an unconscious assumption of what Nietszche would call slave morality, it's what we have been brought up with in our liberal time. I'd invite you to contemplate that morality is more complex and deep than you reduce it out to be.

Yet God doesn't seem to have any problem studying hallucination for Eternity. On the contrary, he seems to delight in it.

thats hilarious. Thats really interesting how humans have more faith in either hard materialism or dualistic mysticism, and even a paradoxical combination of the two, than actually contemplating truth and consciousness. Maya hard at work I guess. I don't know their channel but from what I hear from you I bet its conformist to the strand of Roganesque "mind freeing", "anti-government" line of content that's been popular since Covid. It's religious in a sense; they get a shared feeling of community mysticism by contemplating mystical stuff but still want to be a attached to consensus reality (materialism). It's cool that once you have done enough studying of religion and philosophy you see right through these currents of thought(and can identify their origins in other traditions) and their bullshit and that conformity and survival is at the heart of it.

Why the passive agressive tone? i'm just giving a bit of spice to the discussion. seems that nobody actually wants to delve into the matter of the philosophy here.

@AerisVahnEphelia Also note that you do seem to have an aesthetic fascination with religious symboblism like being a "facet of the dream of God". Notice that you find that beautiful. You didn't just think that up by yourself, you are taking from thousands of years of religious art tradition that always has tried to marry art with the metaphysical and the divine. Don't just denounce it as bullshit. It's much more than that (although of course a lot of it is straight up bullshit)

Your stance reveals an unconscious radical individualism; that it is up to the individual to find God and distance himself from society. But that is not a universal solution; If everyone did it, society would collapse. which is why religions had to exist. Jesus found God (in some sense) and people made a religion out of him. Why? contemplate that. I've been doing it for years and still haven't found the final answer. the interplay of survival, truth and religion is so much more complex than you'd initially think.

You are misconstruing my point. War for the ego is death and Awakening is as well; I'm just saying, both kill the ego, and the ego has to be willing to never return. How do you not see the similitude? The moments before ego death are when the ego is lost in the most extreme paranoia and falsehood, clinging to life. at the moment of death, Truth is revealed. Isn't that just how death works in a real war? You did mention that you have a moral disagreement with it, that it's a cowards way to live, since you let society rot, while Christian saints for example did much for the rat-like people. Again, you're mischaracterizing my point. I'm of the stance your way is superior and more true (obviously), but as someone who has studied a lot of religions and the game theory behind them, You are not doing them justice (both in the bad and the good of them) by just cherrypicking elements for your own gain. Ironically Mohammed did the same thing with Jesus. Thats the point I'm making, You're not doing justice to reality by just picking some random elements from religions and making a collage out of it (some which aren't even authentic like the lesser jihad/greater jihad distinction), sure its cool art and it adds to your own mystical school of ideas but again, you're just doing the same as Mohammed did with Jewish and Christian source material. Again, it's cool and mind-opening, but it does muddy the waters about really analyzing what religions are about in both their truth and falsehood. Wouldn't you agree that to do "Islam properly" and find God, you'd need some kind of moral compass? The path is an illusion but only the fool doesn't walk it? how is that different than saying God rewards some behaviour and God punishes other? God is reality right? I just feel you should be more meticulous and detailed about these manners. It's one of the only criticism I have of your style. I get that it's also a feature, but it's too much at this point. Detailed discussion of philosophy is needed. It's also worth noting that you often mistake criticisms of your posts in a very black/white way. I'm making detailed nuanced points here but you immediately took it as a denouncement of your entire position.

funnily enough, most of them do and have an aesthetic amoration with "scientist clothing" which reflects their stance that non-quantifiability is ultimately an illusion.

Well the funny thing is, Jesus was crucified by his people. They tried to do Mohammed in the same way, but he fled with his best mate to Medina and only then became the political leader and warlord history knows him as. What's the quote again, "You either die a hero..." yeah. Buddha abandoned his newborn child and wife in the middle of the night, never to return, in search of Truth. Is that the pinnacle of morality for you? Plus if everyone did that, society would collapse and we would all be eaten by animals. People like you take the question of morality for granted. It's so much more complex than the pacifist slave morality that new-age hippies take to be the standard. Morality is the at the intersection of survival and consciousness. If an army came tomorrow to murder you and your family and rape your daughter, and you would flee as a pacifist hippie, I would deem you an immoral coward. If you fought to the death to protect them or to buy them time to flee, sacrificing yourself in the process, I would deem you a moral hero. Now thats some jihad for you.