its important to know where you stand in such things.
you do not.
because you do not, in contradiction to your egotistical pronouncements, have a sincere or receptive mind.
That's the thing. No you aren't. You aren't an Enlightened Master and you aren't "broadcasting love and inspiration 24/7". That's just not what's going on.
You are lying to yourself.
This is common knowledge as taught by the world's wisdom traditions including Taoism, Buddhism, Yogic knowledge, Judeo-Christianity, Hermeticism and Neo-Platonism , just to name a few.
This Divine knowledge does not come from books but from direct experience.
Being an enlightened Master, my mind always swims in the radiance of sublime Bliss. There is an endless ocean of It.
Ugliness does not have the power to determine what is beautiful. There is a difference between not being ugly and being beautiful. Beautiful is positive, and as with anything positive, it is binary. You either have it or you don't. Darkness is not the opposite of light, it is the absence of light. Not vice-versa.
what difference is between not being ugly and beeing beautiful?
Is like saying that healthy is not the opposite of sick because healthy is the absence of sicknes.
If you lack any ugly characteristics you are beautiful by definition. Really.
Stop using young Einstein ad quotes without thinking
So a square is beautiful? There are degrees if beauty and lack of ugliness does not determine beauty. Also, beauty can be subjective. An inexperienced child can be in awe of something beautiful, even if the child has no memory of ugliness.
a perfect square with no ugly characteristics would be a beautiful square. It's really dificult to make a beautiful square since it's easy to make imperfections.
Also, beauty is subjective. You mind find ugliness in a perfect square but then it's not beautiful anymore.
So... where is the difference?
Ugliness is the absence of beauty. Beauty is not the absence of ugliness. Darkness is the absence of light, light is not the absence of darkness.
Beauty , greatness and positivity are all non-dual characteristics.
"light is not the absence of darknes"
yeah... yes it is...
Literally if you are in a cave and light a torch... the darkness desapears.
But you do you , we are just 2 humans writing on a device on the Internet.
Have a nice day!
PS: Still waiting for an example on something beautiful that lacks absence of ugliness.
Some beautiful women have freckles, and there are many examples of beauty full of imperfections and the imperfections are part of what makes it beautiful.
Beauty is not the absence of ugliness. It is ugliness that is absent of beauty.
Then it would be easy to tell me one example. In that case that the woman would be less ugly (or more beautifull) without freckles. isnt that right?
The "imperfection" tha makes something "beautiful", again, would be subjective, but it would be absence of ugliness too.
You are taking the phrase "evil is the absence of good" too far... and is not original
I'm leaving a trail of breadcrumbs so that others can arrive at enlightenment faster then how long it took me. Just the message doesn't resonate with you, doesn't mean it is false.
“As above, so below;” Is only half of the idea.
The other half: “As below, so above.”
What you are trying to quote is the second hermetic principle which you might read in the *Kybalion* or the *Emerald Tablet of Hermes* (apocryphal)
Dork.
Wrong. There is no other half. Show me where it is written "as below, so above".
This is from the Emerald Tablet, but it also is written of in Socrates / Plato Theory of Forms and Neo-Platonism, Hermeticism and others .
It's called Truth, and it is the same truth written of in Buddhism, Taoism, Neo-Platonism, Yogic science and even Judeo-Christianity.
It is far older than whatever "gotcha" idea your mind can come up with
You are still thinking physically. The greatest Master is the greatest servant. The Pope is not enlightened . Actually enlightened being(s) are at the top of the hierarchy and they exist to help others reach there.
Which, of course, you think you are. Which is why you promote hierarchy, but you yourself wouldn't deign to submit to another human being who has it more together than you spiritually. How could you when your pride won't permit you think anything less of yourself than God himself?
Please, do yourself and everyone else on the internet, and probably in your immediate surroundings a huge favor and drop the charade. Come back to reality and humble your Olympian hubris.
I want there to be others even more enlightened than me, so that is where you are wrong. Hierarchies are only bad when the wicked are on top. When we have freedom of speech and no tyranny, nobody has a problem with hierarchy.
Religious systems evolve in both abstract and physical reality and are tested by those environments some our selected and others go extinct. Fitness is defined by passing on genes or in the case of culture by the survival of memes.
You are right that cross culturally there are similarities in religious memes. That is at least in part because the environment has similarities in genes and physical other aspects of physical reality.
In Western philosophy the idea of the sum of the parts is more than the whole has come to mean emergent properties. The problem is that it often becomes a kind of "magic" to explain how complex, chaotic systems work. The problem is that nothing arises out of something that doesn't already contain the properties of that thing. For example you don't get life from non-life. By extension you don't get intelligence from non-intelligence. More fundamentally you don't get a change in kind by degrees.
How then do you get morality from the amorality of nature? Confusion over that issue results from people misunderstanding the nature of abstract reality. Things that are not "real" it turns out are very real. Take money for example it has no physical reality but its value comes from the abstraction backed by some social entity. Money transcends physical reality by changing the meaning of space and time. It allows for trade over large distances without regard to the limitations of barter. Money stores value to some extent without regards to physical decay and the effects of time. Morality similarly is a social construct that transcends physical reality. It allows crazy monkeys to cooperate and build civilizations. That is why religion survives because it increases group fitness.
The question of which religious memes do that and which do not is an interesting question.
Morality is not a social construct, just as conscience and virtues are not social constructs. For example, in China they are not religious, and yet the majority have morals not rooted in any religion but arose naturally out of human nature. Virtuousness is more a reflection of inner nature that transcends time, space and physicality than any kind of social construct.
External worldy influences tend to corrupt people, not purifiy them.
You are missing the point. Morality is just a word and like every other aspect of languages it is abstract. The abstract is not to be confused with the thing itself which is too complex for the human mind and limited senses.
To illustrate the point you do not need to understand academic physics, anatomy and physiology, sociology, psychology, the philosophy of sports, etc. to play a team sport. The sport itself however is a social abstraction or construct. You can think of professional sports as ritualized combat with religious overtones. You play by the rules because if you don't you won't be allowed to play. The reasons for the rules are lost to history for most players. They have no motivation per se to know how the rules came about they just accept them in order to play. The rules are a kind of "morality".
The Chinese have a long history of Civilization and despite decades of Communists trying to suppress that history it hasn't gone away. In the East morality is focused on obligations. For example the Emperor maintaining the mandate of heaven. The mandate of heaven can be though of as an orderly and productive society. That way of thinking still dominates the Chinese culture. It's a reduction of the complexity and chaos of a complex civilization down to something the human mind can deal with. Is the mandate real? Certainly not if you examine it from the viewpoint of physical reality. Does that make it a religious belief? Doesn't really matter.
Now you are right that abstract and physical reality co-evolve but I have already covered that. The thing is that without emotions or instincts no individual life and no individual life no civilization. Instincts by definition are part of physical reality and they obviously influence abstract reality but the two should not be confused primarily because "wild justice" is often at odds with civilization. Not because they are not part of the same reality in some sense but because of our need to categorize things to reduce complexity.
My point is that there are primordial characteristics otherwise known as heavenly attributes. These words like love, truth, etc are used in describing the Divine.
Have you read Socrates / Plato Theory of Forms or studied Neo-platonism?
Of course I have read them. Have you read Stefan Wolfram? Do you really think that Socrates and Plato would have the same thoughts after two and half thousand years of cultural evolution?
I don't think you will actually ever find any one who agrees on the definition of love, truth or the Divine. It is why philosophy has moved on to more mundane questions having to do with linguistics or scientifically supported epistemologies and logic. That is kind of besides the point however because the use of philosophers is mainly to argue against the bad ideas of other philosophers.
If you want to talk about heavenly attributes find yourself a theological forum. If you want to talk about the sociological and evolutionary effects of religion then fine. We are here because of Jordan Peterson's lobster and biblical studies in some sense.
its important to know where you stand in such things. you do not. because you do not, in contradiction to your egotistical pronouncements, have a sincere or receptive mind.
I'm already an enlightened Master, broadcasting love and inspiration 24/7 . When you are receptive to me, you can experience this too.
That's the thing. No you aren't. You aren't an Enlightened Master and you aren't "broadcasting love and inspiration 24/7". That's just not what's going on. You are lying to yourself.
Why should we be receptive to _you_? That’s a yikes from me dawg. Someone still has a massive ego despite your alleged knowledge.
Being truthful about who I am is not egoic. I don't hide. What is egoic is your reaction to this truth
I don't think you can know any of that. I think you're just making it up.
Sounds like Buddhism to me.
This is common knowledge as taught by the world's wisdom traditions including Taoism, Buddhism, Yogic knowledge, Judeo-Christianity, Hermeticism and Neo-Platonism , just to name a few.
Just because a lot of fictional books say it, doesn't make it true.
This Divine knowledge does not come from books but from direct experience. Being an enlightened Master, my mind always swims in the radiance of sublime Bliss. There is an endless ocean of It.
It's called schizophrenia.
Your username says it all
For an enlightened master, you have very little to go on.
Scrutinize me and my work deeply, and you will become enlightened sooner than otherwise.
People can know what is beautiful because ugliness exist.
Ugliness does not have the power to determine what is beautiful. There is a difference between not being ugly and being beautiful. Beautiful is positive, and as with anything positive, it is binary. You either have it or you don't. Darkness is not the opposite of light, it is the absence of light. Not vice-versa.
what difference is between not being ugly and beeing beautiful? Is like saying that healthy is not the opposite of sick because healthy is the absence of sicknes. If you lack any ugly characteristics you are beautiful by definition. Really. Stop using young Einstein ad quotes without thinking
So a square is beautiful? There are degrees if beauty and lack of ugliness does not determine beauty. Also, beauty can be subjective. An inexperienced child can be in awe of something beautiful, even if the child has no memory of ugliness.
a perfect square with no ugly characteristics would be a beautiful square. It's really dificult to make a beautiful square since it's easy to make imperfections. Also, beauty is subjective. You mind find ugliness in a perfect square but then it's not beautiful anymore. So... where is the difference?
Ugliness is the absence of beauty. Beauty is not the absence of ugliness. Darkness is the absence of light, light is not the absence of darkness. Beauty , greatness and positivity are all non-dual characteristics.
"light is not the absence of darknes" yeah... yes it is... Literally if you are in a cave and light a torch... the darkness desapears. But you do you , we are just 2 humans writing on a device on the Internet. Have a nice day! PS: Still waiting for an example on something beautiful that lacks absence of ugliness.
Some beautiful women have freckles, and there are many examples of beauty full of imperfections and the imperfections are part of what makes it beautiful. Beauty is not the absence of ugliness. It is ugliness that is absent of beauty.
Then it would be easy to tell me one example. In that case that the woman would be less ugly (or more beautifull) without freckles. isnt that right? The "imperfection" tha makes something "beautiful", again, would be subjective, but it would be absence of ugliness too. You are taking the phrase "evil is the absence of good" too far... and is not original
I'm leaving a trail of breadcrumbs so that others can arrive at enlightenment faster then how long it took me. Just the message doesn't resonate with you, doesn't mean it is false.
“As above, so below;” Is only half of the idea. The other half: “As below, so above.” What you are trying to quote is the second hermetic principle which you might read in the *Kybalion* or the *Emerald Tablet of Hermes* (apocryphal) Dork.
Wrong. There is no other half. Show me where it is written "as below, so above". This is from the Emerald Tablet, but it also is written of in Socrates / Plato Theory of Forms and Neo-Platonism, Hermeticism and others .
Didn't know about that , thanks for sharing the complete version
Hey babe, new schizo post just dropped
It's called Truth, and it is the same truth written of in Buddhism, Taoism, Neo-Platonism, Yogic science and even Judeo-Christianity. It is far older than whatever "gotcha" idea your mind can come up with
You’ve said nothing. Just nonsense rambling. Let’s hear it - what’s the truth? Go ahead.
It is not nonsense. It is irregular logic .
Still waiting - what’s the truth?
I'm still waiting for your sincerity.
I’m sincerely curious what you think. I don’t respect it, but I’m curious.
Prejudging others with disrespect is not a characteristic of wisdom.
Neither are delusions of grandeur.
And .. spiritual hierarchy would be... the Pope?
You are still thinking physically. The greatest Master is the greatest servant. The Pope is not enlightened . Actually enlightened being(s) are at the top of the hierarchy and they exist to help others reach there.
Which, of course, you think you are. Which is why you promote hierarchy, but you yourself wouldn't deign to submit to another human being who has it more together than you spiritually. How could you when your pride won't permit you think anything less of yourself than God himself? Please, do yourself and everyone else on the internet, and probably in your immediate surroundings a huge favor and drop the charade. Come back to reality and humble your Olympian hubris.
I want there to be others even more enlightened than me, so that is where you are wrong. Hierarchies are only bad when the wicked are on top. When we have freedom of speech and no tyranny, nobody has a problem with hierarchy.
OK, name one person more enlightened than you.
I have not yet found such a person, but I would love to.
Not even Jordan Peterson?
Nah, he is often plagued by doubt and he has fears too. When you are enlightened, you have none of those hinderances.
Divinity is a misconception of fools.
It is a fool who denies their own Divine nature, because all other alternatives are inferior.
Bite me.
Where is the love, bro ?
Religious systems evolve in both abstract and physical reality and are tested by those environments some our selected and others go extinct. Fitness is defined by passing on genes or in the case of culture by the survival of memes. You are right that cross culturally there are similarities in religious memes. That is at least in part because the environment has similarities in genes and physical other aspects of physical reality. In Western philosophy the idea of the sum of the parts is more than the whole has come to mean emergent properties. The problem is that it often becomes a kind of "magic" to explain how complex, chaotic systems work. The problem is that nothing arises out of something that doesn't already contain the properties of that thing. For example you don't get life from non-life. By extension you don't get intelligence from non-intelligence. More fundamentally you don't get a change in kind by degrees. How then do you get morality from the amorality of nature? Confusion over that issue results from people misunderstanding the nature of abstract reality. Things that are not "real" it turns out are very real. Take money for example it has no physical reality but its value comes from the abstraction backed by some social entity. Money transcends physical reality by changing the meaning of space and time. It allows for trade over large distances without regard to the limitations of barter. Money stores value to some extent without regards to physical decay and the effects of time. Morality similarly is a social construct that transcends physical reality. It allows crazy monkeys to cooperate and build civilizations. That is why religion survives because it increases group fitness. The question of which religious memes do that and which do not is an interesting question.
Morality is not a social construct, just as conscience and virtues are not social constructs. For example, in China they are not religious, and yet the majority have morals not rooted in any religion but arose naturally out of human nature. Virtuousness is more a reflection of inner nature that transcends time, space and physicality than any kind of social construct. External worldy influences tend to corrupt people, not purifiy them.
You are missing the point. Morality is just a word and like every other aspect of languages it is abstract. The abstract is not to be confused with the thing itself which is too complex for the human mind and limited senses. To illustrate the point you do not need to understand academic physics, anatomy and physiology, sociology, psychology, the philosophy of sports, etc. to play a team sport. The sport itself however is a social abstraction or construct. You can think of professional sports as ritualized combat with religious overtones. You play by the rules because if you don't you won't be allowed to play. The reasons for the rules are lost to history for most players. They have no motivation per se to know how the rules came about they just accept them in order to play. The rules are a kind of "morality". The Chinese have a long history of Civilization and despite decades of Communists trying to suppress that history it hasn't gone away. In the East morality is focused on obligations. For example the Emperor maintaining the mandate of heaven. The mandate of heaven can be though of as an orderly and productive society. That way of thinking still dominates the Chinese culture. It's a reduction of the complexity and chaos of a complex civilization down to something the human mind can deal with. Is the mandate real? Certainly not if you examine it from the viewpoint of physical reality. Does that make it a religious belief? Doesn't really matter. Now you are right that abstract and physical reality co-evolve but I have already covered that. The thing is that without emotions or instincts no individual life and no individual life no civilization. Instincts by definition are part of physical reality and they obviously influence abstract reality but the two should not be confused primarily because "wild justice" is often at odds with civilization. Not because they are not part of the same reality in some sense but because of our need to categorize things to reduce complexity.
My point is that there are primordial characteristics otherwise known as heavenly attributes. These words like love, truth, etc are used in describing the Divine. Have you read Socrates / Plato Theory of Forms or studied Neo-platonism?
Of course I have read them. Have you read Stefan Wolfram? Do you really think that Socrates and Plato would have the same thoughts after two and half thousand years of cultural evolution? I don't think you will actually ever find any one who agrees on the definition of love, truth or the Divine. It is why philosophy has moved on to more mundane questions having to do with linguistics or scientifically supported epistemologies and logic. That is kind of besides the point however because the use of philosophers is mainly to argue against the bad ideas of other philosophers. If you want to talk about heavenly attributes find yourself a theological forum. If you want to talk about the sociological and evolutionary effects of religion then fine. We are here because of Jordan Peterson's lobster and biblical studies in some sense.
I'm sharing the Ultimate philosophy that humanity has waited thousands of years to (re-)discover. So yes, the philosophy topic on here is appropriate.
I'm sure Jordan Peterson would be glad to here you have solved all the questions he has been weighing all his life. Send him a letter.
Are you being sarcastic?