Topic: Stop discussing war and politics. You are feeding the fire. - page 2. (Read 6807 times)
no eternal friends in politics, politics is not healthy can lead to war, war of course can cause casualties, the vast majority were children and women, politically, if managed properly can lead to well-being, in fact, a number of political figures the world many campaign about the war, whether we should choose them to be a political figure? they can be misery to the lives of people of the world, I hope not ...
And what caused it's expansion?
We don't know, and probably never will. 
OP you provide some very nice thoughts - do you meditate?
I see many things like you, but i think i am not so optimistic in some of them. You say that those institutions want us to fear them by seeding images of fear but right now i see more and more people getting ANGRY. They want to step up but are still kind of lethargic. Maybe, the truth is between those many opinions. Maybe, there isn't anybody that manipulates us as stated. But maybe, there is someone with intentions that we still don't know. I think, the truth is very versatile. People can choose what they concentrate on and if we don't choose to concentrate on a better world, then we simply will not have even an imagination of how a better world will look like. I like many thoughts from youtube videos of "Joe Dispenza" who says that the simple and repetitive imagination of an alternative world or state of mind creates new connections in the brain that will just act as if they were caused by a "real environment". People should concentrate on the better stuff but don't forget our environment and boundaries in order to be able to actually change something. Bitcoin is a good point in order to meet people who are ready for change although i am pretty sure that the future just begins with new stuff like Gridcoin where you support progress of humanity. I also hope that the main idea of bitcoin will find its place in democracy (e.g. by using blockchain). Sry for my bad english. Peace to all!
I see many things like you, but i think i am not so optimistic in some of them. You say that those institutions want us to fear them by seeding images of fear but right now i see more and more people getting ANGRY. They want to step up but are still kind of lethargic. Maybe, the truth is between those many opinions. Maybe, there isn't anybody that manipulates us as stated. But maybe, there is someone with intentions that we still don't know. I think, the truth is very versatile. People can choose what they concentrate on and if we don't choose to concentrate on a better world, then we simply will not have even an imagination of how a better world will look like. I like many thoughts from youtube videos of "Joe Dispenza" who says that the simple and repetitive imagination of an alternative world or state of mind creates new connections in the brain that will just act as if they were caused by a "real environment". People should concentrate on the better stuff but don't forget our environment and boundaries in order to be able to actually change something. Bitcoin is a good point in order to meet people who are ready for change although i am pretty sure that the future just begins with new stuff like Gridcoin where you support progress of humanity. I also hope that the main idea of bitcoin will find its place in democracy (e.g. by using blockchain). Sry for my bad english. Peace to all!
Than you brother.
I have meditated most with the assistance of psychedelics, though I will begin meditating consciously soon when I have the environment to do so.
I see fear and anger being derived from the same energy of ego/negativity.
I feel like the best thing we can do is act. If we collectively make a free society, then that's it, you're free. Those who feel peace will find peace and protection in life. Synchronicity aligns you with the universe. And the universe is love, god wants you to win.
And a side thought, thinking with your brain means nothing if you don't feel with your heart.
Peace friend
m8, one does not simply come to Politics&Society and tell us to stop discussing politics 
You say the big bang doesn't say something came from nothing, but that is the exact model that is being taught around the world.
Nonsense. It's taught that all matter was condensed into a incredibly small particle with incredibly high density.
You never took physics in high school Sean. You may have attended, but I doubt you were "there".
And what caused it's expansion?
Sorry I can't go over your whole post, I am on a phone.
Job interview call? The current big bang model is flawed beyond recognition. Something cannot come from nothing. Something can come from everything. If you see the polarity of these words, you'll see they're mathematically true statements.
You've said it YET AGAIN. Proof your just rambling on and not listening to anyone else. (See quotes below.) LOL If you believe everything was created from nothing, as the big bang proposes, then it would take nothing short of a miracle, consciousness.
But the big bang theory doesn't propose everything came from nothing.I've told you this before. Naturally, in true Dank style, you only believe what suits you and ignore everything else.
I'm typing on a phone.
I'm saying the same thing in different context in hopes you will better understand it. You seem to be the one rambling to me.
You say the big bang doesn't say something came from nothing, but that is the exact model that is being taught around the world. Why not explain why if you truly feel that way?
The big bang proposes spontaneous creation of a universe and I am asserting that the universe is in complete order at all times. It is a perfect balance of energies.
In regards to your last statement, you just pulled out one sentence of my last post to apply a logical fallacy to it while ignoring the rest of my post.
The big bang theory proposes that matter was always there, it was just compressed, then suddenly expanded.
There was no something from nothing. The something was there all along.
Sorry I can't go over your whole post, I am on a phone.
Job interview call? The current big bang model is flawed beyond recognition. Something cannot come from nothing. Something can come from everything. If you see the polarity of these words, you'll see they're mathematically true statements.
You've said it YET AGAIN. Proof your just rambling on and not listening to anyone else. (See quotes below.) LOL If you believe everything was created from nothing, as the big bang proposes, then it would take nothing short of a miracle, consciousness.
But the big bang theory doesn't propose everything came from nothing.I've told you this before. Naturally, in true Dank style, you only believe what suits you and ignore everything else.
I'm typing on a phone.
I'm saying the same thing in different context in hopes you will better understand it. You seem to be the one rambling to me.
You say the big bang doesn't say something came from nothing, but that is the exact model that is being taught around the world. Why not explain why if you truly feel that way?
The big bang proposes spontaneous creation of a universe and I am asserting that the universe is in complete order at all times. It is a perfect balance of energies.
In regards to your last statement, you just pulled out one sentence of my last post to apply a logical fallacy to it while ignoring the rest of my post.
Sorry I can't go over your whole post, I am on a phone.
Job interview call? The current big bang model is flawed beyond recognition. Something cannot come from nothing. Something can come from everything. If you see the polarity of these words, you'll see they're mathematically true statements.
You've said it YET AGAIN. Proof your just rambling on and not listening to anyone else. (See quotes below.) LOL If you believe everything was created from nothing, as the big bang proposes, then it would take nothing short of a miracle, consciousness.
But the big bang theory doesn't propose everything came from nothing.I've told you this before. Naturally, in true Dank style, you only believe what suits you and ignore everything else.
Let's break this nonsense down into its parts:
Yes, negativity is a manifestation of consciousness, as is positivity. The universe has no subjective state. The universe is, and we assign values to it. E=MC^2 does not demonstrate what you say. That's like saying 'everything negative comes from my brain, and the Pythagorean Theorem proves this.' Well, no, it doesn't.
No, matter predated consciousness.
Motion is the application of energy, and dreams are not tangible. Neither one of them is matter. Neither one of them are examples of how matter is created by consciousness.
This is not true. All matter/energy that will ever exist was seeded by the Big Bang. Therefore, all motion was made possible from the energy released during the Big Bang.
Call it a "miracle" or whatever synonym you want. One thing it would be incorrect to call it is "consciousness."
Let's not say this, because it's not accurate. The universe was spawned in one instance and has been in motion for as long as it has existed. That's an accurate thing you could say.
All completely irrelevant to the Big Bang and the universe. You know what else is irrelevant to? Adding milk. Instead of adding consciousness to the equation, let's add milk. It makes just as much sense.
This is bullshit. Earth doesn't have consciousness. Earth is an inanimate object. Animals have consciousness because they have a brain. Except for limited instances in certain species, animals have a consciousness without self-awareness. Plants do not have a consciousness or self-awareness. Maybe we should try adding milk?
This is something you just made up. Science is very pissed you're defaming it. I hear it's thinking about suing you for slander. This is something you should be worried about, because unlike the rest of us, you believe that inanimate objects have consciousness, and therefore, the reality that science might actually sue you for slander should be a very real possibility.
False conclusion based on nonexistent equivalency. Why don't we instead say "If humans have fingers, pushups like the color purple." The conclusion is just as valid, and just as unconnected to the premise.
Already established it's not, but why not add in another unrelated conclusion. So now we have, "If humans have fingers, pushups like the color purple. If pushups like the color purple, then the colors red and blue, which make purple, must also have fingers."
This was never in question. No one was maintaining this. You've successfully concluded something nobody was arguing against.
Matter exists outside consciousness. It always has. It always will. The rest of this sentence is a string of words that when put in their current order have no meaning. Except to milk. Milk likes that sentence very much.
Milk likes this too, as it's all devoid of meaning. This sentence doesn't mean anything. It's kinda like saying Milkity milk milk milky milk. Of course, milk loves that sentence, but it has no meaning. Mmmmm, milk.
Even though this statement is coherent, it's self-contradictory to itself. "If negativity never existed, we'd always be a singular point of infinite love." -You. Then, "Negativity is the creation of love." -Also, you. So according to you, only love would exist without negativity, but love comes from negativity, so we have to stop being negative so we can have more love, but we have to be negative in order to create love.
Do you see the logical inconsistencies with this single statement? It's a microcosm of all your posts.
TL;DR: Everything you said is milk.
This response has been sponsored by milk.
Negativity is a manifestation of consciousness, positivity. E=MC^2 demonstrates this. Energy is exponentially denser and more powerful than matter.
Yes, negativity is a manifestation of consciousness, as is positivity. The universe has no subjective state. The universe is, and we assign values to it. E=MC^2 does not demonstrate what you say. That's like saying 'everything negative comes from my brain, and the Pythagorean Theorem proves this.' Well, no, it doesn't.
All matter is created by consciousness.
No, matter predated consciousness.
A couple examples that demonstrate this are motion and dreams.
Motion is the application of energy, and dreams are not tangible. Neither one of them is matter. Neither one of them are examples of how matter is created by consciousness.
For motion to begin with no source of energy to first exert motion is physically impossible.
This is not true. All matter/energy that will ever exist was seeded by the Big Bang. Therefore, all motion was made possible from the energy released during the Big Bang.
If you believe everything was created from nothing, as the big bang proposes, then it would take nothing short of a miracle, consciousness.
Call it a "miracle" or whatever synonym you want. One thing it would be incorrect to call it is "consciousness."
Let's say the universe has been in constant motion for all eternity and wasn't spawned from one instance
Let's not say this, because it's not accurate. The universe was spawned in one instance and has been in motion for as long as it has existed. That's an accurate thing you could say.
Add consciousness to the equation. Unless you believe humans are robotic reactionary magnets bouncing through space with no intellect or freewill, humans require a consciousness to hold intelligence and give freewill. But this is not exclusive to humans, thinking so is quite egocentric.
All completely irrelevant to the Big Bang and the universe. You know what else is irrelevant to? Adding milk. Instead of adding consciousness to the equation, let's add milk. It makes just as much sense.
Humans came from earth, so in order for humans to have consciousness, earth must hold the same consciousness, just as the animals and plants do as well.
This is bullshit. Earth doesn't have consciousness. Earth is an inanimate object. Animals have consciousness because they have a brain. Except for limited instances in certain species, animals have a consciousness without self-awareness. Plants do not have a consciousness or self-awareness. Maybe we should try adding milk?
Science reinforces this and that plants are indeed aware of their surroundings.
This is something you just made up. Science is very pissed you're defaming it. I hear it's thinking about suing you for slander. This is something you should be worried about, because unlike the rest of us, you believe that inanimate objects have consciousness, and therefore, the reality that science might actually sue you for slander should be a very real possibility.
8So if humans are intelligent beings, earth is a conscious host cell that we inhabit.
False conclusion based on nonexistent equivalency. Why don't we instead say "If humans have fingers, pushups like the color purple." The conclusion is just as valid, and just as unconnected to the premise.
And if earth is a conscious host cell, then the star dust it is composed of must also be conscious.
Already established it's not, but why not add in another unrelated conclusion. So now we have, "If humans have fingers, pushups like the color purple. If pushups like the color purple, then the colors red and blue, which make purple, must also have fingers."
Dreams further prove humans are conscious beings and not willless flesh robots pinballing through a game of fate endlessly.
This was never in question. No one was maintaining this. You've successfully concluded something nobody was arguing against.
Matter is a lower dimensional occurrences consciousness has created in order to experience itself from a foreign perspective of negativity and division, rather than positivity and unity.
Matter exists outside consciousness. It always has. It always will. The rest of this sentence is a string of words that when put in their current order have no meaning. Except to milk. Milk likes that sentence very much.
Negativity is a necessary part of experiencing this world of 3D space and death, but it is not a necessary trait of existence, while positivity is, as it is endless. Negativity cannot possibly result in an energy of a higher density or power. Matter is incapable of replicating an energy of a higher dimension.
Milk likes this too, as it's all devoid of meaning. This sentence doesn't mean anything. It's kinda like saying Milkity milk milk milky milk. Of course, milk loves that sentence, but it has no meaning. Mmmmm, milk.
Negativity is the creation of love, consciousness. Satan is merely a deep illusion god has created to perceive self from a different perspective, for if negativity never existed, we'd always be a singular point of infinite love.
Even though this statement is coherent, it's self-contradictory to itself. "If negativity never existed, we'd always be a singular point of infinite love." -You. Then, "Negativity is the creation of love." -Also, you. So according to you, only love would exist without negativity, but love comes from negativity, so we have to stop being negative so we can have more love, but we have to be negative in order to create love.
Do you see the logical inconsistencies with this single statement? It's a microcosm of all your posts.
TL;DR: Everything you said is milk.
This response has been sponsored by milk.
The universe is us. It is constantly subjective to our perceptions.
You're not placed into the universe, you create the universe. Your mind creates everything you see. The rest is just light waves, energy.
You say consciousness creates negativity but not matter, I ask, what is the difference?
Where does the initial application of energy come from?
Dreams aren't tangible? Of course they are. Dreams can be more real than reality here. Many don't remember their dreams due to their life patterns making it difficult to hold their consciousness in and out of sleep.
The fact that you can't take back items from dreams shows the limitations of lower dimensional material plane. You can however bring experiences from this life back into the fourth dimension, your dream world. This further shows consciousness is the creator of matter, as you do so when you dream. Matter cannot create consciousness, it can only replicate it.
The current big bang model is flawed beyond recognition. Something cannot come from nothing. Something can come from everything. If you see the polarity of these words, you'll see they're mathematically true statements.
You are the big bang, you are the creation and the creator of all.
Quote
Let's not say this, because it's not accurate. The universe was spawned in one instance and has been in motion for as long as it has existed. That's an accurate thing you could say.
What are you measuring accuracy by? Logical truth or authority?
This premise is based on the flawed conclusions of time as conceived from are humanoid perception of linear growth. We see the world change in a line, as of we are scrolling through the reel of a film. Therefor, many conclude that existence follows the same linear timescale that is present on earth.
But this is a misconception of time. Time is simply a measurement we created to count cycles. It's not a set thing, you may see this if you experience your perception of time to go faster as many are experiencing as earth evolves.
All we have is now. Time is not linear, we constantly bend through a single instance forever.
Infinity can be a hard concept to understand, but it is only a logical universal truth. Humans largely exercise their 'thinking' part of the brain due to societal conditioning from how we are taught, to the food we consume, TV people watch and alcohol people consume. Also add that fluoridated water calcifies your pineal gland into a rock. Your pineal gland is your third eye, what allows you to dream. The seat of the soul. It's difficult to connect to an infinite perception of consciousness when your brain is disconnected from the gland responsible for such. Gratefully, there are things you can do to change that. Drink clean spring water, eat organic food, remove harmful substances from your life, even try sungazing into the sun as it sets over the horizon. Eating certain vegetables and removing meat (especially factory farmed) from your diet will help decalcify it too. Meditation and even some types of crystals will help activate your third eye.
You will get into great shape in the process.
Why is it good for you to sacrifices what you crave today? When your brain becomes attached enough, your consciousness will hold great spiritual power and peace. You can retain your consciousness as you fall asleep and consciously live in dreams. They become heaven. I am undergoing the process of wake dreaming l, I see them faintly before I fall asleep. I am not holding my consciousness fully but dreams are becoming incredibly vivid. Once I complete the life style changes above, the process onset much more rapidly with meditation.
All that it takes to become an illuminated being is spiritual intention and positive karma/a healthy life pattern. Toxic foods and energies hold your vibrational frequency down, love sets it free. The higher you resonate, the more you can do.
Sorry I can't go over your whole post, I am on a phone.
What, however, is the significance of this matter of "danger?"
I'd guess uncertainty [proves] danger [therewithin], and that [that proves] a lesson to be learned [about] uncertainty/danger Itself.
"Exceptions eternally?"
I'm sure there's quite a bit more people who lack respect for you, than your greedy scamring and those they deceive with fear.
Again, that's your false delusion, not mine.
What, however, is the significance of this matter of "danger?"
I'd guess uncertainty lies danger therein, and that there therein lies a lesson to be learned with uncertainty/danger Itself.
What is the significance of this regarding what it was that was being discussed?
Quote
Burroughs: Well, art is a creative act. Paul Klee said that art does not simply render nature, it renders it visible. The artist sees something that others do not see, and by seeing it and putting it on canvas, he makes it visible to others. Recognition art. A particle physicist at the University of Texas named John Wheeler has developed something that he calls “recognition physics.” Wheeler says that nothing exists until it is observed. Well, the artist as observer is like that. The observer creates by observing, and the observer observes by creating. In other words, observation is a creative act. By observing something and putting it onto canvas, the artist makes something visible to others that did not exist until he observed it.
Ellis: And by observing it, he takes part in its coming into being.
Burroughs: Exactly.
Ellis: And by observing it, he takes part in its coming into being.
Burroughs: Exactly.
Observe and (you will) find.
and
Who is "Klee [question mark omitted]"
What is the significance of this regarding what it was that was being discussed?
Quote
Burroughs: Well, art is a creative act. Paul Klee said that art does not simply render nature, it renders it visible. The artist sees something that others do not see, and by seeing it and putting it on canvas, he makes it visible to others. Recognition art. A particle physicist at the University of Texas named John Wheeler has developed something that he calls “recognition physics.” Wheeler says that nothing exists until it is observed. Well, the artist as observer is like that. The observer creates by observing, and the observer observes by creating. In other words, observation is a creative act. By observing something and putting it onto canvas, the artist makes something visible to others that did not exist until he observed it.
Ellis: And by observing it, he takes part in its coming into being.
Burroughs: Exactly.
Ellis: And by observing it, he takes part in its coming into being.
Burroughs: Exactly.
Observe and (you will) find.
"I am selecting, editing and transcribing letters and notes from the past year, some typed, some indecipherable long hand, for Chapter II of my novel on Interzone, tenatively entitled Ignorant Armies.
Find I cannot write without endless parenthesis (a parenthesis indicates the simultaneity of past, present and emergent future) [(I find I can)]. I exist in the present moment. I can't and won't pretend I am dead. This novel is not posthumous. A 'novel' is something finished, that is, dead—
I am trying, like Klee, to create something that will have a life of its own, that can put me in real danger, a danger which I willingly take on myself."
Whom do you quote?Find I cannot write without endless parenthesis (a parenthesis indicates the simultaneity of past, present and emergent future) [(I find I can)]. I exist in the present moment. I can't and won't pretend I am dead. This novel is not posthumous. A 'novel' is something finished, that is, dead—
I am trying, like Klee, to create something that will have a life of its own, that can put me in real danger, a danger which I willingly take on myself."
Burroughs. Years ago I first heard a song by The Klaxons and months ago I read a trilogy by RAW and Robert Shea that were inspired in part by him, and as follows, very recently I read his book Interzone which has said quote on the back cover.
"I am selecting, editing and transcribing letters and notes from the past year, some typed, some indecipherable long hand, for Chapter II of my novel on Interzone, tenatively entitled Ignorant Armies.
Find I cannot write without endless parenthesis (a parenthesis indicates the simultaneity of past, present and emergent future) [(I find I can)]. I exist in the present moment. I can't and won't pretend I am dead. This novel is not posthumous. A 'novel' is something finished, that is, dead—
I am trying, like Klee, to create something that will have a life of its own, that can put me in real danger, a danger which I willingly take on myself."
Whom do you quote?Find I cannot write without endless parenthesis (a parenthesis indicates the simultaneity of past, present and emergent future) [(I find I can)]. I exist in the present moment. I can't and won't pretend I am dead. This novel is not posthumous. A 'novel' is something finished, that is, dead—
I am trying, like Klee, to create something that will have a life of its own, that can put me in real danger, a danger which I willingly take on myself."
Burroughs. Years ago I first heard a song by The Klaxons and months ago I read a trilogy by RAW and Robert Shea that were inspired in part by him, and as follows, very recently I read his book Interzone which has said quote on the back cover.
"I am selecting, editing and transcribing letters and notes from the past year, some typed, some indecipherable long hand, for Chapter II of my novel on Interzone, tenatively entitled Ignorant Armies.
Find I cannot write without endless parenthesis (a parenthesis indicates the simultaneity of past, present and emergent future) [(I find I can)]. I exist in the present moment. I can't and won't pretend I am dead. This novel is not posthumous. A 'novel' is something finished, that is, dead—
I am trying, like Klee, to create something that will have a life of its own, that can put me in real danger, a danger which I willingly take on myself."
Find I cannot write without endless parenthesis (a parenthesis indicates the simultaneity of past, present and emergent future) [(I find I can)]. I exist in the present moment. I can't and won't pretend I am dead. This novel is not posthumous. A 'novel' is something finished, that is, dead—
I am trying, like Klee, to create something that will have a life of its own, that can put me in real danger, a danger which I willingly take on myself."
The following seems applicable now:
Since it could not, prior limakasidian entropism, be conclusively demonstrated that anything existed beyond one's own mind, scientific evidence was accepted by faith and, therefore, was not proof.
However, as revealed below, one may now proceed beyond solipsism unto a belief in a literal everything without yielding unto faith.
However, as revealed below, one may now proceed beyond solipsism unto a belief in a literal everything without yielding unto faith.
These are interesting perspectives; however, it would seem His entropism has not been heard.
Entropism, dervied from solipsism, starts at the belief that nothing exists beyond one's own mind. From their, it then proceeds to assert that the sentience of that mind deomonstrates the existence of that required for it - some tendancy or tendancy to become less orderly, the consciousness occupied another state. From there, it is then postulated that this/these tendencies, begetting entropy, could, in having propagated a state of a mind out of nothing, are sufficient for some form of ex nihilo generation.
From this, entropism proceeds unto an absolute tendancy to become less orderly. In considering this, and the capabilities of those tendancies previously mentioned, it is determined that absolute entropy of this tendancy would prove sufficient for ex nihilo generation of everything, including its own self.
From that, it is determined, within entropism, that, by an absolute tendancy to become less orderly, the sum of existence is absolute entropy.
Entropism, dervied from solipsism, starts at the belief that nothing exists beyond one's own mind. From their, it then proceeds to assert that the sentience of that mind deomonstrates the existence of that required for it - some tendancy or tendancy to become less orderly, the consciousness occupied another state. From there, it is then postulated that this/these tendencies, begetting entropy, could, in having propagated a state of a mind out of nothing, are sufficient for some form of ex nihilo generation.
From this, entropism proceeds unto an absolute tendancy to become less orderly. In considering this, and the capabilities of those tendancies previously mentioned, it is determined that absolute entropy of this tendancy would prove sufficient for ex nihilo generation of everything, including its own self.
From that, it is determined, within entropism, that, by an absolute tendancy to become less orderly, the sum of existence is absolute entropy.
Is this another way of saying our thoughts and beliefs colour our reality/experience?
So we might as well assume "It" exists so as to live with more color/manifest?
Because everything exists, there is an absolute (not ever increasing as implied by "infinite," but absolute) "number" (quantity is effectively inapplicable here) of possible configurations; thus, the entropy of existence (which, quite literally, consists of, quite literally, everything) is absolute.
(That revelation constitutes the fundament of limakasidian entropism.)
Hail Eris!
I was thinking about it last night with a few friends. Perhaps because we (presumably) originate from one single point of space-time in (non)existence, fractally, comprehending any one part of the system that said point spawns upon expansion can reveal insights that lend way towards/manifests relativistic comprehension of all of space-time?
Jump to: