This is how colors are used in society. What are the ways you see them? In what ways do you notice the Cabal using them?
(media.greatawakening.win)
đĩī¸ Cabal Watch đī¸ÂŠī¸đ
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (116)
sorted by:
How can you possibly say something like this? Where is your evidence?
Invention and innovation to overcome limits are proof that the limit didn't exist in the first place.
A thing simply Is. We create the definition, and in that definition we never fully capture a thing. A part of my report is titled "There Is No Spoon". It shows, albeit without math, how all things are one thing. The Spoon as we define it is not just a metal object with a handle and a small round bowl. It is not just a clump of various elements put together in such a way as to have specific properties. It is not just a bunch of intersecting waves of probability, or overlapping vibrations of the aether, it is all of those things and all of the things that I have not said. It is fundamentally connected to all other things in the Universe. It can't be separated except by our own desire to make it separate so that we can understand a small part of it, and make it useful to us.
We define, and hierarch. We separate based on properties. The things themselves simply are, and they themselves can't be separated. Is "Oxygen" *more" than "Hydrogen" in some definitive sense? Not at all. They are the same thing. You could call Oxygen 16 clumped Hydrogens and it would be more appropriate than calling it "Oxygen". But in either case, we are making the distinction. The universe, That Which Is, knows no such distinction.
Once we start defining, we limit ourselves to these definitions. We have no limits, because we are a part of That Which Is. Our only real boundaries are That Which Is. I have no idea what That Which Is is, so I have no idea where the real boundaries lie. If That Which Is really is infinite (I don't really know what that means either), then there are no boundaries for us, except those which we believe to be there.
Do we? I don't. Perhaps you do. Makes you think right?
Who said anything about equal? Hierarchies are not the only way to separate. Choosing a hierarchy is your choice. I could create a completely different one for the same set of objects depending on how I define "what is better," or even based on what properties I am aware of existing within something; properties you may not be aware of.
I suggest this is the fraud in your training (a fraud in everyone's training). This is the primary teaching that gives The Matrix its power, and it has been going on for a long time.
There is no such thing as "authority." If you eliminate that concept from your mindset, the world looks very different. Just try it for a few days.
You and I cannot do the same things. You and I, because of the limitations of our own, personal, bodies cannot perform the same tasks. You're good at things I am not. I am good at things you are not. We are not the same, if only by time and space.
But I agree, we ARE of the same substance. A pizza can be cut in infinitely different ways, but it is the same pizza. The basis of your disagreement with me is in that you are held up by the idea that "it's all just pizza" but I am trying to present the reality that a pizza cut in different ways may still just be pizza, but the shapes cut from the pizza themselves are unique and separate of the pizza.
Because of these disparities, we can be catalogued, organized, separated, or put in different hierarchies. A circle can be cut in many ways, and depending on the cut, you get different classifications of the shapes.
https://imgs.search.brave.com/HG4t23zPoGR942zg-aoLAMn1w8nwSIXeE0mlFHFMkxU/rs:fit:500:360:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9zLW1l/ZGlhLWNhY2hlLWFr/MC5waW5pbWcuY29t/L29yaWdpbmFscy9m/Yy85YS9iYy9mYzlh/YmM1MDE0ZDU3MjI3/YjkzMmZhOTc0ZmEw/ODE0MS5qcGc
I wholeheartedly agree, it is of the same substance, but you can absolutely classify and organize that substance based on its intensity, quantity, and form at any point in space and time. That's what fundamentally makes you you, and me me. We are not the same, and yet we are. We are family.
We wouldn't have any means to discover those inventions or innovations if the limitations did not provide a problem to solve. You cannot provide an answer to a non-existent question anymore than you can offer a solution to a problem which has not been presented. How might a woodworking project change the final design if the limitation of being unable to use glue were given? Anything made with glue versus without glue would be fundamentally different in design. That's not to say one is better or worse, but it is clear that the option to use glue is preferable to without, given the circumstances. Should we then declare that nothing without glue is worth making? No, the glue-less product has its merits, in that the same function is achieved without glue. However, it has cons in that it is not as stable as the glue-based product. The limitation has spawned a new creation, tailored to different realities, despite the substance (and therefore purpose) of both products being identical.
Such disparity is absolutely discernable, and only can be given limitation.
Don't assume I see limitation as a negative. Limitations are usually preferable, because it takes the guesswork out of trivial pursuits. "What are we gonna eat tonight?"
Having a pick of three choices versus INFINITE choice is the preferable option, at least when time is a factor.
I agree with everything except this one line. The Universe does know these distinctions, because we are a part of the Universe and have made those distinctions. This is the power God gave us.
"20 The man therefore gave names unto all cattle, and to the fowl of the heaven, and to every beast of the field: but for Adam found he not an helper meet for him." Genesis 2:20
I fully recognize the validity of your view. I'm not sure you reciprocate the validity of my view.
Things are both separate and consubstantial. It's BOTH scenarios playing out simultaneously, with different intensities between. The world is both finite and infinite -- both at the same time!
The limitations we physically experience are proof of our finite reality. Our souls are the infinite component. Put the two together, and we are the Garden-tenders of Creation God made us to be.
How many apples are there on an apple tree? There is a finite answer to that.
How many apples will this apple tree produce? There is an infinite answer to that, if we count the apples of its apples of its apples, as it gives birth to ever more apple trees, countless as the stars in the sky and the grains of sand on the shore.
The answer changes depending on the frame of time and space.
...
If God is the Word, then we are the Echo. The Echo IS the Word, completely, but when captured and propagated in different mediums, will produce an altered form of that Word by the time it returns. The Word is the rule by which all is measured, and the reciprocated echoes are each and every one of us, including spoons, bugs, air, etc. How pleasing to the ear we are on the return determines what song we will end up being used to compose next.
Just because we, in our limited understanding of the universe, cannot at this time perform the same tasks, doesn't mean that we are truly restricted, in only means that given the current understanding, we are limited. By that I mean that a limitation is a belief and not intrinsic to the universe. I mean, maybe there are universal limitations, but I don't know what they are, and I suggest you do not either.
Our disagreement is that you are limiting yourself based on your belief. The real limitations (if there are any) are almost certainly not what you believe them to be.
You believe you know the limitations, that is how you are able to categorize. That doesn't mean your categorizations aren't useful, but they are not definitive unless you know everything. I suggest you do not know everything, therefore you can't know the limitations, therefore you can't accurately categorize, or place in a hierarchy in a definitive sense. You can do it in a useful sense, but not definitively, unless you know the Whole Truth of everything.
I will repeat this one more time for clarity, and then will not address your further explorations on this topic:
You can do all these things and it is useful, given our limited understanding of things. You cannot do so definitively without knowing everything. I further suggest that in the everything the limits disappear, though that is speculation. At the least, they are not what you (or anyone else) thinks they are.
That was not my assumption at all. I think you see limitations as real. As in, you seem to see "limits" as a fundamental part of Reality (upper case). I am suggesting you have no idea what those limitations are. Your "limitations" are only a part of reality (lower case), i.e. the one you (and/or everyone else) create to make sense of the world. Within your definition of the world, those limits are the barriers to overcome. That is not the only possible definition of the world. Since it does not encompass all of everything, that definition is either completely wrong, partially wrong, or incomplete. In all three cases it puts false limits on Reality.
The universe Is what It Is. You do not know it as It Is. If you think you do, you need to take a deeper look at... everything. That level of hubris limits investigation to only that which appeases your bias. The Universe, AKA That Which Is, AKA God simply Is what It Is. It's limits are known Only to Itself, i.e. That Which Is, can only be known by knowing everything AKA God.
If you really think we understand the true limits of things, then I suggest you have a ton more to learn about how the universe works. I have spent my life studying physics, biology, engineering, philosophy, religion, and countless other endeavors into Truth and I have no fucking clue about any limits. Every time I ever thought I understood the "limits" of something, I found evidence to suggest if there was a limit, it was not what I thought it was. I have long since given up believing I knew anything about anything. It allows me to see all evidence, not just that which appeases my biases.
It's also best if you don't quote the Bible as if it were Truth. While I think there are some real nuggets of Truth contained within it, I have seen substantial evidence that there is massive fuckery within it, especially the version we use today (and for the past 1700 years). I believe it was created as a previous iteration of The Matrix. Many people are still stuck within that version.
The limitations we physically experience are proof of the belief of our limitations. That doesn't mean there are no physical limits, I don't know if there are, but without a complete understanding of everything, there is no way to know what limits are Real (upper case) and what limits are merely our reality (lower case AKA the system of beliefs we use to navigate the world).
Why? Why are we "the Echo"? Why aren't we the Word? Who says we aren't Divine, not merely a reflection of Divinity? If you say "the Bible", see above.
What is your definition of "limitation"?
I think we're battling in semantics, and I need clarification.
I see the world as fractal, which means that every pattern reappears at different scales. How animals behave, how the stars behave, how everything behaves is playing the same tune on a different instrument. It's all the exact same thing, but in a different frame of reference. Stars cannot "do" the same things we can, but they still "do"
That doing proves they are the same as we are. They exist, we exist. Existence is proof that we are of God and the All.
Limitations are simply any patterns between the fractal scales which prohibit me from acting exactly as the star does at this point in time. Remove time and space, and we are the same.
...
Consider where my mind is. I know, truly, that I cannot know everything.
Just as a carpenter does not have everything he can make stowed away in a warehouse somewhere, ready for use when he has need of it.
Instead, I have efforted to hone the tools by which I come to know things. Everything a carpenter can make resides in his tools and his works.
I'm not God, but I am his child. Creating things is woven into our very being. The only way we can know anything is to take our tools and address the problem at hand as it comes before us. Only God is like the carpenter that has everything he can make stowed away ready for use at a moment's notice.
We, on the other hand, must use our tools in order to coax out of nothing that which has always been.
This is how I have built my world view. Instead of relying on what I "know" at any one point in time, I have dedicated the majority of my efforts in my tools -- in interpreting the world as it appears before me. What I know plays into such interpretations.
Because I believe the world is fractal; by using metaphor, analogy and parable, we can discern the Truth without need of having it stored in the back of our minds and taking up "space."
All throughout Creation there are patterns, templates, and systems that are proven to work, and work well. Designed by God before time, and honed like tools to their current state of being. All that one needs for "success" is to emulate the winning formula all around us. Deviation is pursued at ones own folly.
Not to beat yesterday's horse, but you deserve an answer, your rebuttals are always thoughtful.
A limit is an absolute boundary. It can't be crossed. By definition, a limit is impossible to get past. In math it bounds a function. A function can never cross a limit. This isn't just the definition in math, it is the definition in English as well:
If you are limited, it means you can't do something. For example, I have a limit in that I can't fly.
Or at least I believe I have that limit.
But really, ever since the early 20th century, we can fly (likely long before, but I'm not going there right now). I have actually flown many times. I've flown in planes, a helicopter and even a balloon. So what I may have believed to be a limit in the 15th century (for example) of "I can't fly", would have by the 20th century needed to be changed to, "I can't fly, unless it is in an airplane, helicopter, zeppelin, balloon, glider, rocket, etc."
So that's my new, 20th century limit (changed because of new evidence). But what if someday someone invents anti-gravity boots, Star Trek (Spock) style? Then I would have to add "anti-grav boots" onto my list, and my "limits" will have to be changed, proving that my limits were not what I believed them to be, once again. But what if someday I learn how to levitate with my mind? I'm not saying its possible, but what the fuck do I know? Then how would "I can't fly" have any meaning as a "limit"? It would turn out that everything I thought I knew about that limit was fraudulent; a belief I told myself (or someone else told me) that was either a lie, or a lack of understanding. It was, regardless, at every stage, a false belief; a false limit.
This is your belief of how the universe works. I don't disagree with it. I see those patterns as well, and seeing those patterns is very useful in the decision making process. The problem lies with believing that those patterns are Truth, instead of just patterns that are useful.
The Truth is what It Is. If you categorize it, and attempt to limit it, you are overlaying Reality with your beliefs, and attempting to force Reality to fit within the limits your beliefs have defined. We all want Reality to fit our beliefs. Our ego demands it, and we have been taught to do that since birth.
But the Truth AKA That Which Is AKA God does not care about your beliefs of what is Real. Reality will go on just fine without your beliefs of what it is (which change in small to large ways every day). That doesn't mean your beliefs aren't influential on Reality; we are a fundamental part of it, but Reality is not reliant on your beliefs. It simply Is What It Is.