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)
🕵️ Cabal Watch 👁️©️👉
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (116)
sorted by:
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.
You see, this is the premise of the current debate with gender identity.
CAN you change your gender?
Let's dismiss the idea that you can "wish" yourself into changing gender, and look at the technology available to us, like your flying and anti-grav boot examples.
With future technology, we could potentially create a system that rewrites your DNA such that the X turns into a Y, but in that instance you've completely remade the body into something it was not.
An interesting debate that has gone on for years surrounds the idea of teleportation.
In Star Trek, teleportation requires a complete deconstruction of one's matter into light, moving that light to another location, then reconstructing it.
There is an argument that what is actually happening is that you are actually just killing the teleportee and creating a clone on the other side. What's to stop you from just taking the energy signature of a subject and then constructing an exact copy without having to destroy the original?
My point in this is that there is a factual limit to how much you can change something before it becomes something completely different.
There are hard limits, but only because we are limited by space and time.
Consider reincarnation and God's place in it...
There is a string of thought that everyone and everything contains the same God conscience -- that we are all "re"incarnations of the same, singular soul on its path to full enlightenment and Godhood existing at different places and times, forgetting its previous lives in order to learn its true nature as God.
https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/w2n/w2n04.htm
Then there is also a similar but opposing view, called Panentheism, where each individuality of this God does, in fact, have a free will, and the "God-Head" isn't all knowing on account of those individuals having their own agency.
Panentheism - http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncp/f/panentheism.pdf
I'm not sure if your belief set falls into either category of thought. It seems like you don't like categorization to applied in this way, and I don't either, but it cuts the fat out of semantic argument if we tread where others have before.
...
My belief is that the latter, Panentheism, is the more likely system, but I disagree with several of its tenants, especially the notion that God does not know the future.
I resolve that particular quandary thusly: That the God-Head knows all potential futures, as he can fully map every possible decision to any possible end, so it is impossible to say he cannot foresee the future. He prepares for any and all potentialities, and can even steer them to a preferred potentiality, not by overriding our free will, but by limiting choice.
"What are we going to eat tonight?"
God offers us definite choice with completely separate outcomes, both to our will and His, but curates those choices such that we don't constantly face infinite possibilities. We are bound by time and space, not Him.
And that's a very important distinction. God is not bound by time or space. Time and space are, ultimately, what every limitation is based on.
Remove time and space, and every limit falls to the wayside.
The reason I find realism in categorization is because even numbers have limitations.
What is the minimum number of sides a circle can have?
Well, it depends on what you define as a circle.
I'd argue a circle is a cycle -- where you begin where you end and you end where you begin.
I think I'm being fair in saying that this is the point of contention you are trying to specify, in how limitations as I see them are purely subjective based on semantics and are just superficial understandings of a one, "uniform," Reality.
I'm arguing that they aren't simply superficial -- that classifications themselves are Reality, well and truly, and not merely a product of diverse perceptions. But in that same sense, they ARE our one, uniform Reality.
Back to the topic at hand, "what is the minimum number of sides a circle can have?"
Approach it from both sides. Say we have a circle with an massive number of sides. Start reducing the number of sides. At what point(s) does the polygon lose function? Well, once you get down to about 4 sides, it's getting harder to say that it functions like all previous circles. At 3 you're pushing it.
At 2 sides, however... It is absolutely clear that it is no longer functioning like every previous circle. It can't close itself. No matter how you draw two sides, you'll end up with either an incomplete 3 sided circle or a straight line going back and forth, which is equivalent to a single side.
Then with 1 side, there is no loop. It's just a line. Beginning and End, forever separate.
This is how numbers function. The semantics matter not, the nature is immutable.
Two can be argued to be a circle, but only if you discount the space between it compared to all previous circles. There is no area to calculate like before.
A single side is not a circle. It cannot operate as a circle, no matter how you fracture space.
These are limitations baked into the most fundamental components of the Universe. The only way one can resolve these limitations are by abusing semantics and calling something that which it is not. One could account that as fracturing time, but since we have such a meager understanding of time's impact on the state of things, we can only speculate.
So, what IS a circle?
A circle is form. Consider, the only way you can build is if there are at least two dimensions. You cannot rest another shape upon a 2 or 1 sided circle, just as you cannot balance a pencil on a flat, vertical piece of paper. The paper will give, and the pencil will fall. To which side will it fall? That's another matter to discuss.
You need a minimum of 3 sides to balance the pencil. You can manage 2, but as soon as the paper gives, it will fall towards the empty side.
Fold the paper in threes, and then place it upright with as even angles and sides as you can manage.
You now can securely balance the pencil on top.
This is the Truth that categorization attempts to address. Different sides have different, potential functions. Not all shapes will have the same functions, just as not every number has the same factors. These are limitations bound to the identity and individuality of the shapes. You cannot overcome the limitations without changing the shape to something completely different.
Reality is a single string with knots tied into it. The placement and pattern of these knots determine the attributes of anything that is. We are all of the same substance, the string, but with different configurations of that string, the knots.
With current technology I cannot, but that doesn't make it impossible. In fact, I am very nearly certain it is possible to change gender. It is actually quite simple (theoretically). If you change an X into a Y in every cell (manipulation of chromosomes, which I personally have done, even if not this particular change), then restimulate the cells to create new phenotypes (which I personally have done). and then do that on a system wide scale (which I personally have not done), then we will have changed gender.
This isn't just a sex change, this is a true change of gender, in all ways. It is entirely possible (theoretically) to change a biological female (who has eggs, and can give birth) into a biological male (who creates sperm, and can father a child) given sufficient technology.
Who says? By who's definition? Not a single atom that was you when you were born is you now. Not one. We are all perpetual Ships of Theseus. Does the fact that none of my atoms are the same as they were before suggest that my soul has changed? I don't know, but that seems to be what you are saying. This physical body is not all that is me. The physical realm is not all of Reality. You are limiting your perception of a human body to its current form, yet it is in constant flux. Who cares how big the change is or how fast it happens? It doesn't alter that Divine Spark except in the lessons such changes bring.
Is there? Who's facts? You are creating that limit, to help you understand a concept; to help your limited understanding of things make sense of difficult imaginings. The universe (AKA Reality AKA God) doesn't give a fuck what you think about the "limits."
To prove that point, your belief, your definition of these limits is fundamentally different than mine. Is mine better than yours? I am most certainly not saying that. I am saying that they are different, which means both are likely not True, which means our limits are not Truth, they are useful definitions.
No we are not. Not even slightly. I honestly can't comprehend how you could think such a thing.
Perhaps a better way of putting that would be... Prove that these limits of space and time exist. There is no such proof in physics (physics suggests the opposite). There is no such proof in biology (biology suggests the opposite). There is no proof in philosophy (philosophy doesn't say jack shit about it, because philosophy doesn't really exist outside of the debate, which never ends). There is no such proof in religion (religion is a formalization of belief AKA dogma, and is pretty much always wrong, either in statement or in interpretation, because we humans are flawed in reasoning AKA we don't know the Whole Truth).
Lets look at this for a second. What if we have a teleporter, and we can teleport a Mahi tuna onto our plate? Is "what's for dinner" then limited by time and space? What if we have a Star Trek Replicator? Is "what's for dinner" then limited? What if I create a wormhole through spacetime and transport a dinosaur steak onto my plate? etc. In every case you contrive of a limit, I can contrive a reasonable (i.e. theoretically possible) removal of that limit. It shows your limits are not the universe's limits, but rather limits that are useful to you in your decision making process (of "what's for dinner" in this case) based on your current knowledge. Your knowledge creates your limits. Different knowledge would create different limits (thus why mine are not the same as yours). Thus showing that our "limits" are not True limits (AKA they are false limits). They are useful (false) limits in our own decisions on what to have for dinner however, but only because our understanding is insufficient to move past them.
I agree. You have created these limits. You do not know that these limits exist. You only know that all of your previous actions seem to be bounded by them, thus you extend previous actions to future actions, as if that model of reality, created by your memories, is the Truth, rather than just a useful model for decision making.
I am not saying that Reality has no limits. I have no idea. What I am saying is, to suggest that you understand what the limits of Reality are, is the ultimate hubris, and the final trap, the ultimate false boundary, of The Matrix. Once you see that is the false boundary, then you will be free of it.
Numbers are a contrivance. They are useful, they are not Truth. The Truth is whatever it is. Prove to me that the Universe counts. In each case of counting, we assume a sameness, an identity. For example, if I count how many apples I have, I have to first assume that all apples are the same. To do that I abstract out that each apple is identical. Only then can I count "apples" (as I have defined them). My definition of an "apple" doesn't encompass the totality of what an apple really is. It is my abstraction, useful for counting, or eating, or growing, etc.
Let's look at something for which there is no noticeable difference except in changes of state, like an electron. All electrons are indistinguishable. There are even ideas that all electrons are the same electron, moving back and forth in time and space (like the Brahman theory). But what is an electron? It is almost certainly just a specific vibration mode of the aether, just like a quark, or photon, etc. So perhaps there is only one "thing", and that one thing vibrates at different frequencies, moving back and forth in spacetime, creating all of what we call "matter."
So now we don't need to count past 1 to count everything. Not to say this is Truth, but it is a different, theoretically sound (AKA there are physics theories that support it) model of Reality. What this means is, your "absolutes" are limited by your thoughts, not by Reality. And again, I don't know what Reality is, so my limits (or lack thereof) are not the Truth either. I don't know what the Truth is. You don't know what the Truth is, but the limits of Reality are not what you think they are, or at least there is substantial evidence against it. I suggest it is only your current knowledge and experience that defines those limits.
The only way one can define these limitations is by abusing semantics and calling something that which it is not completely what it is. Reality simply Is what It Is. It is NOT what you believe it to be, that would be reality (lower case).
You seem to be confusing what is useful, with what is Truth. Given a certain set of input conditions (that we perceive, which is not the Whole of something, but our own limited perception of it) we can create useful tools to produce a certain output. That is not Truth, that is useful.
As for a circle; a circle has two sides, an inside and an outside.
That's not just a joke, that is it's topological definition. Topology is a very useful tool for categorizing that which is. That doesn't make those categorizations Truth, because it doesn't encompass the totality of anything, but they are very useful for creation of things, given our limited understanding of That Which Is.