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:
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.
What is a soul without a body? Sincerely, what do you think it is? If a sailor cannot sail if he has no ship, is he still a sailor?
The composition of our souls are linked to our physical, individual situations. Had I not the experience of this body, my soul would have developed differently. However, had your soul inhabited my body you would not have had the same experience, and would not be the same as my soul. Two hands may fit the same glove, but that does not mean the hands will experience things the same way, even if the glove is used for the same task.
I think you misrepresent my belief. I'm saying my interpretation and your interpretation are one and the same. I believe God CAN dispose of limitations, while we cannot. Limitations are individual things, of which only one entity has none -- God. We are all instances of what God can and cannot do when he limits Himself. At the same time, these limitations distinguish us as something other than God, but still God. This self-agency is not as "powerful" as God, but separate from Him equally, just as I can say an apple is like the world, but is not the world. This is the definition of a metaphor. In that sense, we are inverse metaphors of God's All-Being.
This is very simple. I am not my own father.
Even if I were to go back in time, I could not become my own father. This is typically called a paradox.
Even if I could break time, I cannot solve the paradox. Instead, rather than simply breaking time, I'd have to completely remove time as a factor in Reality.
If I were to remove any component of Reality, then I will have made two realities -- one with time and one without. One to appease a potentiality where I can become my own father and one where I am not my own father, capable of realizing such a potentiality.
To dismantle that limitation, I'd have to necessarily redefine Reality. Who but God has such powers? To introspectively define my reality as null-and-void is a paradox, and there is no foreseeable way to acquire such power short of becoming God and then going against God's intent: A paradox within a paradox.
Whereby would you acquire the FIRST of its kind; the template by which you replicate?
To duplicate, you must have an original. From whence did the original originate? Can you produce something that is not, has never been, and will never be? Only God could have that power. It is forever beyond our abilities unless we become God completely.
Can we become God completely?
I'd argue that even asking that question resolves itself: NO.
If we need ask, it proves we are not the God we seek to be. Simply wishing it so, or casting off preconceived limitations as if they were not binding, will not change that Reality. God exists, and if we were to become God in order to alter Reality to suit our fancy, then God will have done it already.
I have not created these limits. But, I CAN either recognize them or ignore them. They exist regardless of me. If I were to waltz through them as if they held no bind on me, then I would be God. If I have already altered my being to be God in the future, then I would have already opened the path for myself in the past. There would be no then or now -- only things as they are.
As it stands, I am bound by these limitations. But God is not. This is why prayer bears fruit. A request to God to allow me to alter my circumstances, thereby ignoring the limitations, is what I believe to be a critical aspect of our Reality. This is called the Inheritance, which I've alluded to. We inherit the state of God-hood only when we act as God would act.
This is the state of limitations as I see them. If you would go against God's will, then you will not be able to break the limitations set upon you. Only doing exactly as God would is it possible to "be God" if only for a moment, such that limitations have no bind on you.
This is what it means to be a Child of God and not God Himself.
I see limitations as the fullest expression of our freedom. We could not toil to break past limitations and boundaries if they did not exist to begin with. If nothing had limitations or boundaries, then nothing would form, as they'd have no need to. God would be one and only one. There is no substance but God, but there would be nothing by which to compare that substance with but itself.
Things are known by their relationship with other things. Everything in a vacuum is meaningless and void of any attributes, properties, limitations, strengths, weaknesses, etc. It just ... is...
Only when you compare two things is it at all possible for things to be their own things.
It's in the name.
Uni = One
Verse = Word
If it were not the Universe, it would simply be the Verse. Why add the Uni on it to specify there is just one of it?
Therefore, the Word is God. The Universe is the One God, whereas all other things in the Universe are "less" than that "one" God, but cannot exist outside that God, and therefore are God.
That you CAN define an apple, no matter your specification, means there is significance in the defining. Time and space are the predominant factors. If two apples exist in the same time and space, then are they truly separate apples, regardless of their composition otherwise? Simply being in the same time and space as another "thing" resolves as your current world view, or at least how it's been presented to me thus far.
So, I agree with your mindset completely, granted that time and space not be at all.
Yet they are. Only by becoming God or asking for his intervention shall we be able to alter time and space. Do you seek to be God? I do not, and so my hubris is intact. Paradoxically, only by being humble in this way could you ever possibly hope to become God. A necessary extension of this is a recognition of the separateness of things, because I do not claim I seek the power to alter the world such that I can no longer separate.
Again, Paradoxes only solved by the One hand of God, not my own.
Two people can agree on a definition for a thing. Regardless of what they decide to call it, the same thing will appear in each persons' mind. That thing that manifests in their mind -- that which is not but is -- is a True thing. It's not nothing. You say apple, and I can see that apple in my mind. Regardless of what one might call it, the image before me and what I know can be done with it is a THING separate from other THINGS. This THING in our minds is outside time and space.
Yes, as I suggested with the string with different knots upon it.
Is it folly to seek Truth knowing you will never acquire it? Should we pursue perfection, knowing we will never find it?
What you suggest has an ultimate end I doubt you have considered. By declaring fully that you will never know the Truth and so you will not attempt to define it, you have given up the notion of Truth altogether.
Truth is to be sought but never found. This is the only way a cycle can continue; the only way the Universe can continue to BE at all.
So, I agree, you, me, and everyone else cannot possibly know the Truth, nor can we claim it as our own, but we must necessarily define Truth at all times, otherwise we would not exist at all.
This isn't a relativist argument, mind you, because I believe there IS a ONE TRUTH. But I also acknowledge that I must simultaneously believe that I know the Truth while also remaining humble, knowing that I do not know the Truth -- at the very least, not as God knows it.
You may see that as hypocritical, redundant, pointless, etc.
Fine, but whether or not you wish to admit it, you have a Truth that is false that you follow every single moment of your life. You will NEVER know the real Truth, even should you acquire it. Only when you do acquire the Truth, and the Universe knows you as itself, completely, will you have discovered you have arrived at Perfection, which is the embodiment of the Truth.
Only that which has use exists. God has included nothing aimlessly.
How is it you can say that such useful thing is not Truth? Truth is all, which includes that which is useful. And so, all things are Truth, including our ability to define and catalogue.
If such abilities were not Truth, then they would be useless.
Would you declare all categorization, pattern recognition, and definitions as not of God? As somehow sinful by their very existence? An extension of our sinful nature?
Must we then cast off all pretense that things can be separate from one another?
Do you see the pointlessness in God having used technology to alter His being such that we should exist, only to declare all separation is obscene and not of God?
You're alluding to the idea that differences don't exist at all; that they are purely a human construct.
This cannot be.
God constructed us, and we constructed differences. Had God not constructed us, he would not have constructed differences.
This is a self-proof.
God had to construct differences AS he constructs us, for us to be different from him, such that we can construct differences, which he would have not otherwise constructed. God having made differences makes differences. Otherwise we would not exist such that we could categorize differences, because our existence relies on us being different from God.
The only way you could resolve this logic is to declare logic itself, in its entirety, as a fallacious fraud.
You cannot do this. Logic cannot be declared illogical, because the premise of illogicality is defined by the thing you are declaring non-existent, which is logic.
It is a paradox. You cannot extinguish logic, only God can.
Until such a time as you are able to, differences will continue to exist, regardless of your recognition of them.