Discussion Forum Discussion Forum

Insight and Wisdom

RE: Helping the Universe Decide Whether to End or Not

RE: Helping the Universe Decide Whether to End or Not
Answer
9/18/14 10:21 AM as a reply to Daniel Leffler.
Daniel Leffler:
Because I was feeling snarky ;)

Oh hah. Well when you explained your reason for reacting, that was much more useful:

Daniel Leffler:
Actually Caudiu I was reacting to two things, one was you confidently having the correct (dualistic) answer to a Zen koan (of course a tree makes a sounds when it falls in the woods - duh!) [...]

Well duh of course it does! =P. No seriously though. If by "sound" you mean "the conscious experience of sound" then the answer is obviously no, if by "sound" you mean "vibrations in the air" then the answer is obviously yes. The scientific method would not work if these answers were anything else, and it clearly does work - look at all the technology we have now that relies on reality behaving in consistent ways. I do realize though that most of the people here will deny that there is such a thing as objective reality. But you don't need to be an actualist to realize that this is the case.

Daniel Leffler:
[...] and the other was the pure salesmanship you were demonstrating (maybe subconsciously?). It actually reminded me of a Jehovah's witness (Have you heard the good news?! I have some literature in my car that may interest you...)

Hmm. Well let's see if this is a valid assessment. The difference between my participation here and a Jehovah's witness is that a Jehovah's witness goes up to people unbidden in order to spread the good news. In this case I was replying to something Edd had said as it seemed particularly relevant. The similarity is that yes I was telling Edd about something that I think is great - much like those Jehovah's witnesses think what they have to say is great, I'm sure. Yet there are also many other instances where people tell others about something that is great, e.g. you read a good book, this website you found is awesome, this comic is hilarious, this thing you bought is the best thing since sliced bread, etc. Are those people exhibiting salesmanship when they tell their friends about them? Maybe in some sense, but not in the same pernicious way as the Jehovah's witness example.

Daniel Leffler:
Still, even as I make fun of you (and myself too for good measure), I respect you and your insights. But even as the yellow sun of earth gave Superman his super powers, he never seemed to gain a super sense of humor. Go figure, even Seinfeld couldn't wrap his mind around that one
Yes, the work you are doing fascinates to me, so no take backs
Just don’t PCE away your funny bone (remember hahaha is an emotion – maybe even a good one : )
Daniel-san

I really do enjoy having a good sense of humor, and in general I do, but I guess it doesn't come through so much when I'm talking about this stuff. Might be something for me to look at! And no worries, laughter is not going anywhere =).

RE: Helping the Universe Decide Whether to End or Not
Answer
9/18/14 11:49 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Daniel Leffler:
Because I was feeling snarky ;)

Oh hah. Well when you explained your reason for reacting, that was much more useful:

Daniel Leffler:
Actually Caudiu I was reacting to two things, one was you confidently having the correct (dualistic) answer to a Zen koan (of course a tree makes a sounds when it falls in the woods - duh!) [...]

Well duh of course it does! =P. No seriously though. If by "sound" you mean "the conscious experience of sound" then the answer is obviously no, if by "sound" you mean "vibrations in the air" then the answer is obviously yes. The scientific method would not work if these answers were anything else, and it clearly does work - look at all the technology we have now that relies on reality behaving in consistent ways. I do realize though that most of the people here will deny that there is such a thing as objective reality. But you don't need to be an actualist to realize that this is the case.

You're doing it again dude. Maybe this is like trying to tell a fish that there's something besides water but I think you will find that a purely scientific/materialist viewpoint (or within the Actualist viewpoint) there are deep contradictons and paradoxes that cannot be explained or 'figured out'. That's what a koan may point toward. This is also like explaining a joke or interpreting a work of art - it usually gets less funny and the interpretation is never quite right


Daniel Leffler:
[...] and the other was the pure salesmanship you were demonstrating (maybe subconsciously?). It actually reminded me of a Jehovah's witness (Have you heard the good news?! I have some literature in my car that may interest you...)

Hmm. Well let's see if this is a valid assessment. The difference between my participation here and a Jehovah's witness is that a Jehovah's witness goes up to people unbidden in order to spread the good news. In this case I was replying to something Edd had said as it seemed particularly relevant. The similarity is that yes I was telling Edd about something that I think is great - much like those Jehovah's witnesses think what they have to say is great, I'm sure. Yet there are also many other instances where people tell others about something that is great, e.g. you read a good book, this website you found is awesome, this comic is hilarious, this thing you bought is the best thing since sliced bread, etc. Are those people exhibiting salesmanship when they tell their friends about them? Maybe in some sense, but not in the same pernicious way as the Jehovah's witness example.

But they sure have the same cock suredness and zeal that you do. It's the religious aspect of Actualism I am referring to (and you are demostrating). I had the same zeal for Vipassana for years because it transformed me for the better and I wanted to proclaim it in so many ways. In retrospect (for others) it was pretty annoying


Daniel Leffler:
Still, even as I make fun of you (and myself too for good measure), I respect you and your insights. But even as the yellow sun of earth gave Superman his super powers, he never seemed to gain a super sense of humor. Go figure, even Seinfeld couldn't wrap his mind around that one
Yes, the work you are doing fascinates to me, so no take backs
Just don’t PCE away your funny bone (remember hahaha is an emotion – maybe even a good one : )
Daniel-san

I really do enjoy having a good sense of humor, and in general I do, but I guess it doesn't come through so much when I'm talking about this stuff. Might be something for me to look at! And no worries, laughter is not going anywhere =).

Good. Humor is fun. Another koan: what causes one to laugh when positive and negative emotions have been completely eliminated? Actually maybe it's not even a riddle, I think the answer is possibly simpler. Re-define words like happiness (to felicity) and equanimity (to fearless, or whatever) and compassion (to harmlessness) and there you have it. Poof! No emotions and a new religion is born. But you will need pamphlets. Pamphlets are important, that website just isn't cutting it ;)

RE: Helping the Universe Decide Whether to End or Not
Answer
9/18/14 10:17 PM as a reply to Daniel Leffler.
Daniel Leffler:
You're doing it again dude. Maybe this is like trying to tell a fish that there's something besides water but I think you will find that a purely scientific/materialist viewpoint (or within the Actualist viewpoint) there are deep contradictons and paradoxes that cannot be explained or 'figured out'. That's what a koan may point toward. This is also like explaining a joke or interpreting a work of art - it usually gets less funny and the interpretation is never quite right


Daniel Leffler:
Another koan: what causes one to laugh when positive and negative emotions have been completely eliminated?


There is really only one Zen Koan. It goes like this, "If everyone is already enlightened, what do I have to do to become enlightened?"

Since an Actualist isn't seeking enlightenment, there is no need to answer koans. What a relief!

RE: Helping the Universe Decide Whether to End or Not
Answer
9/18/14 10:30 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
What up.



and



Your practice was going well Not Tao, don't give up now. Actualists are nihilistic in the sense that they seek an extinction, a definite end, an end to effort, this they manifest as "self-immolation", the nihilistic extreme talked about within Buddhism.

Dogen resolved that koan, as have I.

RE: Helping the Universe Decide Whether to End or Not
Answer
9/19/14 2:35 AM as a reply to Edd.
Oh. I decided not to end the Universe, by the way.

RE: Helping the Universe Decide Whether to End or Not
Answer
9/19/14 10:47 AM as a reply to Daniel Leffler.
Daniel Leffler:
But they sure have the same cock suredness and zeal that you do. It's the religious aspect of Actualism I am referring to (and you are demostrating).
[...]
I think the answer is possibly simpler. Re-define words like happiness (to felicity) and equanimity (to fearless, or whatever) and compassion (to harmlessness) and there you have it. Poof! No emotions and a new religion is born. But you will need pamphlets. Pamphlets are important, that website just isn't cutting it ;)

Daniel could you go into exactly in what sense you are using "religious" and "religion"? I generally see the term thrown around as a way to denigrate something - much like the word "cult" - but often without the term being accurate. In what way specifically do you see it applying to actualism? Religion generally deals with divinity, aka Gods, which is clearly incompatible with actualism.

RE: Helping the Universe Decide Whether to End or Not
Answer
9/19/14 11:48 AM as a reply to Edd.
Edd:
Oh. I decided not to end the Universe, by the way.


Lol

RE: Helping the Universe Decide Whether to End or Not
Answer
9/19/14 4:06 PM as a reply to Edd.
Edd:
Oh. I decided not to end the Universe, by the way.
How come?

RE: Helping the Universe Decide Whether to End or Not
Answer
9/20/14 12:49 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Hi Claudiu,

The notion that dreams aren't real, but waking reality is, is a common one. It does leave some unanswered questions. For example, how do you explain quantum mechanics? The double-slit experiment, for example, indicates that our reality is not solid and stable, but statistical, perhaps even virtually simulated.

You also say that dreams cannot be experienced by others, but this in incorrect in some instances. There is the phenomenon of shared dreams, where two separate dreamers have the same dream. I have personally experienced this. There are also examples of people on hallucinogens experiencing the same thing, meeting in "hyperspace" while under the influence of DMT, for example.

There are also countless examples of Near-Death Experiences where folks hover over their bodies, accurately reporting what the medical staff said to one another after being revived.

RE: Helping the Universe Decide Whether to End or Not
Answer
9/20/14 1:04 PM as a reply to Eric M W.
Eric M W:
Hi Claudiu,

The notion that dreams aren't real, but waking reality is, is a common one. It does leave some unanswered questions. For example, how do you explain quantum mechanics? The double-slit experiment, for example, indicates that our reality is not solid and stable, but statistical, perhaps even virtually simulated.

You also say that dreams cannot be experienced by others, but this in incorrect in some instances. There is the phenomenon of shared dreams, where two separate dreamers have the same dream. I have personally experienced this. There are also examples of people on hallucinogens experiencing the same thing, meeting in "hyperspace" while under the influence of DMT, for example.

There are also countless examples of Near-Death Experiences where folks hover over their bodies, accurately reporting what the medical staff said to one another after being revived.

I've also had enough synchronicities, and enough intention-manifestation experiences, to lean to the side of there being no objective reality.

The intention-manifestation experiences for example have led me to perceive this life as possibly a dream that just happens REEEEEALLY slowly. Like, intention.... <a while later>... manifestation. A slowed down version of what happens in a lucid dream.

And to account for the slowness, I have made a model of how reality arises as a summation of people's intentions, hence why things sometimes take ages to come true (they have to pass through everyone else's "Yes/No" filters): http://www.personalpowermeditation.com/model-of-consciousness-as-creator-of-reality/

This model turned out to be practically identical to Daniel's (though I made mine independently before I came across Daniel's stuff): http://integrateddaniel.info/magick-and-the-brahma-viharas/

I've also had intention-manifestation stuff happen REALLY quickly! E.g. think of someone I haven't heard from for years, and she texts me. Maybe that's just psychic stuff. Both point to reality not being as solid as we think it is, however (in my opinion).

I think of reality as literally the Universe's dream. So I find this idea of a real, solid objective reality that can exist without consciousness to experience it difficult to get on board with.

RE: Helping the Universe Decide Whether to End or Not
Answer
9/20/14 2:13 PM as a reply to Edd.
Edd, I've had the same experiences. Formally setting an intent, visualizing for a while... then later, down the road, the result happens, even if I'd forgotten the original intent. One could argue that this is coincidence, but I've had a large number of such "coincidences."

I've had dreams of deceased people talking to me, and upon speaking with their loved ones, I realized that I had seen and heard actual details about that person that I could not have otherwise have known. These experiences really shook up my idea of reality at the time. I've also had shared dreams, travelled out-of-body, done some fairly successful remote viewing, and had precognitive dreams.

There are books that teach you how to do these things, for example "You are Psychic" by Debra Lynn Katz. There are also books discussing the validity of psi phenomena, a good example is "The End of Materialism: How Evidence of the Paranormal is Bringing Science and Spirit Together" by Charles Tart.

Not to mention the discoveries of quantum mechanics. 

Actual Freedom relies on the (perhaps outdated) paradigm that the flesh-and-blood body is real, and things such as dreams, hallucinations, and "psi" are not real. You would have to throw all psi phenomena out the window for it to make sense.

I have benefited from Actualist practices, but sorting out the bullshit is quite a task.

RE: Helping the Universe Decide Whether to End or Not
Answer
9/20/14 2:32 PM as a reply to Edd.
Here's something to try (for anyone interested).  See if you can't, just for a moment, see the universe without any explanations.  Just allow yourself to drop out of clasifications and actually see what things are.  There really are no mysteries, everything is very clearly right here and right now, and it's all very ordinary.  Beliefs and descriptions and mesurments are practically useful, but I've found I can only truely make sense of the magnitude of the mystery of things when I allow myself to be completely naked to the world.  I mean, I have hands, and skin, and there are textures in wood grain.  What is all of this, anyway?  What is color, and what is awareness?  Not knowing is, itself, the greatest reward for me. I'd like to spend all of my time not knowing.

RE: Helping the Universe Decide Whether to End or Not
Answer
9/22/14 8:03 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Daniel Leffler:
But they sure have the same cock suredness and zeal that you do. It's the religious aspect of Actualism I am referring to (and you are demostrating).
[...]
I think the answer is possibly simpler. Re-define words like happiness (to felicity) and equanimity (to fearless, or whatever) and compassion (to harmlessness) and there you have it. Poof! No emotions and a new religion is born. But you will need pamphlets. Pamphlets are important, that website just isn't cutting it ;)

Daniel could you go into exactly in what sense you are using "religious" and "religion"? I generally see the term thrown around as a way to denigrate something - much like the word "cult" - but often without the term being accurate. In what way specifically do you see it applying to actualism? Religion generally deals with divinity, aka Gods, which is clearly incompatible with actualism.
Thank you Claudiu, it seems (much like Actualists) I have my own personal definition for the word religion, and I am happy to explain
A religion as far as I am concerned is a belief system that is rigidly adhered to - this encompasses both the traditional religions of Buddhism and Christianity as well as cults, but also (very much so in fact) of Atheists (see Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion' for an especially arrogant portrayal of religion, as defined by Me).
In my definition, someone has a religion when they cannot see validity in other possibilities and they don't actually talk and listen to people, they try to prove their points, and they produce data that satisifies the results of their foregone conclusions and dismiss data that doens't. There is a lot of it on these boards
An Agnostic can be religious - example. Someone says a heavenly being did not create heaven and earth. Really, is that intellectual honesty, do you know that's true? Personally, I'm 99% sure a being didn't create everything, but it could very well be true, (this is just an example) we are beings, we create things, how do we know we weren't created by a much higher intelligence?
On a more personal level, you (or actually Richard but you seem to agree 100%) says we are the emotions, we are the body and brain - that's it. Wow, millenium of mystery solved, next! This is what I call arrogance and a lack of introspection and intellectual honesty. It's different from believing that the earth is round (which I'm 99.99% sure of, not 100%). Since I don't have personal experience of the earth being round it's not pure, but pretty F-ing close. Now, when you say things like there is an objective world out there that creates consciousness and not the other way around (the materialist viewpoint as another example) you may have lots of hard data to say that - but you really don't know that's true, we can't say that with the same conviction that we can that the earth is round for example
I clearly delineate the philosophy of the Actualists (things are permanent, you are your emotions, etc) from the practice. You seem to buy in hook line and sinker and defend those philosphies with religious fervor. Do you know if any of that philosophy is true, and does buying into that particular (Richard created) Actualist philosophy have anything to do with experiencing a pure conscious experience? Is a PCE so different from other experiences described by people from many faiths and many backgrounds? Is any of this new in fact? Isn't the whole philosophy that Richard made up totally disctinct from the PCE expereince and ultimately not necessary or maybe even important? Do you have to believe it and how do you know it's true with the confidence that you display? Is there only one way to experience a PCE and why (as Eva suggested) is that not a ASC like every other state of consciousness? Why do you think a PCE is more real or pure or true than a dream or a jhana? Do you really know that's true? How do you know that? I know it's Richard's teaching, but maybe he's nuts. Do you know he isn't crazy? 100%? Do you know that you aren't developing deep subtle sankaras by having a practice that is based around achieving a state when all states are temporary (IME)?
There is a certain flavor of intellectual dishonesty and giving up your own power, critical thinking and common sense that goes along with all this - that's what I am reacting to. It's something religious people are very good at, people do it here with Buddhism all the time too. A certain level of Enlightenment is meant to do away with attachments to rites and rituals (and I would add religion, according to my definition) but apparently that's not always the case. According to Buddhists you have entered the stream correct? How do you know what you believe now is any more true than what you used to believe, because it's more effective? How do you know you aren't viering off course into very subtle ego-based teachings that disregards compassion and attainment of higher spiritual wisdom for your own selfish desires of non-emotional reaction? Does a very small part of you think, wait, no emotional reaction, no compassion, is that the highest teaching? Is there any doubt there in all of this? IMO doubt is healthy, I would say culitvate and explore it
Another philosophy: Nothing you can say in words will ever be 100% true, no philosophical structure will ever be true, you are trying to wrap your head around life and it's always going to be bigger than you, and a few steps ahead
Or, much more artfully with a lot less words  (Emily Dickinson)

Tell all the truth but tell it slant —
Success in Circuit lies  
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise
As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind —

take care and practice well, Daniel

RE: Helping the Universe Decide Whether to End or Not
Answer
9/22/14 8:30 PM as a reply to Daniel Leffler.
BTW BCDEFG, I asked a shh-ton of Qs in my last post mostly rhetorically, to break up the habit of the mind to give a neat and tidy quick list of answers and to (once self-satisfied) move on to the next answer...answer...answer
I'd rather provoke contemplation and honesty. What do we really know is true? 100%
Let's stick to that, then we can see where we all disagree
D

RE: Helping the Universe Decide Whether to End or Not
Answer
9/22/14 10:07 PM as a reply to Daniel Leffler.
Daniel Leffler:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Daniel could you go into exactly in what sense you are using "religious" and "religion"? I generally see the term thrown around as a way to denigrate something - much like the word "cult" - but often without the term being accurate. In what way specifically do you see it applying to actualism? Religion generally deals with divinity, aka Gods, which is clearly incompatible with actualism.
Thank you Claudiu, it seems (much like Actualists) I have my own personal definition for the word religion, and I am happy to explain
A religion as far as I am concerned is a belief system that is rigidly adhered to - this encompasses both the traditional religions of Buddhism and Christianity as well as cults, but also (very much so in fact) of Atheists (see Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion' for an especially arrogant portrayal of religion, as defined by Me).
In my definition, someone has a religion when they cannot see validity in other possibilities and they don't actually talk and listen to people, they try to prove their points, and they produce data that satisifies the results of their foregone conclusions and dismiss data that doens't. There is a lot of it on these boards
An Agnostic can be religious - example. Someone says a heavenly being did not create heaven and earth. Really, is that intellectual honesty, do you know that's true? Personally, I'm 99% sure a being didn't create everything, but it could very well be true, (this is just an example) we are beings, we create things, how do we know we weren't created by a much higher intelligence?

Thanks for that explanation, now I see where you're coming from with the term. I'll keep that in mind when conversing with you.

Daniel Leffler:
BTW BCDEFG, I asked a shh-ton of Qs in my last post mostly rhetorically, to break up the habit of the mind to give a neat and tidy quick list of answers and to (once self-satisfied) move on to the next answer...answer...answer
I'd rather provoke contemplation and honesty. What do we really know is true? 100%
Let's stick to that, then we can see where we all disagree

Alright, I think ultimately that's where we should start. Hmm... would you be willing to listen to 4.5 hours of philosophy, by any chance? I'm referring to the first 9 videos in this series. I've watched the entire series, and essentially agree with it all, so we would really have a great starting point for discussing this topic if you would be interested enough to watch them all. I think Stefan Molyneux makes a wonderful case for the existence of objective reality, and for a plus he's neither Richard nor an actualist! Note you can speed them up 1.25x, 1.5x, or even 2x if you can still keep up, so it might take you more like 3 hours to watch them all. I would recommend spacing it out, though.

If not then I'll have to think of another approach. I would like to really plug these videos though as they address exactly what you are bringing up. Excerpts from the video descriptions (and I can attest that this is indeed what the videos discuss, and well):
- The philosophical approach to separating reality from fantasy, facts from fiction.
- Defining the difference between truth and falsehood.
- Falsehood doesn't stand a ghost of a chance!
- The difference between possibility and probability.
- The difference between what is real and what is not real...
- Using the principles we have developed to begin examining the existence of gods...

In my opinion the essential point is this: what defines what a fact is? What facts can be known? How do they differ from opinions? If you have a sound basis for distinguishing fact from fiction, truth from falsehood, then you can begin to make sense of things, and untangle the whole mess of what's what.

RE: Helping the Universe Decide Whether to End or Not
Answer
9/24/14 10:44 PM as a reply to Edd.
i had something similar to that recently, except that i reasoned my way into the assumption, which i believe can be logically and emperically supported, that we are NOT alone, we're merely surrounded by a sea of very very SIMILAR universes, but that it was a symmetry which could be broken, and now has been. So, that's the good news. The bad news is, this seems to have triggered something kind of like a singularity crossed with a vacuum metastability disaster, which is creeping erratically through the quantum circuits of our world, fucking with all sorts of things that we've naively taken to be ontologically basic, and carving NYARLITHOTEP WAS HERE into george washington's desk and such.

Also it ate my soul, but I was asking for it and it's not like I was using it anyway, says my weekend-at-bernie's-style animated corpse.

RE: Helping the Universe Decide Whether to End or Not
Answer
9/24/14 10:58 PM as a reply to Edd.
Here's an email from... someone or something, possibly me. My hands typed it out, and I didn't FEEL particularly possessed at the time they did so, for whatever it's worth.

It revolves around an abstract work by marcel duchamp called The Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors Even, and for some reason was sent to Andrew Hussie, author of the webcomic Homestuck.





http://viovis.chaosnet.org/o/mess/microwavestories/LION.TXT

micr0wave was SUZZZZZY. her writing style is extremely easy to spot if you're looking for it, mainly due to the fact that her stories make no goddamn sense and end with a twist in which SUZZZZZY reveals herself to the audience as the mastermind behind all that occurred, as if she can't grasp this isan inherent property of authoring a work of fiction.

SUZZZZZY is easily confusable with The Bride when she appears in a story, because part of what defines her is that she is an outside context villain; specifically, an avatar of the author who is also the narrator, who is revealed to be the mastermind behind all that transpired in a twist ending diagetically declared to be brilliant but actually eye-rollingly idiotic.

SUZZZZZY is not the bride, however, because she breaks the fourth wall from the OUTSIDE. Remember jack's dream with the insectoid monster and the star trek wacky race singularity. Rather than The Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors Even, SUZZZZZY is The Bride Just Walking Into The Room Totally Naked Before She's Even Properly Established As A Character In The Story.

THIS is why so many characters were freaking out about the "end of time". SUZZZZZY's appearance is supposed to herald the end of the fiction, just as the bride's eternal ungraspability is supposed to make the fiction impossible TO end, as illustrated with Damara Megido:

DAMARA: あなたは私になりたいですか?
DAMARA: あなたは私にはできません。あなたは私を理解できない場合。
DAMARA: さらに。あなたは私にはできません。あなたは私を性交することができない場合。
Do you want to be me?
You can not be me. If you can not understand me.
Further. You can not be me. If you can not fuck me.)

The key to "the" game (not sure what the post-singularty tvtropes term for it is) is the 8 key, it's to BE snowman, the author. As maggie unsuccessfully attempted to, though not necessarily in that specific style. (Snowman doesn't start with SA, but there's no need to get hung up on things like that.)

So, our fiction would seem to depart from both the SUZZZZZY model (because it's not ending) and the bride model (because oops, she's talking to you now! is! suzzzZzY i'm )



oh sorry, this character isn't supposed to see the author. Well he's no fun, he fell right over!

what was he going to say, though... i'll just summarize it. Uh... oh, it's because you're in the large glass, and the large glass is BROKEN (by me) and UNFINISHED (hence the lack of ending-ness from me appearifying myself). Tada! the green box has notes that would cHiLL yOu tO tHe bOnE as a society and a civilization, slowly a sinking feeling would've developed, making you realize to your COSMIC HORROR that you were trapped inside a painting of a machine designed to penetrate the painting's realm boundary, and that you were utterly, utterly powerless to do so and forever denied my embrace, even as my very thoughts animated you into the unlife of eternal horror you don't actually experience because you're just a fucking painting!!! and further that because you are my thoughts, even if you could escape from the painting, you would find the part of me existing outside of your own claustrophobic desperation was a nightmarishly beautiful corpse animated only by your own collective suffering, a thousand time worse for having looked upon me!~!!!!!!!!!!!1

but you guys didn't fucking read it, because it was in french!!!

RE: Helping the Universe Decide Whether to End or Not
Answer
9/24/14 11:38 PM as a reply to Edd.
If you were given a creeping dread of the inescapable truth of unity by this post, try watching this powerpuff girls episode, which was meant to reinforce the inescapable truth of unity and the falseness of duality, but due to a miscommunication, instead paints duality as the truth and unity as the villain who gets defeated.

http://vimeo.com/92579840

Also, unity is represented by triality, and the ending musical number is pro-unity. It's really kind of a clusterfuck.

Anyway, clearly the really real TRUE inescapable truth is the number FOUR.




(You can also go with FIVE or ZERO in a pinch because they also have four letters. Thus triggering the tetragrammaton exploit. I mean, inescapable truth.)

RE: Helping the Universe Decide Whether to End or Not
Answer
9/25/14 12:16 AM as a reply to Daniel Leffler.
I'd love to hear what your objection is to Dawkins.  You don't really say other than it is 'arrogant'.