with a positive and a negative, plus an infinite number of other directions. The possibilities are truly endless!!!
Again, the only reason for the apparent lack of rationality in this is what we have come to understand about the multiverse, and the multiverse all by its lonesome is one concept which has yet to be accepted by the common person. It is under no real doubts, therefore, that all I said is true. I am merely one who wishes the truth to be endless, and the only real truth lies within experience. *
“All experience is both simultaneous reality and fantasy.” Bato again, from in fact, the same dialogue as his previous statement. My own improvement on this monument of a statement is that if they can be equated, who can tell you that one is real, and one isn’t? Besides, people really don’t understand math anyway, equivalence doubly so. I don’t essentially believe in equivalence for the fact that we can’t see everything, and that any subtraction does not create a lacking because of the infinitude of reality itself. That doesn’t change no matter what scenario is depicted. Although, if anything was to disappear, then it would come back as something else, or even exactly the same. The fact that it could be either is something which speaks of the un-equivalent equivalence of all finite things.
Of course, everything is finite, any particular dimension is infinite, yet it is constricted in reciprocated format in any other dimension, meaning it is finite. In that sense, all infinitude is held together with endless finite dimensions, all are the projections of any one particular being, all of these characters being equal but different. Any point represents the intersection of all dimensions, personalities, and entities, because it fundamentally exists on all dimensions, in every person. That essentially requires all things to be the same finite thing, even though the history that connects them makes them distinct and different. There is no simple way to read all of this, it is as complicated as life itself; if it were any less so, it could not be accurate.
Yet, as I say that we must fundamentally exist, I know that we don’t, because equivalence is bunk, so being un-equivalence. It all amounts to which way you multiply it: all of the reciprocated forms of the self and then the infinite, yielding one, or the infinite and then the reciprocated forms, which when done more than once, yields the reciprocal of infinity, an infinite amount less than one. One is not fundamental, but the reciprocation is, and so existence of the self is plagued with the same dilemma. Once again, mathematics is cast under suspicious lighting in these situations, because the same problem holds several variations and two answers. We will never know if the order of operations really is so complete, or if it is only being worked in one light, the one which yields consistency. The same goes for science, we can never really know for sure whether consistency yields truth, or merely deception {“a mirror is not an instrument of reflection, but of deception”, and, “the source of evil.”}. But who’s keeping score anyhow; truth and lies are the same.
God himself is not complicated, just beyond our experience, but people equate truth with experience, and so we try to figure out ways to experience the truth, even though that mind frame undermines their beliefs. The essential piece that should be taken from all this is that truth is a lie, yet it is also truth at the same time, while lies are lies, a characteristic of consistency, essential for truth. If lies are true to being lies, than truth is a lie trying to be truth, meaning it is a lie being a lie being truth. Not complicated, but difficult, because we must reach out beyond experience to find the truth of this statement, which is simultaneously a lie. Is the glass empty or full; is it in between, and who really knows? {I would say something here, but this is in the way.}
Logic can be applied on the same principals as truth; it is a fundamental, albeit mysterious connection. Because all things are logical, they are all illogical. Logic is illogical because ill-logistics is logical: you can prove something is illogical only by logical process, and so illogical things are really in abbreviated form of logistical illogic. The imaginary number is a prime example of logistical illogic, yet it is still very much accepted in the prestigious field of mathematics. Also, in the same token, logical things are based on the illogical basis of logic, because there is no essential reason for the logical process that things follow, neither the logic on which it all supposedly rests. After all, things are deemed logical based on experience alone, yet that cannot be trusted; the question should be, rather, what can be trusted, if anything? I would believe that nothing is, yet that is based off of my experience and off of mortal, temporal, mathematical, and logical argument, all of which have been proven wrong as of now. As of course, I have also proven my views correct, at least those pertaining to the things I have outlined above.
Correct, incorrect, it is all rather a wash anyway. Everything will do things always as it has done things, I am nothing special, despite that I egotistically think that my views are. After all, right and wrong are detached from the above, so it would perhaps at least be nice for a change to ignore it and let us all get on with our lives, but…no.
They aren’t logical, they aren’t mathematical, and they supposedly aren’t temporal or apply only to mortal beings, so why even bother to stand on the soap box? I think that I have just made a succinct point, and will retire and continue tomorrow. Now, as I was saying yesterday, good and evil are merely perspective issues. They rely on absolutely no base form or have any beginning or end. This is true of nearly all religions, while Eastern philosophy tends to focus on balance, and on cycles of repeated motion. God is supposedly good, and there is always opposition in the form of Satan or in some other being. But how do we know that good really does conquer all things? In fact, emotions of happiness, contentment, inner peace, and love are transcendent of all religions, yet can be produced by good or evil sources. So how do we know who is really good and who is really bad, seeing as how the only medium through which these concepts are displayed is the human mind, frail and ignorant. I will not excuse even myself on that point; we are all capable of erring, even constantly and consistently.
At any rate, who is to say what is really out there, what is really good and bad, especially if we can’t be ever-present with the one who is setting the bar of standards and where that appears to put all of the going’s-on here on this small, small world filled with, logically, small minded people. People are swayed by gut feelings, coincidences, faulty or inconclusive statements, and much, much more. That is saying little of the disproportion of emotional follow-up v. mental follow through. I am not here to judge, but merely to observe, record periodically, and give feedback to the sorry masses/individuals. How do we really know that Satan and Jesus aren’t in cahoots, or even with Buddha, Muhammad, or Zoroaster? The one place that they all linger is in the mind of man, and in no where else is their presence known for certainty. I do, however, realize that the subconscious mind has power, and the will can bend reality, not that either of these claims can be made accurate (and what can be, I implore you), but to realize that the end of the world may not be so far-away, given that the signs are supposedly being made obvious, and the mental state is beginning to veer in that general direction.
This is true, I am thinking, for the fact that global warming, the book of revelations, and the large concern for the overtly spread out nuclear weapons juxtapose with all the “wars and rumors of wars” in people’s minds and as in the quote from the book of Revelation itself, could actually bring these things to pass. What is to say that the admittedly frail human mind could destroy our unfortunate-just-in-general world; they are both seemingly insignificant and yet have the capacity to destroy each other, although it is going too far to include the entirety of the cosmos in the equation. It is all based on the self-importance of man, which while necessary for productive living, as in anything else, excess could destroy us, to assume so much may in fact bring it to pass. Not that that would even be a bad thing, at this point in our depraved society, by nearly anyone’s standards our destruction would be better for the planet and ourselves. Keep in mind that while reading that, dying isn’t even close to the worst thing for a conscious human to be subjected to. Amen me. Oh, sorry for the interruption, but I have a very dismal romantic situation to cope with, I couldn’t help but agree (it is a wonderful feeling to write something that will keep me interested, though).
The end is not always as bad as the means, nor is always the means as bad as the end. Even though I can fear for the future of human existence, I know that we are, in light of the truth of an infinite universe, insignificant. Also, as good intentions of the past generations have paved new roads to damnation, the bad intentions of the generations following have been walking that highway, a facet of history. I say that not in the intent to scare you or anything, after all, hell exists in many, many forms and transcends reality to an extent: while there is indeed at least an infinite amount of hells as physical places, there is a hell in mostly every person within or outside of those places, it exist within the minds. Those who don’t have this place envisioned or outlined are generally plagued less by the same problems. There is a league of hell, and a league of heaven, one obviously for positive so-called purposes and one the so-called negative purposes. I would have to say that people, even those professing to be Christians, or Muslims, or Hindu followers, are largely in the league of hell, not by choice, but have been initiated because of the large focus on the negative. Also, as I stated before, people who don’t have a large or definite image of heaven won’t be as exited about good things.
That is a concept which was adopted from Choice Theory also, that we seek to attain what is within our perfect world scenario; what I decided was missing was the negative aspect of this understanding. Dr. Phil (please tell me you have heard of him) advocates an understanding of yourself, being aware of your situation, and being conscious of the influences upon you as well as your reactions (obviously). Awareness and defining of what is there and what is not alleviates a great deal of the problem, according to other psychological studies across the board. All that can be done at this point is to continue working in fields of science until we can discover a path around hell, a loophole that can be exploited so that the system will not break down in cataclysmic destruction. The trend today will probably be the final series of ideas and actions, especially when we are so focused on what is bad outwardly but not what is bad inwardly. Jesus said, “Do not profess that you can remove the speck in your brother’s eye when you have not yet removed the plank from your own eye.”! I, having been reared in Christian background and a fallout and removal from that past, have become increasingly aware of myself while at the same time not being wrapped up in myself. {I hope that’s true but you can’t understand 100% of anything, including yourself (sorry, again!).}
In one of the best psychological anime shows I have been watching, the main character has a total moment of self, a very enlightening situation, and the type that is intended, as I see it, to extend beyond the character and even the show to the audience. Being trapped in his giant robot-alien hybrid Evangelion (wow, they can sure pull anything together seamlessly), dying, he is chatting with the self that is in his subconscious. The more brilliant of the two stated that there is always two of himself: to expound, there is the self which is observed and the self which observes the self, and the observed is the personal shinji while the observing ones are in the ones that are merely the image others have of him, but they are all real. The character, shinji ikari, has some deep self worth problems, and so is sorting them all out within his brain. At the time, he is unconscious, and so this seemingly impossible series of events is actually not so unreasonable.
But you see, through all of this, beyond the distracting details, I have realized some things about myself that I have just been doing automatically. That would be that I have had to fulfill both selves without other people, whom I cannot trust to see me as I have seen me. I have been very aware of what I believe, of what
I have thought, and of what I have felt, and have been systematically and essentially autonomously directing and analyzing all of these different things. I realize that I have immense depth, as contrasted with others, yet my constant rambling nature might lead fools and close-minded individuals to believe that I only seek attention. That is the source of my brilliance, that I try to constantly look bask on myself objectively. And the only reason that I would even say that I’m brilliant is because others have said this. This deeply worries me-that I should be so great, when I know I’m not; it possibly is a comparative statement, but that only means that people really aren’t trying, which only worsens the situation. Again, it isn’t blatant pessimism that will destroy us, it is the tongue-in-cheek references to how far we have fallen in the past hundred years, despite that people don’t recognize them as such. Fingers still crossed here folks!
*
Did any of you know that the brain isn’t actually the most intelligent organ in the body? I didn’t think so. I believe that it isn’t for so many reasons, but first let’s look at the reasons why people do think that it is. They say “mind over matter” and also “intellect is how we have advanced so far in our society and our world in general.” How is it that either of these things are true? If man did truly have mental powers to control matter, then he could control himself, but is the human body perfect, are we not able to die and wither as a process of the physical and chemical forces inflicted upon us? And our society, which whenever bereft of the glow of electricity, would not the ego, and indeed, sanity, depart as swiftly? If the brain was this master control to the universe, or had any control anywhere, would not the effects be tremendous, at least as far as this planet was concerned? And correct me if I am wrong, but if man is so self centered, why is he lacking a stable orbit around himself, and order of the self; remember, the self is the basis of our
Project 2501 