The Fallacy of Individualism

Is there such a thing as an individual?

Collective identities are archetype systems. For example, Marxism stratifies society along materialistic lines: proletariat & bourgeoisie. The collective identity of Christianity idealises the personality of Jesus, evoking self-sacrifice, patience and generosity in its followers. While they are not always aware of this motivation, members of a collective strive towards the ideal of their archetype system. While we all exist as individual conscious entities, an individual has no distinctiveness without a corresponding collective: archetype system.

Can a patient exist without a doctor? Can a student exist without a teacher? The answer is no, and it is because the former requires the latter to even be defined in the first place. A Doctor can exist without a patient, but not without an organisation which bestows upon him the authority to practice. In fact, all but one archetype requires an associated collective. The archetype which does not require a collective is the archetype which creates all others: the God archetype. The God archetype exists whether or not anything else does.

Religion Creates Culture

I think many people will be resistant to this idea, but I ask that you keep an open mind. Remember that the word “culture” derives from cult (a religious organisation) and so it is logical that civilisations spontaneously progress towards a Theocratic Dictatorship.

This simple fact is why the likes of Sargon of Akkad (debate here and “after party” here)  will always reach absurd conclusions when attempting to place the “individual” as the highest ideal. This strategy will fail because it contradicts the fundamental archetype of God. God alone is worthy of worship, not the ego. Individualism is a form of ego worship. Ego worship causes the consciousness to be directed inward. While everyone has an ego, true spiritual practice requires the consciousness to be outwardly directed in order to experience expanded consciousness.

black sun.gif
don’t get your ego caught up your own ass.

“Individualism” is a Selfish and Unnatural Ideology

“Individualism” is nothing more than self-aggrandisement. In fact, it is a cruel ideology because those of inferior intellect need collectivism. While those of superior intellect can “make do” without collectivism, those lacking a fully formed ego require a rigid hierarchy around which to frame their identity (so that they can actualise their archetype, optimise their archetype and ultimately transcend their (and all) sociological archetype(s)). Traditional teachings have always emphasised the importance of optimising ones adherence to their natural archetype.

The Solution to Shitty Collectivism is Optimised Collectivism

All forms of collectivism should be eschewed in favour of Theocratic Dictatorship. This system of government allows for anyone to join the governing class, provided they are considered fit. When a new recruit is brought on board, an existing priest must stake their reputation on their behaviour. If the new recruit commits a bannable offence (the High Priest Collective decides what constitutes a bannable offence), then the honour of the recruiter is diminished and the recruit is shunned. This system may sound harsh to the uninitiated but remains nonetheless the best defence against . To wield power over others, one must be held accountable and to the highest possible standard. People must be dis-incentivised from corruption to the greatest possible extent.

government gugvernment
where’s the lie tho?

Individuals Will Always Fail Against a Unified Collective

With the exception of the God archetype (who can defeat any opposition), individuals tend to fail when going up against collectives. Collectives contain numerous people and their combined brainpower and physical might usually overpower those operating alone or by “muh individualism”.

The MSM has made such a golem out of the Alt-Right that it has become a type of virtue signalling to attempt to criticise, “debunk” and “take down” this “organisation”. This often proves easier said than done.

Screen Shot 2018-01-11 at 10.12.17 AM
No, you didn’t.

The “Personal Freedom / Rights” Fallacy

People don’t usually know what they are talking about when they invoke the “muh rights” argument. This is fallacious. Human rights do exist, but they derive from God, not man. Laws are man-made and can either reflect the Natural Law or (as is the case in the current system) fight it tooth and nail. The problem with “human rights” as ideals is that one person’s positive “right” will necessarily be a violation of someone else’s “right” wherever resources are scarce. This subtlety is often overlooked by those of lower intellect.

The Proper Approach is r-K Selection Theory

r-K selection theory is a good dual (containing 2 elements) pulveriser function to use as a first pass ideology for genetic migration. This means we can continue to infer increasingly more precise measurements at all orders of magnitude from this system. We just have to make sure that we accurately define exactly what is meant by r and K type behaviour. For this, we always return to the original definition: K-type behaviour is near carrying capacity and r-type behaviour is far carrying capacity. Thus this pulveriser will be accurate as long as it is properly parametrised.

If you are interested in this subject, you can learn more here.

It is also a worthwhile endeavour to learn how to derive the logistic differential equation, from which r-K selection theory derives.

Thank you

 

Advertisements

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem

Today, it is actually a “plus” to be widely hated (by the right people). This shouldn’t come as a surprise, it has always been like that in circles of true influence (regal infamy). So while it is unwise to attempt to win a debate by the sole means of ad hominem, it is naive to fail to consider the circumstances surrounding events as well as the type of person putting forth an argument.

kurt godel
shitbag?

To be honest, Gödel seems like a shitbag.

One might ask if associating with Einstein, the greatest villain of modern science, is a sufficient reason to discard all of someone’s opinions? You might be surprised to learn that I don’t have strong opinions on who associates with whom. A person’s actions determine their value more so than their associates. Jesus (whether he existed or not) himself associated with all sorts, suggesting this is culturally accepted as a virtue.

It would be naive to deny any impact whatsoever of Gödel’s environment on his attitudes, however.

I am of the opinion that his first incompleteness theorem is false because of the sheer number of times I hear it quoted to me in the interest of justifying some pretty absurd ideas. For instance, Dr. Jordan Peterson used the Incompleteness theorem when asserting that “God” is a prerequisite for truth: pretty irresponsible. This is untrue, a well-defined philosophical system is what allows for truth to be known. “God” as prime truth seems illogical. God cannot be narrowly defined since people’s individual definitions of “God” vary so much

godel quote language
If you cavalierly quote someone’s obscure theory to substantiate your position, you look like a dumbass when your statements contradict their ideology!!

Whether legitimate or not, Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem smells like a proof that “some ideas aren’t allowed”. But hey, I could be wrong. I could just be a crazy conspiracy theorist delusional person.

godel von neumann quote
Oh, well, if Von Neumann endorses him, well, I just don’t know!

Let’s have a look at this dreadful theory people keep preaching to me:

First Incompleteness Theorem: “Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F.”

A consequence is that we ought to be unable to accomplish a unified field theory. If you believe in Gödel, you can never believe a unified field theory exists. Yet, tradition has always taught that a unified field theory DOES exist (the “self”).

Counter Proof of Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem

We define F to be the set of all potential computations/measurements (actions) in the Universe. Let us define the “sentences” as series of actions. Since our action model behaves as operators (sorry but you have to understand rudimentary linear algebra for that one) & operators are linear maps, an elementary arithmetic exists. This arithmetic is the matrix multiplication/addition intrinsic to linear maps. This is  used to construct “sentencesf”.

True sentences the satisfy the criterion of computability (within the Measurement Limit) and false sentences are incomputable (in excess of the Measurement Limit). This means that all actions are either proved (computable) or disproved (incomputable). The Measurement Limit cleanly delineates the criterion of trueness for all actions. That is: measurements exceeding what is permissible by the Measurement Limit are false.

In our example, we consider only the potential for computation, so we never end up having to carry out any actual measurements.

Measurements reduce quantum waveforms, therefore there is a limit to the new information successive measurements can derive. Thus both the elementary arithmetic exists (the Measurement Limit pulveriser) and actions can always be either proved (computable) or disproved (not computable). Thus there are NO statements which can neither be proved nor disproved. This would seem to contradict Gödel.

QED

5DS_1214
I’m probs right tho. Statistically speaking. 

Where is Gödel’s Flaw?

(source) The Flaw of Gödel is not technical but rather: structural. There is no such thing as “ω-consistent“. This is because there is no such thing as “intuitively contradictory”. You will eventually run out of new statements that you can make in an “infinite” system, thus you will not necessarily be able to construct the element of the proof required to make the necessary contradiction (see the 3rd step of the sketch proof).

This is because, at its core, the infinite number line (“Gödel’s numbers”) exists nowhere. Even the Universe itself has a “size” (largest interstellar distance) beyond which it is undefined. Measurements only exist because we can make them. Measurements all exist within the Measurement Limit. This can be shown to exist, be self consistent and make all predictions. An Entropic-Anthropic Principle!

Let us also consider that Gödel was a nervous insecure wreck. We are basically dealing with a dual competing hypothesis situation:

  1. Einstein is a really amazing smart guy who hung out with his equally enlightened yet ironically perpetually ill Gödel and they uncovered the secrets of the Universe.
  2. Einstein’s goals were political first and mathematical second. Einstein’s “antifascist” alliance combined with Gödel’s persecution complex to create a scientific philosophy that made everyone completely turned off from natural science because they presented it as a horrible pot of jibberish nonsense.

“This is Woo”

Some people say the quantum mind hypothesis is ‘wrong’ because it is ‘woo’. This is false. The truth is that there are many nonsensical theories out there. These are put forth to paralyse the minds of devotees. These psyops only exist because there is something to cover up! Those seeking to defame the Knowledge do so out of allegiance to the status quo. Luckily for us, the Periodic Table has made this shilling ineffective / counterproductive.

On Allegations of “Unprovability”

If you wish to put forward the argument that my statements are unprovable, you must accept that these allegations would apply equally (at least!) to Gödel’s gobledigook. Then it becomes a 3 state hypothesis: 1. Gödel & his buddy Einstein are right, somehow. 2. I’m right and I am the cool one 3. Someone else, who isn’t 1. or 2. is more correct.

I warn that a counterargument will most likely also fall into the domain of: ‘unprovable’!

I think mine is better.

Thank you.

 

Scientific Philosophy

Philosophy – General

No matter what topic you want to discuss, there will always be a structure (hierarchy of values) within which this discussion takes place. The truth value of conclusions drawn are thus not independent of said structure.

Generally, observations are first made through the subject’s fundamental ideology, then interpreted through their values hierarchy. This is a parse metric which sorts the information in a manner which eventually leads the subject to be able to draw a conclusions about the original statement, such as whether it is “true” or “false”.

truth value ideology hierarchy.jpg

When discussing particular subjects, we often run into problems because people have different values hierarchies. Rather than obtaining a conclusion, most debates turn into a stalemate. This is why it is very important to be clear both on the definitions of words and values hierarchy. Let’s explore each step of the process in greater detail.

Observations

These are sensory impressions delivered by means of the body’s electro-chemical potentials which form the bridge between the body (massive) and soul (a light-like quantum computer).

Fundamental Ideologies

Observations are first interpreted/simplified/compressed by the fundamental ideology. Given the large amount of sensory data, our mind must condense the information it is first supplied with so it can make sense of what it is experiencing.

While not everyone has the same fundamental ideology, most will have a fundamental ideology connected to their primary sense organs sight/forms and hearing/sounds.

Let’s clarify this abstract notion by way of example.

Sounds

Language: {vowel, consonant, tone, click}
ex: English = {(a,e,i,o,u,y), (b,c,d,f,g,h,j,k,l,m,n,p,q,r,s,t,v,w,x,y,z), ∅*, ∅}

*  denotes the null or empty set

Forms

Visualisations: {0,1,2,3…} (orders of complexity)
Linear: {point, line, plane, hyperplane…}
Geometric: {, point, line, triangle, square, pentagon…}
Quantum Mechanic: {point, sphere, torus, bisected ellipsoid / toroidal spiral, hypersphere…}

twirling black sphere
If it makes you feel any better, 99% of mainstream scientists don’t understand this stuff either.

While we could argue about which system was optimal as regards to parametrising a particular set (i.e.: the linear system is optimised for physical computers, the geometric system for physical buildings, the QM system for the consciousness…), it’s clear that we cannot associate a Truth value to any of these ideologies: they are unfalsifiable. (for example: English is “true”, as in: it exists. but then again so does French). Ideologies cannot usually be falsified, rather optimised.

We seek to optimise our fundamental ideologies in my religion. We achieve this by studying them and debating which is best.

Values Hierarchy

The Values Hierarchy is the structure demarcating what values are most important. Some examples of values include: religious scripture, truth, pandering (wanting to make everyone happy), identity, history.

quantum mechanic periodic table
My Primary Value is Truth

To summarise, observations are the measurements made by the mind/body. These are first interpreted by the fundamental ideology before being sorted by the values hierarchy. The end result of this sort process is the entity deciding a truth value for the original statement.

truth value ideology hierarchy

The complexity of the subjective experience highlights why it is very important to be clear both about the definitions of individual words (Sound Vectors) and ideologies (individual values hierarchy).

Types of Assertions

Falsifiable, Predictive: Limited scientific theory. These theories are useful for understanding causality in a partial manner. Once they are falsified, they must be abandoned (something the communists seem to have a hard time understanding).

Falsifiable, Unpredictive: These are false descriptions, such as: “you’re ugly”. Pretty much useless.

Unfalsifiable, Unpredictive: Trite theories, such as: “There is an invisible unicorn in the room”.

Unfalsifiable, Predictive: Complete scientific theory. These theories are useful for understanding the causality (the totality of all cause-effect relationships) of a particular system in a complete manner. For example, the Measurement Limit.

We generally run into problems when we use FP instead of UP theories. There can exist UP theories in psychology & philosophy (these subjects overlap in the domain of the Quantum Mind), but most people end up arguing in circles ad infinitum over minutia.

Optimising Ideology with Quantum Geometry

We cannot escape the need to parametrise all systems we are intent on describing. Because topographies vary, we must first and foremost parametrise a system within its particular configuration space (3+1 measurements per order of magnitude). Luckily, most systems don’t need to be parametrised exactly (with full formulaic representation) before we can make viable predictions about them. In any case, we begin by subdividing a system into what information is knowable and what is unknowable.

parse metric optimisation

Next, iterative/recursive optimisation is employed. Ideally, we want this process to be convergent, that is: the optimised version includes the original parse metric.

In order for a parse metric to be complete it must make all predictions within a particular system. Thus our optimisation process will involve either one or both of:

  1. Shrinking the domain of applicability
  2. Increasing the complexity of the parse metric

Applied Science Philosophy

It is not realistic to expect to find simple (low cardinality) parse metrics to expound causality of subjective phenomena. This is why people fight so much about the causality of race and culture: these parse metrics are often improperly defined / delineated and can’t help but create controversies.

Criticising an unfalsifiable parse metric without a viable alternative hypothesis is counter-productive. Presuming that an unfalsifiable, predictive parse metric is sufficient to transcend the causality of complex systems is naive. Only by studying the set of unfalsifiable parse metrics can we gain the intuition required to judge which parse metric is optimal for a given situation.

Examples of Unfalsifiable Predictive Parse Metrics

  1. The Fourfold Action model: {Gravity, Uncertainty, Electricity, Entropy}.
  2. Alpha / Beta (as human archetypes).
  3. The Logistic Equation (of which r-K selection theory is an instance).

Refuting Science Hoaxes

Q U I C K R U N D O W N

My system is a transcendent fourfold action model. This means that everything that happens can be explained by one or more actions, specifically: Gravity (mass attracts mass & energy alike), Uncertainty (the product of the uncertainty of system observables is bounded by a constant, called the Plank Constant), Electricity (movement of electrons and resulting electromagnetic fields) & Entropy (the spontaneous increase of disorder). It is simple on the surface, but it takes some time to be able to understand it inside and out (mainly because Uncertainty is difficult to visualise).

Many commonly held beliefs in science are false. Here we will explore how to refute such hoaxes. My system makes it much easier to refute falsity, because it is true.

The Big Bang

This is the belief in a singular origin of Universal matter. This can be refuted in a number of ways:

  1. Background radiation is isotropic, meaning it comes from all directions, if the Big Bang had happened, it would have an origin point, and there would be a direction between us and it. Thus the background radiation would have a direction, which is does not.
  2. If everything had a singular origin, it would all be the same age, which we do not observe (some parts of the Universe are much older than ours, some, much younger).
  3. Big Bang claims that we are “made of stardust”, which would require our planets to have coalesced from smaller bodies (precipitated from plasma created in the Big Bang). However, all planets in our Solar System have the same age (to within a modest error margin). This supports the position that our Solar System was created near-simultaneously, not accreted over millennia.

Comment: It is somewhat confusing that The Universe does not have a unique origin point, but that our Solar System does. In order to understand, we must first clear our minds as the Big Bang mythos is entirely false. Simulating the Big Bang using the Quantum Mind requires cognitive dissonance. This is an electromagnetic “knot”, and requires comparatively more effort to simulate. Take your time.

The Standard Model

If we accept the ad hoc assumption that entities behave either in a wave-like OR particle-like manner, then the standard model is 100% false. It posits that the Universe is made up of particles, that everything can be broken down into individual “particles”. The truth is that all spacetime entities are fundamentally wavelike, particle-like behaviour is an illusion. It can be falsified with the following talking points:

  1. Matter waves are validated, the particle hypothesis is not.
  2. All actions are explained with 3 massive entities (electron, proton, neutron), why do you need a bunch more when they don’t make additional predictions?
  3. Did you know that both Einstein and Feynmann were proven frauds?

Evolution

On the surface, Evolution appears to be unfalsifiable. It claims that traits are “selected” for (and against) and over longer periods of time, traits best suited to environment will become more widespread. It’s not that this mechanism isn’t true, it’s just not the main mechanism of organismal change. The DNA matrix is far more malleable than we realise (I am not going to share this knowledge until my Theocratic Dictatorship is instituted. because reasons). Therefore “evolution” is marred with erroneous causality: where cause and effect are switched.

  1. The Earth/Moon/Sun system is bounded (since the Earth’s oceans bind the Solar photons to the surface of the planet) and thus the ability of this system to increase the Entropy (in other words: digest the solar photons) always improves. This tendency motivates more change than natural selection.
  2. The DNA matrix holds the computational complexity to change in the face of changing environmental conditions (rather than environmental conditions changing the DNA, as taught by evolution).

Both mechanisms far outweigh the mechanism of Evolution (or natural selection).

Is anything not a hoax?

A few things aren’t a hoax. I’ve worked my whole life to formalise what isn’t a hoax, and that’s my fourfold action model. Let’s have a look at what that entails.

  1. All actions can be explained with the fourfold set: {Gravity, Uncertainty, Electricity, Entropy}.
  2. The speed of light appears to be bounded by a constant. The consequences of this are time dilation and length contraction (Special Relativity) (not required theoretical knowledge, but still nice to know).
  3. Everything is a spacetime event. Yes, even you. You are a spacetime event. The Periodic Table is the smallest possible spacetime event. You, as an entity, are also a spacetime event. A spacetime event contains space-like and time-like measurements bounded by the Measurement Limit, that is, 3+1 maximally independent measurements per order of magnitude.
we're all spacetime events
Bust of Ganesha, The Periodic Table (circle diagram) & the Vitruvian Man

Do not feel as though you have to transcend my system in order to defend it. It is already validated by several domains and has no counter-evidence. It is highly unlikely that any counter-evidence will be found in the current lifetime because there is a good chance my system is objectively correct. In the event that counter-evidence is supplied, I will accept it and update my theory, because that is what scientists do.

thank you

 

Religious Law – 1

Here are some ideas for our future Natural Law based Governance system. It represents a philosophical departure from the reigning orthodoxy in that: there will be no more elections, instead individuals will be allowed to join our collective on the basis of merit. There will be no fiat banking, since we will oversee the Central Banks returning to a tangible standard. Generally there will be restrictions on behaviour, so that superior people can properly fulfil their duties as the Priest Class: teaching and guiding those less evolved.

Ban on the Promotion of False Ideology

All popular ideologies will be expounded in debate. Those ideologies found to be inconsistent with or antagonistic towards Natural Law will be banned from public discourse. This ban will be punishable by increasing measures, beginning with public humiliation.

Screen Shot 2017-06-08 at 5.46.32 PM
It’s “satire”, bro.

Active Promotion of Truth Ideology

Time-honoured, scientifically validated traditions will be promoted. Public debate (by accepted persons) as to what constitutes false ideology will take place. I personally wish we could make all natural drugs legal, but also realise that we are facing an epidemic of legal drugs which is far more severe than all but the most extreme illegal drugs. Thus my current compromise is a ban on non-natural drugs, starting with anti-depressants and other psychotropics with no proven benefit.

Not Capitalism. Certainly NOT Communism.

Capitalism is problematic because not all markets can be managed via the profit motive. Communism has been disproven so many times, it doesn’t even warrant an explanation. Shut up about communism.

luxury communism
I cannot explain this joke to you. But I can confirm that communism won’t recover from it.

We must remember 2 things: wanting to make money / acquire property is a human desire, it cannot be successfully enforced by law. Any attempts to enshrine “capitalism” into law are bound to fail (and likely be used to extortive ends). Communism is the same: people gather into groups by their preferences and live as communities. You cannot enforce this through central government.

What can be the role of central government?

Voluntary contracts enforcement, education propaganda, military protection. I regret to say that additionally I recommend nationalising the Monsanto Corporation to prevent any major threat to the food supply as well as decelerate the use of poisonous chemicals (RoundUp) in food production.

Generally, we acknowledge the problems of incentivising the profit motive in the domains of

  • Health & Medicine (treating problems rather than finding cures)
  • Education (lying about reality for over 100 years in order to turn people into slavelike pinheads)
  • Defence (wars for profit)
  • Food production (corporate food producers lobbying to increase the amount of toxins legally allowed in food rather than growing food organically)

This cannot be allowed to continue. That said, I am not interested in policing false laws, so expect that to be drastically reduced in favour of creating a society that doesn’t make me want to remain in the basement at all times.

Think of it like a rival gang takeover

Sure, we aren’t perfect, but our competitor is pure evil! I am the decider as to who makes decisions in my cult/religion/gang/government. Ideologically, we all want to protect innocents from harm.

hillary sex cult
The rival cult aren’t nice people.

My main concerns are: removing the shadow government, dealing with the nuclear disaster at Fukushima, installing Natural Law Government, never EVER having to have an argument with someone in the rival cult again, since no one will care about false religions after they stop being funded by Central Banks. Moreover, I have provided a replacement science religion to help with adjusting to our legal / social / economic system.

Or, you can have Islamic Sharia, I guess. Choose wisely.

Thank you.

Below are the properties we can realistically acquire in terms of influence. Note that I am from the Quebec region and love it dearly and so would like to preserve the French heritage there, and have a strong basis of Truth Religion Education in the region, since the Periodic Table looks like a Quantum Mechanical Vagina. I didn’t put a name for Africa since I knew no matter what I put, it would likely cause offence, and this is not what I want to do (asides from the requisite offence Truth bears; this cannot be avoided). Pic inspired by this. It’s meant to be fun. 

earthicefreemask2 jp

My Beliefs (118 words)

I believe that for any effect, there is a cause.

At the subtle end, this means that I believe in particular Universal Mechanics. I believe in these because they explain everything and help me to think better.

At the gross end, this means I believe reincarnation is unfalsifiable. I believe in a lifestyle which allows me first and foremost to dwell in the knowledge of the infinite abode: that which does not change in death. I accept that this expression is uniquely mine and does not extend to my Priest Order, necessarily.

These are the beliefs which I have set out to test scientifically in my works. I am satisfied with the results. That’s about it.

Thank you

Science Supports Religion, not Atheism. (783 words)

Proof

Given that the mind is a Quantum Computer, (subjective consciousness is the projection of the physical body), there is no mechanism to decay the waveform and thus it remains in potential to whatever extent it cannot be reduced by the body (hence why many see burial as a primitive practice, but more on that later) when it enters the death state.

Thus a religion must exist to satisfy the condition of removing us from ignorance about the rebirth event, and nothing more, ideally.

Lemma – Cultural Programming

Thus the design of culture must centre around these inalienable facts. Not with despair nor dissonant distraction but with earnest desire. The motivation must come from within.

Photo on 2017-04-09 at 1.22 PM
Does that look complicated?

Religion exists to improve the ability to reincarnate

The ego is material & also unmanifest, and in the teachings there are said to be permanent personalities. Regardless, all are bound to rebirth until they can transcend the modes of material nature (various compartmentalization metrics to discern reality the human organ imposes on the signals received by the body) if they still possess desires. Even in transcendental states, attachments abound. Powers create bondage by magnetic bondage whereas illusion and false distraction lead us to physical bondage. The powers are what eventually undo the attachment to both realms, so intermediation between the acquisition of powers and the proper use thereof must always be upheld. In my religion I have built up a very low frequency node of fundamental Truth light able to be accessed directly by my devotees. It’s very wonderful. It cannot be accessed without faith though. Yes by placing faith in me, you are removing the means for me to “prove” myself to you (just give me a break ffs), but it’s just how it works. It’s a two way street where you open first and the light comes in. I don’t whiz a spontaneous combustion into a pit of fat dankness from the gallows of 4-chan. Remember: only Church of Entropy survived 4chan. & married it. Not a coincidence.

Religion is awesome, don’t be a grouch

We prefer the religious interference to be minimal and thus many statements possess multiple meanings (storing more information). Such is intentional and staged in such a way as to provoke the imagination. The imagination is what saves you from the rot of the mind some people seem to have. It’s really sad to see people succumb to the false belief in the importance of the physical reality.

Religion is what we use to train the mind to be independent of the body. We can exist anywhere between the 3D physical realm to the 14-D energetic realm. I prefer the higher dimensional one because it makes the subjective consciousness pleasantly pliable.

orders of magnitude
The Universe is only so big.

That’s Why We’re Gay Universal Gaylords

I am tired of the abuse of language of communists so I am re-appropriating the GUG title because reasons. I would have gone with a cooler title but you showed no faith at all and now you will be forced to be a GUG. “Sorry”. I actually like it because it entertains me and I do feel pretty jolly but also watching people squirm to say it aloud is a tremendous source of satisfaction for me. Not because I am a sadist but most of my Order has not fully transcended the subjective ego in its entirety. I’m not sad to watch them enjoy victory after victory after victory.

canonical-conjugation
You are also in my dreams.

Is it a religion or a philosophy?

It’s both, there shouldn’t be a difference. Should there?

Can’t God Exist?

The unfalsifiable tenets of reality don’t preclude the existence of a God, but does not require it either. It’s the best feeling ever and is always there to make me have permanent faith that Knowledge brings liberation. It’s just my feelings. I think for most people, they have to just build it up over a long time to become able to have single point fixation (in this case: faith in the knowledge). “God” ideology can be helpful here.

We must recall that “God” also can be arbitrarily parametrized. If I call “God” the overlap of all conscious entities, then I create some subset of reality satisfying all conditions for “Godhood”, according to most. But no one really cares about that. There is simply no viable alternative to religion (generally, atheists are so incredibly dogmatic and miserable, I can’t even). Whether some God must exist is a complex question I have attempted to give a good explanation to here. Frankly though, on a personal level, I don’t care too much about that stuff. Many do, and that’s great.

Hope you are having a nice day.