Mortalsfool wrote:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think those are almost 42 exclamations. It may may make Bill's head crash from an overload error.
Even enlightenment has its limits. Among humans it never has or likely ever will go supernova. For the likes of us it means to be a few steps beyond the steps we're currently on. Enlightenment means progression, not revelation. As such it's the criteria which separates philosophy from religion.
Some things are easier to define with analogies, others are easier to define with what they are not. It's kind of like, you know you are a different than a baboon, you know you are, but you can't really easily put it into words other than using trivial ego bullshit about how they don't use tools. words and logic and how they differ in appearance, but its harder to get to the core essence how exactly you are different, you just know it and they know it too.
It is hard exactly to say what exactly it is, but IMO part of it is seeing truth in a Logical way. That there are probable truths but you guesstimate their probability. Occams razor is not a law or rule but just a method of getting lucky rolls when it comes to machines. In my world Religion is simultaneously real and false. IMO an easy way to spot an unEnlightened is anyone who is incapable of debating in a rational way, or blocks communications at the slightest provocation.
I dont rule things out but create logical scenarios. Like if So and so is true, then so and so is true, and so and so is true. But if so and so is false, then so and so is true, etc. Then I assign a probability index, like theres a 98 percent chance Hillary is corrupt, and a 50 percent chance WW3 would occur with her, but in my mind, there is only a 26 percent chance Jill Stein is corrupt, and therefore Jill has my vote.
One of the huge hurtles on the road to experiencing enlightenment is the ability to get around the ego.
To see the ego in it's proper place.
To hide behind a phony moniker & a non-existent location shows that the ego; the ego that you are is protecting itself.
One of the things Im saying about enlightenment is that it is easier to define what it is not. That is that what it is not.
What Bill is saying doesn't actually make any sense, because if he is right that means than Anyone walking down the street is Enlightened, and if they tell someone their government name they are even more enlightened, or if they go to the store and Write a check with their government name they are extremely enlightened. That is completely ridiculous nonsense what Bill is saying.
There are also some other reasons Bill did not explore. Maybe he doesn't want to be stalked and doesn't want to give his location. Maybe his name is traumatic for him or something.
Being a total pacifist and masochist is not Enlightenment IMO, because if someone wants to avoid harm and not relive trauma, and protect their body that doesn't make them unEnlightened.
Furthermore I think the key to enlightenment is having a variety of experiences and personalities. Having an online monkier is actually escaping from one's ego, not protecting it IMO. If you go around your whole life as Bill Wiltrack well that's quite limiting IMO.
Mortalsfool wrote:
Trixie, love your handle!
Thankyou, but do you also love my love handles?
Mortalsfool wrote:What do you want to do, kiss me?
I don't know, I was going to ask you the same thing.
If Bill actually gives me a solid answer of what enlightenment is, I will be thoroughly impressed.
My definition of Enlightenment consists of "striving for honesty + super sanity + nihilism + multiple personalities + varied experiences + complex mindedness + minds that simplify + exploration + disregard for dogma + recognizing the apelike nature of man + giving a shit + not giving a shit + glamour + humor + special sauce"
I am not of the Hokey modern camp that Enlightenment is some kind of cheezy nirvana bliss. But I am not the jed mckenna camp that Enlightenment is pure misery. I believe that it is both. But I believe Buddhism is mostly bullshit and the Bible is probably more true than Buddha.
In my opinion, Enlightenment is almost inevitable for higher lifeforms and minds, and that Insanity is almost
required for Enlightenment, and that Insanity can be Sanity and Sanity can be Insanity, Society is usually Insane (but not the Insane kind of Enlightened way.)
