Thus either definitely true or false.
No - its non-existence as an imagination is true.
The words "I believe" mean "I do not know..." hence
knowledge as "justified belief" is naught but lunacy.
Acknowledging precedes acceptance - one must acknowledge the reality before accepting it,
else: one may deny the reality and imagine what reality ought to be, rather than ought not (present).
Whereas one can not derive an ought from an is,
one can derive an ought not from an is, however
this implies the capacity to acknowledge what "is".
No, that would be a local lunacy, such as a loopy form
unrealized that the loop is a locally imagined phenomena.
Replace "knowledge" with "belief" and you got it.
Your conflation of knowledge and belief is culprit
and always will be so long as it is so-embedded
causing a (local) loop.
Yes. However note: there is no such thing as "my consciousness" and "your consciousness"
there is only consciousness. Hence: conscious knowledge of ignorance.
The more one identifies with their ignorance (rather than "justified belief" knowledge)
the more the universe opens up such to come to know. There is a reciprocity present there
and can be tested locally by any being, thus both witnessed as attained to by themselves.
Adam could not account for his own actions "believing" it was the fault of the woman.
All who have a tendency to blame tend to blame the woman, yet the same reveals
to what degree(s) they are willing to associate the actions of one's own
as the fault of another. These degrees compose the 'Mark of Cain' and is visible
according to the degrees to which one is in a state of comparison to another
such to grow enmity and draw from the constituency of their own nature.
Self-awareness begins/ends with being self-aware of one's own actions,
thoughts, feelings, and certainly: beliefs which may not necessarily be true.
All false beliefs as acted upon as true results in a sense of separation from the whole
despite no such separation existing. The duality is merely local (if experienced) thus
the "believer vs. unbeliever" crises can be addressed (as is).
Self-negation is what involution implies, hence all one believes themselves to be which they are not
is only reconciled by way of involution (ie. inward process) such to yield the external "evolution".
"Belief" is not an evolutionary (or even conscious) process, hence the upcoming Age of Aquarius being
the Age of Knowledge. This Piscean Age still has the "believer vs. unbeliever" division wherein
the dividers go around in circles stuck in the same age.
I'll let that speak for itself.
Without negotiation there is no reciprocity, however you are (actually, surprisingly) correctEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm Suffering is still suffering regardless of the negotiated return. If suffering is defined strictly through terms of negotiation than the root of suffering as the breaking of a negotiation and the problem or morality is a problem less of understanding and rather of mutual consent.
that 'mutual consent' is of concern. If consent is mutual (authentic) it doesn't matter what it is
the engagement is cordial until terminated. If not... therein lies the root of so-called "evil"
hence how/why reciprocity clarifies the need to sanctify such consent as a matter of
(what can be known to be) universal law (of reciprocity) given this relation is the same
as the nature of the relation between space and time as aspects of motion/energy.
v = s/t = speed
e = t/s = energy
s/t x t/s = 1
All speed/energy is immediately localized as a concentrated point in the ever-now (eternity).
It was/is not intended to, however the sentiment is noted as
it is not clear to me you have any regard for the victims of such.
I know you to be a fool if you honestly believe that (let alone you can not spell the word).
Male central figure orator who amasses power via oration,
weaponizes the state against his political adversaries,
expands militarily while signing and breaking peace treaties
and subsequently used the power of the state to carry out
mass organized genocide against "Jews" only to die cursing them.
Adolph Hitler, or Muhammad?
It takes a "believer" to ever "believe" themselves superior to others
and/or others are inferior to themselves. In any conceivable
"believer vs. unbeliever" situation, all Nazis are pinned (by necessity)
to the side of the "believers". The same is true for so-called "Satan"
hence Islam is both the root of Nazism and is actually satanic.
Their ideology involves scapegoating their own crimes against humanity
onto humanity (default: "Jews") and presently they are waging a global jihad
against white people, because Islam is also a racist/intolerant ideology.
In case others haven't figured it out yet: the "believers" are the real book-worshiping "Jews"
who were behind the rise of Nazism pre-WWII Germany. Adolph Hitler fell into the hands
of the Muslim Brotherood, not knowing they were the real book-worshiping "Jews"
he had set out to undermine. Hence the bullet Hitler put in his own head once he "knew".
Book-worshiping "Jews" divide the world.
"knowing is believing" lol, wow.
Do you believe in gravity? Would it act any different if you didn't?
Knowledge implies the absence of belief.
Belief implies the absence of knowledge.
The presence of one is the absence of the other.
This maps directly onto
"believer vs. unbeliever" via
"belief vs. knowledge" thus
knowledge is evolutionary.
Yes, I am, and I know.
There is no more a contradiction in it than in yang and yin.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm As to the multiplicity of terms it contradicts the theory of unity given the theory, where all is unified, is part of the unity as an expression of it. A general theory of unity exists as part of the greater unity thus is self referential, however given the multiplicity of terms needed to Express it, the one is approximated through the many.
We have already solved for the physical universe which,
to even my surprise, shows the alpha/omega are actually
present in the equations describing, which means CKIIT chose
the right question to ask: 'from whence human suffering?'
such to derive the alpha/omega/beg/end axes. This axes
is the same defined by the four roots of the terminal function.