Re: OT: The Ass Of God was Re: OT: Desk Attack

From: Mark Fergerson (nunya_at_biz.ness)
Date: 11/24/04 

Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:17:27 -0700

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:19:08 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:
>
>>Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 08:04:24 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:57:08 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 05:21:49 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

>>>No, no, no, no, no. It's not linear at all. The reason I say that
>>>there is a bottom is because you can't get any denser than a proton
>>>without dropping out of space entirely. For Will, this means eternal
>>>death.
>>
>> Poor choice of words; perhaps "think there's a
>>singularity of that kind relevant to"? ISTM that you're
>>hopping between your local and All's POV without noticing.

> This is the whole point of the whole exercise. Remember Valentine Michael
> Smith? Thou Art God.

   Sure. But you started this mess with the "To Be Or Not To
Be" question, and "being" (note lack of capitalization) in
that context is physical, day-to-day, human-interactive
being, not Being All.

>> "Eternal death"=zero degrees of freedom=inability to
>>change, yes?
>>
>> You are asking less-complex things to make extremely
>>complex decisions they are simply inequipped for.

> This is also the point - the Will not only is equipped to make these
> decisions, but has been since before there was even time, and has been
> ignored, denigrated, hated, killed, tortured, and compressed into solid
> matter in retribution for merely pointing out God's error. Well, infinite
> stupidity. But he's getting better now.

   This is extremely important, and I'll show how real soon...

>>< I'm not going to quibble about the densities of quarks and
>>leptons, not to mention virtual particles _in their FOR_,
>>quantum black holes, and like that. We could go on forever
>>trying to correlate sensitivity to different forces as
>>degrees of free will, but that's a very bright red herring
>>AFAICT; that way lies foolishness like the QM/consciousness
>>connection I told RSW I don't accept.>

> The point is, your will is in you now - it's the part that feels. Thinking
> simply is not enough to come up with the right answers.

   Neither is feeling, _by itself_. Thinking is where
discretion comes in.

> And I think the most off-putting concept of all, to those who think that
> their thoughts are all there is, is the fact that God lives in your own
> personal ***.

   Actually, it's more the other way around, as you nearly
say below.

>>>Spirit couldn't give a *** less, because spirit is the fucking
>>>aether. It's the infinite, infinitely rigid, electrical matrix that
>>>thinks it's the boss, and thinks it knows best what Will is supposed
>>>to do, but it has been wrong about this since before the beginning of
>>>time.
>>
>> Good thing, too. Yes, suffering came into existence as a
>>direct consequence of Original Separation, but as I said,
>>that's the Lesson All learned by it. But Rich, don't you see
>>that it's also the _only_ lesson All could learn at that
>>point, because that's the only degree of freedom it had?
>>
>> Since then, we timebounds have learned all sorts of other
>>lessons that we take back with us when we reintegrate.

> Reintegrate, huh? Do you mean, evaporate back into undifferentiated white
> on white on white pure electric spirit, killing yet another Will Body?

   Not quite. Wait for it...

> Well, I'm pretty sure that the spirits who refuse to heal and recover
> their own Will in this lifetime, now, will not be allowed to
> reincarnate to continue their denial of Mother.

   THAT'S IT! That's what I said was extremely important
earlier. After Original Separation, Will was seen to be a
most useful technique in determining how to decide whether
or not to do something, which wasn't available the first
time around. So, reimncarnation now involves an "upload" of
what we learn here. THAT'S why you shouldn't try to limit
what others learn. You can't do it all.

>>>You can tune into this Infinite Consciousness any time you want
>>>to, by just letting yourself become aware of it. And you can tune into
>>>Infinite Sentience any time you want, except your software keeps insisting
>>>that your hardware is wrong.
>>
>> Trouble with that sort of "tuning in" is that as far as
>>living my life is concerned, it's a distraction (I stopped
>>doing LSD some decades ago partly for that reason). In that
>>sense, my hardware is right because of its priorities like
>>day-to-day survival and interaction with other timebounds
>>with similar priorities.

> Yeah - heh. "Day-to-day survival." Have you ever actually been hungry? I
> _know_ that my day-to-day survival is ensured, because I know how to find
> food. _That's_ how fundamental "survival" is. And there are beings who
> aren't surviving, and it has just recently come into consciousness that it
> is not Will's own fault that she's in pain. It is entirely Spirit's
> responsibility, and I've been sent to sound Gabriel's Horn. Heal Thyself.

   Oh, yes, I've ben really, truly, hungry. But then, I was
way out in the unfamiliar tules and didn't know how to
recognize edibles.

>>>Well, which has had more time to evolve through experimentation?
>>
>> Interesting question. ISTM both evolved in tandem with
>>each other and still are. You think otherwise?

> I think there's a much bigger and more interesting story. I really wish I
> could talk somebody into at least _visiting_ that web site I've been
> plugging, and hopefully, poking around: http://www.godchannel.com - what
> harm could it do?

   Gimme a day or three...

>>>>>DOOOOOOOD!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>I am here to tell you, I Feel Them ALL! That's the point of this whole
>>>>>exercise! What you feel is the _only_ reality there is!
>>>>
>>>> It's still only _your_ reality. It isn't necessarily
>>>>anyone else's.
>>
>>>Have you asked your own anus about this? I'll bet _it_ knows it exists.
>>
>> So? That has no bearing in comparing its reality with
>>mine. Just like any subpart of a larger whole, its subjective reality is
>>limited by its ability to acquire and integrate experiences. It is
>>simply not capable of experiencing what _all of me_ does. But I see no
>>contradiction in the fact that I cannot have the same reality it does,
>>because not only is my scope of attention wider, but my priorities are
>>different, which weights experiences differently in assembling my
>>version of reality.

> You're still talking about yourself in the third person. ;-)

   Not in the timebound sense.

>> It does not suffer my troubles except as they affect its
>>functionality, and I only suffer its troubles as they affect our
>>_mutual_ functioning on the physical level because it's part of my self.
>>If I spend any time worrying about its "life" beyond that, it's wasted
>>because it can handle it better than I can micromanage it for it.

> Well, at least thank you for this. And I think Mother thanks you as well.
> And seriously thank you for acknowledging that she can handle her job
> better than intellect can handle that same job. :-)

   I think of it as delegating specific tasks to experts.

>> Now don't start with "mutual" being applicable to all
>>lifeforms, and go all hazy about how "self" means the same thing when I
>>said my anus is part of myself that it means when we say that all
>>lifeforms are part of All's self. It simply does not.

> OK, you just haven't accessed that higher dimension yet, where all is one
> and everything maps onto everything else, and all that. There are, in
> fact, separate beings - the separation was necessary so that God could
> have peers, when we learn our way back - but it has been painful for Will,
> and this pain needs to be healed no matter what.

   Oh, I already knew we are the equivalent of assholes of
(God, for lack of a more appropriate term), but that just
isn't relevant to timebound life.

> Here's a thought - are your carbon atoms the same as mine?

   In a sense, yes. In another, no. Some paradoxes cannot be
resolved without going to larger numbers of dimensions.

   Mark L. Fergerson

Quantcast