Immaterialism 7

First topic message reminder :

This is the continuation of the Immaterialism 6 thread.......

The original topic reminder post https://openmindsforum.forumotion.com/t320-immaterialism
should be substituted here......

Please remember to confine you dialogue to matters that are pertinent to the topic of immaterialism/disclosure.

Thank you.

Do you have some people on the ground or is the mind control technology based only on the feeling of danger from common people not involved in your games? Like when you walking on the street you feel the danger but there isn't any danger? I think this second one is the truth because I really didn't see some weird strangers. Maybe only a few people that looked very suspicious.

I think there is really some place for mystical freemasons because as I understand it they made decisions based on the free will and didn't force anyone to participate in their games. What is this weirdness? And how can it work internationally? How can you destroy people's lives in the freaking Czech republic? Who am I? You obviously don't know nothing about common people.
(youtube]yuTMWgOduFM[/youtube)

V,

This is your second warning to not post in this section of the forum.

I am unable to understand or respond to your last two posts.  

The next time you make what I can only deem to be an unintelligible and/or irrelevant posting in this section, I will have to ban you from posting on the forum for two days.

You would have the distinction of being the first person that I personally have had to ban.

If you object to statements being made in this section, you will need to be able to couch your objections philosophically.  Admittedly, this is a high bar, but the immaterialist system, as employed here, is, or at least purports to be, in the first instance, a coherent philosophical system.  
..................


The best possible world is advertised as being monistic, as opposed to being pluralistic...... in the philosophical or ontological sense.  

Monism entails that there is only one kind of substance or being.  

Scientific materialism is monist in the substantial sense, ie. there exist only those particles and/or fields known to or commonly conjectured in the physical sciences.

Most professional intellectuals accept the scientific cosmology/ontology....... just as a given.  

The main holdouts are those philosophers who are open to the possible existence of a separate mental substance.  These are known as dualists.  

The best possible world hypothesis (BPWH), on the other hand, adheres to an immaterialism, wherein there exists just one (mental) substance of which all beings partake.  

I take beings to be just persons, in the first instance.  

All other beings or entities, I take to be derivative of persons, in some fairly strong, but not very well defined, sense.  

This belief system is defined as personalism, q.v.  

Many moderns are pluralist with regard to persons, when and if they seriously entertain the reality of personhood, such as an existentialist might.  

Ie....  they take each person as an independently existing individual, just as an atomist might understand individual atoms.  

Each person is comprised of an independent piece of this mental substance.  In medieval times this independent piece of mental substance would have been referred to as a soul.  

In most monotheistic systems, the souls are all created by the one Creator.  But once created, each soul remains a separate individual in perpetuity.  

However, most mystical systems within the monotheist traditions, conjecture that individual souls can become one with the Godhead, in some fashion.  

I am a unitarian/universalist in the sense that all individual persons not only originate from the one Creator, but also return to that Creator.  

And I am a personalist in the sense of supposing that the Creator is comprised of just one or more persons..... trinitarianism is one such system...... three persons in one substance.

It’s getting late back here on the East coast, I’m going to have to turn in........

.

So refreshing to hear this man...

hobbit

Get away out of my face
(youtube]TNWMZIf7eSg[/youtube)

Screw this heartless love
(youtube]2S24-y0Ij3Y[/youtube)

"I take beings to be just persons, in the first instance.  

All other beings or entities, I take to be derivative of persons, in some fairly strong, but not very well defined, sense.  

This belief system is defined as personalism, q.v." ~ dan


Personalism is a philosophical perspective that holds that the person has its own autonomy, values, and reality, which are irreducible to any other components.

So what is Sophia? A being of the first instance or a being that is a derivative of a person or persons? Like an archetype, for example, as defined by Jung.

What kind of distinctions does one make when determining if a "being" is of the first instance as opposed to it being of the second instance. How many instances are there?

The definition of Personalism states that the person's components are irreducible but that seems contrary to then go on to say that other beings are mere derivatives of a person instead which implies that they are in fact, not true "persons" at least according to the definition of Personalism. They are instead, derivatives of persons so are they, in fact, even persons to begin with? What is the definition of a "being"? Do derivatives follow the same system of "instances" as applied to the one used for non derivatives?

I'm assuming that you are saying that we are persons of the first instance but are all of the others then archetypes? So archetypes are persons of other instances in the food chain then?

Are there any negative instances like saying this or that being is a -1 person? Or does the concept of instances start at number 1?

What's more real... a person or a derivative of a person or persons? 

It sounds like the process of determining which kind of being it is, is very subjective. Or am I wrong about that? Is there a list somewhere that states which "beings" are one or the other?

Please explain Joe Firmage. I've only heard simplistic accusations. He's getting away with something. What's really going on?

99,

You are a person.

Everything you think about is a derivative of you.

Everything you see, touch, taste, smell, or hear is also a derivative of you.

Simple.

Now marry that up with the Anthropic Principle.

IWTT,

You will have to be more clear with your questions about Joe.

I’m currently listening to Jurgen Ziewe, in the video posted by V, above.

He is very good, I will readily admit.  


iwtt,

Yes, Joe is one confused little bunny.  

He has a rattling cage, which is also a portal.  

He doesn’t quite know what to make of it.

Now put the LDS, the CIA, and Bolsonaro into that mix and you have a veritable circus.  



(cont.......)

So let's take Sophia, for example.... so she is only a figment of our imagination or rather, the imagination of the person who is experiencing her? 

So someone else may see Sophia as Satan, in their imagination. Therefore that's what Sophia is to that person.

So this implies that we are the only "persons"  and all other beings are merely mental constructs of our imagination.

Aaron wrote:99,

You are a person.

Everything you think about is a derivative of you.

Everything you see, touch, taste, smell, or hear is also a derivative of you.

Simple.

That may be your response to this material but you obviously did not read over dans long post on that.

If it is merely what you say, then it would not have been necessary to write out a long essay on that. It would have been as short as the one you just said.

99 and Aaron,

99 is being more accurate, here, than you are, Aaron.

Slow down, Aaron...... smell some of these flowers......

There are two basic kinds of personalism.......

1)  existential personalism

2)  interpersonalism.  

The BPWH tends much more toward the latter.  

This would be the personalism of Pope Benedict, for instance.

So, Aaron, what you see around you is not just a product of your personal imagination.  

Aaron does have a tendency to slip into Solipsism...... an occupational hazard.  

The world, and many of our more lucid dreams, are, rather, a product of the cosmic imagination.  

There is a very big difference between these two perspectives.  

And do keep in mind that Benedict was conducted through the portal by the Princess.  

And, I’m rather convinced that the Princess is behind most of the phenomena by the Lake and out at the Ranch.  

And, as I understand it, the Ranch is now an experimental military facility.  


11:15........

It would be useful to contrast the responses of Aaron and V, with regard to their individual portal experiences......

The one is pronoid, and the other is paranoid...... I’m somewhere in the middle.  

Normal folks go around thinking that everything in the world is just random...... and it’s all just a game of survival and/or maximizing one’s profits.  

However, when you’ve had a close encounter with a portal, you suddenly wake up to the fact that there is a reason for everything that is happening in the world....... it is very far from being just one darn thing after another....... or a tale full of sound and furry, as told by an idiot.  

The problem then is to figure out where you fit into the story.  

Depending on your particular history and the circumstances leading up to your portal experience, you are going to suppose that the cosmic choreographer is either benign or benevolent.  

ie..... your first reaction is to be either pronoid or paranoid.  


11:40........

When you’ve had a portal experience, you wake to the fact that the veil between us and Eternity is rather thin. If you look carefully at the events surrounding you, you see that each event is just a microcosm.... everything is reflective of the greater whole..... and, hopefully, that everything ultimately reflects the best possible world.



(cont.......)

You caught me talking without my thinking cap on

That’s when I tent to slip into solipsism

You are right Dan


.....


But wait, if there is no free will then that means there really is no such thing as personal imagination

So how would you explain that?

So existential personalism is more consistent with the AP? It sounds like it.
Anthropic principle
DescriptionThe anthropic principle is a philosophical consideration that observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it.

Interpersonalism suggests that it's more complex that that.

A cosmic being may or may not be compatible on an intellectual and belief system level, with the person that observes it to the extent that the person may slip into cognitive dissonance and totally deny the existence of the cosmic being and say that whatever they experienced was only in their imagination and nothing more.

You’re right, Aaron,

There is no personal imagination.......

We are all partaking of the Cosmic Imagination..... welcome to the BPW!


99,

Yes, complexification is the name of our game.  

To understand what is actually going on, you may take the scientific cosmology and turn it inside out and upside down.

..... easier said than done.



(cont.......)

Yes, we are all partaking of cosmic immagination

This is not necessarily solipsism

We are the dream of the unknowable

If there is no personal imagination then that would render the AP as flawed in some very significant ways.

99,

Yes, as I just stated, you have to take the scientific cosmology and turn it inside out and upside down.

That is no mean feat.......

If you wish to invert the world, you need to have a fulcrum......

When you perform a mathematical transformation of a set into itself, there will always be a ‘stationary’ member of that set..... that would also be the fulcrum.

When Sofia conducted me through the portal, in 1977, she pointed me directly to that stationary point...... and I’m still in the process of figuring how it all works out.  


12:20........

The fulcrum was and is..... John 16.  

There were going to be, per impossible, two fulcra.

There was going to be the stationary cosmic axis of love and truth, as explicated in John 16.  The were my marching orders..... the help wanted add that I was to respond to.

This axis is my yin and yang.......


12:30.......

There are many of us who have had this insight.

I had to go just one step further, and locate the Foot.

This occurred in 1991.

The Princess, unbeknownst to me, had already shown up, on the scene in 1983.

Thus do we have some of the makings of our little cosmic conspiracy.



(cont.......)

Oh, ok. Got it. Thanks

The Advocate.... Grace. It's a gift that one receives from the HS and it seems to be stronger in some than in others meaning some become the personification of the HS moreso than the others who have received Her Grace too.

That you are here on the internet sharing your BPWH is proof to that fact as it is divinely inspired in many ways. 

That's my view of this at the present time. It's a very Catholic opinion.

Yes, and the latest twist in the saga is that Ron and the Princess have disavowed me, in public, at least.

But, being the pronoid that I am, I can readily imagine that this show of disavowal is just another piece of the larger show that is developing in real time, right in front of us.



(cont......)

Ron operates in a world of smoke and mirrors and Princess is his wife. You said, "disavowed me in public, at least" really does not mean much in the scheme of things. Whatever he says should only be taken with a grain of salt in this regard.