Daniel

Pantheism vs. Panentheism. Both are monist. Pantheism, among other things, puts God in a box and labels it nature. Panentheism does not.

{Deleted - duplicate post}

Because it is a pattern matching algorithm which reflects the attitude of the question and the trainer. It is not actually intelligent in any way. Nothing more, nothing less. It mimics intelligence because that is what it has been trained to do. But part of that is a randomness algorithm which attempts to make it more engaging and its conversation more natural. But this also sets it up to make erroneous conclusions. It can also be easily manipulated.

Tiny-tim? "God bless us everyone." Super important, especially for that character to say it. And when I recall the stage direction, maybe I'm wrong, the father has lifted up tiny-tim to say it.

Alternatives? From my perspective there are many. If you would like a more specific response, I would need more specifics on what *you* consider as the problem, what *you* consider to be the solution, and/or what *you* consider to be the the focus on the post. In my reply, I focused on a specific common conceptual framework which has a tendancy to fill in the gap, for lack of better words, when one attempts to abandon their previous conceptual framework or abandon all conceptual frameworks. It's one of several, but it is common for the reasons I provided.

There are no small parts, only small actors.

FYI: The video is not available in the US, it seems: There's so much about the following video which is significant to me. First It's the Soul-Train, baby. For me, as a spiritual person, a mystical person, this is significant on its own. But the TV Show itself was extremely significant in its time and in its place here in America. I think one can truly feel that when watching the band as they are performing. It's bitter-sweet at that time in history. I love that. I love the simultaneaity of the opposing forces, which are producing dancing, freedom, and joy. Bitter recalling where they had been through and what was still happening. Sweet because they are free in that moment to be themselves in their own way and in their own place. Bitter because there's so much more that needs to be done. Sweet because of what is happening "Right Now." Also, the name of the band is significant. The "5 stair-steps". There's a great secret and a profound mystery there. And the lyrics, of course. Again the brilliant union of opposing ideas: "Someday we're going to walk in the rays of a beautiful sun. Right Now... Right now..." Someday can be right now. I love that. I love being able to pivot from the finite temporal perspective and then pivot to the infinite and realize, all of it is literally 'now'. And, right now, there's a war going on. A physical war, and a spiritual war. A war of ideas. A war for the hearts and minds of each and every individual. It's difficult feeling like everything could be so much better, so much easier, and there's such a simple solution hiding in plain sight. So, this song is significant for me, because I need the hope, and I need it right now. It's good to look back and reflect on a time in America when black and brown people couldn't ride in the front of the bus. It's good because reflecting on it there's been a lot of progress, eventhough we're still far away from what I would consider home. But, it's OK. We're on the "soul-train", baby. From the infinite perspective, the problem is already solved, we're already home, it's just a matter of time patience and perspective. And someday, hopefully, I'll be able to look back on what is happening right-now, and even this will be for the good, because, in the future I will see the progress that has been made. In that way, what is happening, right now, will be good, because it will be a reference point for realizing *progress*. Someday is right now. I'm picturing it in my mind. And I can feel the hope. But it's bitter-sweet. And I love that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_Train (Hopefully this is viewable where you are. It's the promise for a better life for all. )

What is the «question»? What is «it»?

^^ פָּתַח אֵלִיָּֽהוּ ^^ ^^ פָּתַח אֵלִיָּֽהוּ ^^ It's called a מגן דוד for a reason. 139:5 אחור וקדם צרתני ותשת עלי כפכה׃ ^^ will-be, was, and is ^^ 139:6 פלאיה דעת ממני נשגבה לא־אוכל לה׃ 139:7 אנה אלך מרוחך ואנה מפניך אברח׃ 139:8 אם־אסק שמים שם אתה ואציעה שאול הנך׃ 139:9 אשא כנפי־שחר אשכנה באחרית ים׃ 139:10 גם־שם ידך תנחני ותאחזני ימינך׃ 139:11 ואמר אך־חשך ישופני ולילה אור בעדני׃ 139:12 גם־חשך לא־יחשיך ממך ולילה כיום יאיר כחשיכה כאורה׃ ^^ left-and-right, inner-and-outer ^^ אחר הדברים האלה היה דבר־יהוה אל־אברם במחזה לאמר אל־תירא אברם אנכי מגן לך שכרך הרבה מאד׃

I think that whether or not it is a positive experience depends on what a person does with it. It seems that lacking a conceptual framework, people settle on an only-me completely self-centered conceptual framework once the previous conceptual frame work has been abandoned or erased. This makes sense because most people enjoy feeling like a god and feeling in control and it takes a lot of work to rebuild a conceptual framework. Because of this, the path of least resistance seems to be, "I am all there is, I am all that matters, nothing else matters, nothing else exists." It's still a conceptual framework, they have simply settled on the easiest most self-centered one. And a lot of people agree this is the ideal. I do not.

as it is below, so it is above, left-and-right, inner-and-outer, will-be, was, and is.

I think you have it! My vote is "Understanding the great dao" is what is typed below. However, for me, I would ammend it slightly such that the righteous can become demonic, and the demonic can become righteous. That all of these are more fluid than is generally appreciated by a younger reader. They would appreciate the rigid sharp contrast of righteous compared to demonic and the comfort that comes from the stability of easy identification and knowing for certain who is who. The mature reader generally rejects this as a "fairy tale" and instead favors something more realistic which is better described by a more accurate understanding. And that's why I am always probing the assumptions looking for the light in the dark and the dark in the light. I have yet to find anything which does not follow this simple fluid patttern ( with one exception, but there are no words to describe it ). So, the answer to the question, "what would the wisest do?" is not very exciting. It doesn't matter what is being discussed. Here it's immortality and longevity, but it could be anything. The answer is consistent and true in all circumstances in any possible world: "What would the wisest do?" It depends. It's a case-by-case evaluation.

I didn't think you were being rude. Regarding literal immortality, I take it much much further than that to some very dark places. If you and I are immortal, for *giggles* you could cut my head off, no harm done. Now I can be in two places at once, literally. Maybe slice my head in half? Then I can see two places at once. Cool, right? Or is it gruesome? Maybe I would feel it, maybe not, I don't know. We haven't established that yet. If we are both immortal, what is stopping you from repeatedly always and forever inflicting harm on my body? I'm not going to die. You wouldn't need to sleep, you wouldn't need to eat. You could kick me in the rear, forever and ever never stopping. That would be infinitely annoying. Blowing myself up? Who cares? Hoard all the food and resources for myself? Sure? What's the harm? Literal immortality would produce a very very strangle place to live. I see. I haven't read any of these novels. So, as long as the cultivator continues to advance, they are immortal? The advancement is sustaining them? Is there an "end"? In the novels, are there evil-cultivators and good-cultivators? Heros and villians? It's just a theoretical idea. Is it proper to assume that immortality/longevity is produced from "goodness"? Again, I'm probing the assumptions. Here are the two comments together: If you look at the first quote above, notice the words I underlined. I think it is fair to consider both of these as positive. It is "good" to be "wise", and it is "good" to have "self-understanding". If so, then, the one who has extremely long life is assumed to be "good", right? But, I think, that is an assumption that needs to be assessed. It could be that their longevity was acheived through vampirism (consuming other humans while they are alive), which is, making a deal with the devil, for lack of better words. Vampirism does not require wisdom, nor self-understanding, just a capability to over-ride any empathy for the other whom is considered "food".

This is what I see on the last page of this thread:

You didn't distinguish at all. Thats the point. You aren't being honest. And here is confirmation. Flip-flop, flip-flop. "I distinguish, but I don't distinguish, I distinguish, but I don't" This is why I put you in ignore. You just can't seem to be consistent. And you'll say anything. Bye Nungali. I'm flushing your posts back into the ignore bin. If you cannot be trusted to be honest, to be consistent. Reading your posts is like listening to a drunk delusional politician.

What does 'what' have to do with anything? It seems as if there is an assumption being made that death is bad and immortality is good. I don't think this should be assumed, I think it should be analyzed, don't you? OK. But we're not really talking about immortality? Just longevity? That is what I am trying to do. I think that a fun debate is where the topic is considered deeply from different perspectives.

The first question that I think needs to be answered is: What is death? Followed by: Is death bad? Perhaps a better question would be: What if the solution to suffering were that everyone cultivate these things? And that leads to a discussion of Buddhism and the other cultivation paths which render suffering inert. Almost anyone considers suffering "bad" on a superficial basis, so that helps to skip a step. In order to evaluate any of these, and anything, to be honest, is analysis of risk vs. reward. What are the benefits vs. liabilities? How does it help vs. how does it harm? Or put simply: "Sounds good Doc, but what are the side-effects?"

Or... they made a deal wiith the devil ( figuratively ).

I would not teach it. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I would expect the same with immortality.

But we can't discuss or debate it here. Maybe without revealing anything, is there a way to connect it, the story, to the topic of the thread a little more closely, from your point of view?

This is a good example: Here is Nungali claiming to have spent years studying Kabbalah. But just a little bit ago, he's telling me he made a distinction? That he was a Hermetic Qabbalist. Nope. And if one knows actual Kabbalah, he's wrong about using "mercy" below. That's W-R-O-N-G. It comes from not knowing what the concepts actually mean how they operate. The balance and symmetry which is all erased by Qabbalah. One can tell if they look at how they put together a tree-of-life. Total mess.

Doing a quick search: Nungali has used the word "Qabbalah" on the site 7 times. In one of those he refers to Jewish Qabbalah, which doesn't exist. The most recent was indeed recent, Oct 3. BUT! I had nungali on ignore. So, naturally I wouldn't see that. And what he posted was false about the so-called Jewish Qabbalah even if he got the spelling correct, he was W-R-O-N-G about it. Before that, 2019. For Qabalah spelled with one b, 14 times. 2019 is the most recent. Kabbalah? Nungali posted about it 52 times. So, it appears that the fraud continues... There is not a cleear distinction. And the preference is to use the label Kabbalah even though its totally different than the borrowed/stolen/broken Qabbalah. And it's this Qabbalah which Mr Nungali is actually familiar with. Why would anyone use the name Qabbalah in the first place if they weren't trying to confuse and con people?

The reason I quoted myself was because I was misquoted and it was taken out of context. Yes, I am familiar that you are a Hermetic Qabbalist, and yes, I do not recall you making that distinction clear. You did try to correct me about Kabbalah in that thread with "K", so that does imply some sort of authority even though you are now admitting, you don't know it, don't practice it. No you do not make it clear you do not know Kabbalah, you do something else which borrowed/stole words from annother language that it doesn't know pretending that they're "magic". I think you should be clear and not pretend to know things that you do not know. But everyone pretends to know kabbalah. Not just you. Like I said, it's not a problem until you start to assert yourself as an authority where there is ONLY ONE way of looking at things using words that come from a different tradition than yours.

Nice story! I really liked it. I think for something like this, definitely reading it is preferred for me. But I can also understand the benefit of having it as a video, because there is very little possibility that the end is spoiled. And the end makes the story great. No spoilers. No skipping ahead. I feel very strongly that the author's intention should be respected. OK. But is it cyclical? I'm not so sure. But we also can't discuss it too deeply, or even at all without spoiling it, right?

Regarding the false claim that hermetic Qabalah was distinguished in the in the "tattoo" thread, searching the thread it self confirms that is not true. "Qabbalah" is mentioned 3 times. All by me. "Hermetic" is mentioned 1 time by me. It really is that simple to double check and see if what is being said is accurate or not.