I would say there is *not* a universal morality that one would benefit by both preaching and practice

I would say there is *not* a universal morality that one would benefit by both preaching and practice.
First, I do think it should stand that a person should benefit from their way of living - or else their way of living is illogical. We experience life through our individual bodies. Not through the bodies of all humans. Not through the bodies of all life on Earth.

In the most logical way of living, one would first and foremost seek to propagate their own happiness. Second, one would seek to cultivate power (to best ensure beneficial outcomes and happiness).

Capital is the most tangible form of known power, but humans are the biggest source of power in the known universe.

So - morally and logically (which should be one and the same) - one should seek mastery over other humans.

Other urls found in this thread:

desiringgod.org/articles/10-things-yahweh-means
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

To disspell some bullshit one may come up with regarding the above:
Seeking happiness wouldn't mean doing a bunch of heroin, for example. Heroin addiction would ultimately lead to a very unhappy outcome.

Seeking mastery over other people wouldn't mean doing so in a way that makes people hate you, as that ultimately wouldn't give you mastery over them.

Bump

Is this not good enough to get a reply?
OP pic is from a .gov site on a project the preceded MKULTRA

>one would benefit
>>one

there's your problem.

>morally and logically (which should be one and the same)

You're not using the term logically right. Nothing about logic implies that a person needs to benefit from a philosophy or moral system. Logic is a mathematical system of cause, effect, exclusion, inference, deduction, induction, etc. Logic requires a base set of axioms to function on. Here is some 'logic'.

Cats are bad
Bad things should be destroyed
Cats should be destroyed.

All people die
All people do not want to die
Therefore no one should be born, to avoid having to die.

These are logical expression, regardless of what you think of the morality or ridiculousness of the claims.

tldr: you're using the word logically wrong. Replace it with something else (probably morality or something like it).

I get what you're saying, but logic is kind of an aspect of experience. 'Logic' without experience would be more like laws of the universe. Logic is more the proper recognition and use of these laws.
We experience only from our own perspective. We are only ourselves.

I'm not talking about a treatise for the masses, I'm talking about the most logical way to live.

But, I've gone deep on this. Ultimately it does lead to an altruistic end. But the point is that it shouldn't have to. Altruism as a good thing shouldn't be taken for granted. I'm arguing the opposite - that altruism is irrelevant (at least at first).

Start from bare experience. 'There is nothing in goodness above pleasure and there is nothing in evil below pain' -- That's the logical next step.

From there, there's power - to best ensure pleasure. 'Love (pleasure) is the law, Love under Will'

That's a Crowley quote. I'm not a fucking occult autist, but I do recognize when scripture of any kind coincides with this kind of logic.

I'm up for talking about this kind of thing.
That is, the best way to live and I'll give religious allusions (first quote is from Jewish scripture Sefer Yetzirah). Ultimately I think religion should coincide with logic - or logical personal fulfillment.

I don't think a person can achieve power alone. Or at least, it wouldn't be very fun and it would be very hard. Even in business, venture funds like Y Combinator essentially have a rule of no solo founders for this reason.

I'm interested in light-hearted discussion of this kind of thing if anyone wants to talk about it.

>I get what you're saying, but logic is kind of an aspect of experience. 'Logic' without experience would be more like laws of the universe. Logic is more the proper recognition and use of these laws.

holy fucking shit, Logic is absolutely not experience. That's the whole point, it's pure rationality, deduced from within a brain. No empirical notions of perception are necessary.

Any attempt to deduce a system of morality from a system of logic is delusion. You're own subconscious values are already implicit in your so called 'purely logical' conclusion.

An aztec priest believes that if human sacrifices aren't offered to the sun, then it won't rise the next day. It is a logical if/then statement. It obviously flies in the face of whatever morality system you have beleive today, but it's still logical.

Your entire first post is a missuse of the term logical. Your mind knows that 'logic' has a certain weight and authority, and is trying rationalize your particular, contingent, moral system as being 'logical'. ANY moral system is of course logical. A progression of conclusions drawn from axioms.

>I do think it should stand that a person should benefit from their way of living

Why should a person benefit from the way they're living? That sounds an awful lot like an objective claim. You wouldn't be stupid enough to contradict yourself immediately after denying universal morality so I'm sure you have a good explanation.

If the sun would rise whether or not the aztec priest sacrificed a person, then sacrificing a person for that reason wouldn't be logical for the priest to do.

I'll agree that there are various things that are logical, even when they contradict eachother. The greatest good for the greatest amount of people is also logical. So is what I'm talking about. They're both logical even though they at least seemingly contradict eachother.

But what logic applies to you?
Do you experience the experience of everyone as a whole? No. You experience from your body and other people only matter insofar as they affect you.
If you only experience through yourself, then to put other people before yourself wouldn't be logical unless it was for an end-goal of your benefit.

My point is that the only thing immutable from you (your experience) is your experience itself.

Therefore, to wish anything but the overall-best for yourself wouldn't be logical.

This is the postulate I'm coming from and one I'm interested in building upon. Of course I came to it from unconscious bias - because it's innate to life - but if logic lead me somewhere else then that's what I'd be talking about. Instead it lead me to this.

You're free to directly refute it, and if you do so successfully then that's what I'll believe. Or your free to accept it, adjust your beliefs accordingly and we'll go from there.

Or, you're free to just ignore the thread. That might be a net loss for me, but if you have nothing meaningful to add then it wouldn't matter.

No, this morality definitely applies to everyone. But it would benefit the practitioner to practice selfishness while preaching the opposite to the masses.

Note that this is bare logic in a vacuum. In reality it would look a lot more like having a meaningful and mutually beneficial relationship with the masses.

I'm saying this isn't meant as a universal treatise.

To clarify: if a person were acting logically, then that person should benefit from their way of living. I talk about why in my last post (and kind of every post I've made ITT). Basically, if I am me and only me, then what is good for me is good for me and what is bad for me is bad for me. It's obviously in my best interest to do what's good for me.

This obviously changes when I'm talking about other people. In that case, I should benefit from another person's way of living.

And there's plenty of room for mutually beneficial cooperation. At least in a large amount of the outset.

>If the sun would rise whether or not the aztec priest sacrificed a person, then sacrificing a person for that reason wouldn't be logical for the priest to do.

To expand: the aztec priest sacrificing a person for the reason of getting the sun to rise wouldn't be logical if the sun would rise regardless. Though it may be overall-beneficial if doing so propagates the masses' reverence for that religion. It's still not logical if you're doing it for the wrong reason. And in order to be ultimately beneficial, one should do things that are both logical and beneficial. Because otherwise they could be missing a better way to meet their ends.

>If the sun would rise whether or not the aztec priest sacrificed a person, then sacrificing a person for that reason wouldn't be logical for the priest to do.

Logic doesn't care whether the human sacrifice is necessary. Logical is nothing but a formal mathematical system used for making arguments. The priest is acting within a logical framework.

ANY moral system will have a system of logical, formal arguments to justify it. This is why saying 'My system of morality is logical', is just plain stupid. It's a misunderstanding of what logic is, mathematical operations built on top of axioms.
>I'll agree that there are various things that are logical, even when they contradict eachother. The greatest good for the greatest amount of people is also logical. So is what I'm talking about. They're both logical even though they at least seemingly contradict eachother.

You seem to be grasping my point here. Logic will underlie any philosophical system. It's important to remember that logic is an invention, created around 300 BC by Aristotle.

Any attempt to derive a moral philosophy from logic misses it's point. A moral system must be logical, if it has internal contradictions derived from it's axioms, then we call the system illogical. But arguing that 'my system is logical' (like you argued multiple times in your op) is silly and redundant. Would anyone say 'my moral philosophy is illogical and you should follow it?" only silly contrarians and absurdists.

As to your system in particular
>Do you experience the experience of everyone as a whole? No. You experience from your body and other people only matter insofar as they affect you.
>If you only experience through yourself, then to put other people before yourself wouldn't be logical unless it was for an end-goal of your benefit.

This is but one logical option. Notions of altruism and lineage have their own logics. It might follow something like this

I will die
But I will have children who last beyond me
And they will have children (ad infinitum)
Therefore, I should do what is good for my children, as my death cannot be prevented.

>Therefore, to wish anything but the overall-best for yourself wouldn't be logical.
This is a childish and stupid misuse of the term logical. The Aztec priest is logical. The darwinian altruist obsessed with his children is logical. The Nihilist who believes life is suffering and must be ended is logical.

Logic doesn't take sides, it certainly won't only prove your philosophy.

You're on a good way OP.
Nevertheless, you're making some faults.

1, >Second, one would seek to cultivate power (to best ensure beneficial outcomes and happiness).
This is true. But the first step of gaining power is to gain power over yourself. That means, you need to gain freedom.

2, >one should seek mastery over other humans.
This is wrong because of 1,
Since everyone tries to gain power over him/herself (gain freedom) - the will to power of others over themselves is a hindrance. Therefore, if you try to gain power over others they will almost always fight back. To prevent that you have to suppress them even further. You are no longer free now, but are suppressed by your own will to power - you're forced to force others further on, which is a contradiction to 1,
>see Cicero: Tusculanae disputationes (and what he says about Damokles)

If a priest were to sacrifice a person for the sun to rise the next day, and in reality the sacrifice bares no effect on the sun rising - then that would mean the priest's logic is flawed; it's not logical.

>A moral system must be logical, if it has internal contradictions derived from it's axioms, then we call the system illogical
Do you agree that 'illogical' is the opposite of 'logical'?


Let's put this another way. Logic within a illogical context is net illogical; it's not logical.
The one immutable context from experience is experience itself. Therefore: [repeat of the same thing I've been saying in pretty much every post]

And, if there is no afterlife, nothing that happens when after I die inherently matters to my experience. Which is to say, it doesn't *logically* matter to me.

Obviously the real world isn't so zero sum, and passing on to your kids can be a mutually beneficial experience.

So just to repeat for emphasis: logic within an illogical context is not logical. The one context immutable to your experience is your experience itself. Therefore overall pleasure / happiness, when it lines with propagating your experience (power, influence) is logical.

That's logical morality.

I agree with the first point but the second is a strawman.

See: >Seeking mastery over other people wouldn't mean doing so in a way that makes people hate you, as that ultimately wouldn't give you mastery over them.

and

>it would benefit the practitioner to practice selfishness while preaching the opposite to the masses.

and

>it would look a lot more like having a meaningful and mutually beneficial relationship with the masses

So how do we best gain mastery over other people?
Read the pic in OP. That's potentially one way.

Overall, it would be best if they actually wanted to give their will over to you. A relationship between a CEO and his employees is an example of this. And, maybe in some cases, a benevolent autocrat and his people.

OT: You're using the word logic in a pretty crude sense, which makes me think you're kind of a self-tought philosopher. In an academical context the word "logic" has a stricter meaning. Therefore, you should maybe just listen to the other anons in this thread and don't defend a meaning of a word it simply doens't have (this will only lead to confusion). It doesn't matter if you use the word logical or instead just use "cosequent".

>If a priest were to sacrifice a person for the sun to rise the next day, and in reality the sacrifice bares no effect on the sun rising - then that would mean the priest's logic is flawed; it's not logical.

You need to keep in mind the distinction between Logic (rationality) and Experience (empiricism).

Something is only illogical if it's axioms (it's initial statements of truth) create contradictions. The Aztec Priest is acting under a system of logic. The only way you have to disprove him is to resort to empirical observation, You prevent him from sacrifice, show him the next morning that the sun still rises. To be clear though, you're aren't disproving his initial logical system, you're resorting to empirical observation (the opposite of rationality and logic).

>Do you agree that 'illogical' is the opposite of 'logical'?
No. The opposite of logic is empiricism. Illogic is something that occurs when a system of axioms create contradiction. You start with a set of assumptions, and if at the end you get a=not-a, then you have an illogical system.


>The one context immutable to your experience is your experience itself.

This is empiricism, not logic, and it has a whole host of critiques. Including the ability to misperceive through delusion, mistake, confusion, hallucination, brain injury, etc. Drop some acid. You'll learn just how mutable your personal expierence is. One time I forgot my name, identity, where I was, my friends names and I even forgot the fact I took acid.

>And, if there is no afterlife, nothing that happens when after I die inherently matters to my experience. Which is to say, it doesn't *logically* matter to me.

You should be able to see how these are subjective criteria. If you don't care about what happens after your expierence, that's on you. That's the axiom from which you draw logical conclusions. But no one else has to accept this axiom as a foundation form which to proceed to logical arguments. Anyone with religious notions of eternity (like the aztec priest), will not give a shit about their own personal experience. They start in a very different place (The Sun will not rise without blood) and proceed to logical conclusions (I must sacrifice humans on the pyramid).

I've never read a book on philosophy.
Let's look at a dictionary definition of logic:
>interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable
I see other, more egalitarian definitions, but I'm using this one.

And for logical:
> b : formally true or valid : analytic, deductive a logical statement

I know Sam Harris uses 'scientific morality' to get to a much different conclusion. I'm not going to use the word scientific, though it can definitely hold up to the scientific method.

You're letting yourself go off in the weeds. Let's at least try to keep in line with my ~logic, okay?

Truth within a false context, is net FALSE.
Experience led by confusion, mistake, hallucination, or brain injury would be FALSE.
And even when you forgot your name and identity, you were still experiencing right? Your experience is immutable from your experience - until that experience is shut off through either loss of consciousness (sleep) or death. I would argue that temporary loss of experience (sleep) still in effect holds with overall experience. What happens while you are sleeping still matters because you're going to wake up.

And the permanent loss of experience (death) is the worst thing for that experience. You must see how that objectively holds true?
When something is defined by its existing, loss of existence is completely antithetical.

It's not that I don't care what happens after my experience. It's that my experience ceases to have an ability to care after it's gone, and any ideations of things mattering to my experience after it's dead (given that there is no afterlife) do not coincide with this logic - and this logic is what I'm postulating to be the objective truth of consciousness. The one morality consequentially logical of experience. Experience is the only axiom I'm using. It's the only one that matters (to experience itself)

>I've never read a book on philosophy.
You should try some beginners introduction. You're terminology is a mess.
>And for logical:
>> b : formally true or valid : analytic, deductive a logical statement

Do you know what analyic and deductive means? Because when I say the Aztec priest is logical, I am saying his conclusions logically follow from an axiom. This analyic and deductive reasoning, to start with set of axioms and deduce logical conclusions from them.

>Truth within a false context, is net FALSE.
You will need to rely on more than logical, rational, analytic, deductive reasoning to decide that the context is false. You need empirical observation, to go out into the world find 'new facts', new axioms. When you add these new axioms to the Aztec priests' initial axioms, then you can arrive at illogical conclusions.
>It's not that I don't care what happens after my experience. It's that my experience ceases to have an ability to care after it's gone, and any ideations of things mattering to my experience after it's dead (given that there is no afterlife) do not coincide with this logic - and this logic is what I'm postulating to be the objective truth of consciousness. The one morality consequentially logical of experience. Experience is the only axiom I'm using. It's the only one that matters (to experience itself)

I'm not even trying to really debate your own personal philosophy here. It's not particularly original, and you'll find all sorts of related ideas within philosophical texts. Nietzsche, Lavey, Descartes, Machiavelli, Stirner, some other's I'm probably not thinking of.

But hold off on theorizing your philosophy until you've maybe read a few books and get a handle form the terminology. Your inability to argue your point without misusing a term like 'logical' is only going to make everyone else not take you seriously.

Take your initial statement. Watch what happens when I replace every instance of the word Logic with Good.

>I would say there is *not* a universal morality that one would benefit by both preaching and practice.
>First, I do think it should stand that a person should benefit from their way of living - or else their way of living is NOT GOOD. We experience life through our individual bodies. Not through the bodies of all humans. Not through the bodies of all life on Earth.
>In the most GOOD way of living, one would first and foremost seek to propagate their own happiness. Second, one would seek to cultivate power (to best ensure beneficial outcomes and happiness).
>Capital is the most tangible form of known power, but humans are the biggest source of power in the known universe.
>So - morally and IN GOODNESS (which should be one and the same) - one should seek mastery over other humans.

When you say something is logical, you mean it is good, or perhaps just, or it is the way things 'ought to be'. This isn't logic. Logic doesn't give a shit about the good or the evil. Logic doesn't care if you suffer and die or live and prosper. Logic wants to know that 1+1=2. It wants to know, if A, then B, if B then C, A is true, therefore C is true. Logic is a formal system or argumentation, that's it.

Philosophers never really do anything in life. I'm not sure acclimating the to language would do much for me, and it's hard to keep reading something when I find logic with flawed axioms.

>You will need to rely on more than logical, rational, analytic, deductive reasoning to decide that the context is false. You need empirical observation, to go out into the world find 'new facts', new axioms. When you add these new axioms to the Aztec priests' initial axioms, then you can arrive at illogical conclusions.
Are you fucking with me?

>Let's at least try to keep in line with my ~logic, okay?
>If the sun would rise whether or not the aztec priest sacrificed a person, then sacrificing a person for that reason wouldn't be logical for the priest to do

>if the sun would rise regardless
New axiom
>then sacrificing a person for that reason wouldn't be logical for the priest to do
The conclusion that it's illogical or

I used as foolproof language as possible and you missed the point because I didn't explicitly say "This is a new axiom"?

>But hold off on theorizing your philosophy until you've maybe read a few books and get a handle form the terminology
I came up with this when I was 17-18. I'm 25 now. Too late.

I'm saying EXPERIENCE + SINGLE PERSPECTIVE = PLEASURE IS THE POINT OF LIFE
and
PLEASURE IS THE POINT OF LIFE = POWER IS THE BEST WAY TO GET IT

I'm standing by the term logical, and I wish someone ITT could at least follow that logic.

And I'm also saying morality (good and evil) should follow (this) logic.

>Philosophers never really do anything in life. I'm not sure acclimating the to language would do much for me, and it's hard to keep reading something when I find logic with flawed axioms.

Well then why are you bothering explaining your philosophy to us? It's just a confused, poorly worded version of Satanic 'Might Makes Right', 'Do As Thou Wilt' type stuff or a Nietzschean 'Will to Power'. It's Hedonism and Egoism. Stirner explains it better.

I personally study philosophy not to prove myself right, but to understand the beliefs of others and get a grasp on the width of difference between those beliefs. If you want to understand that, you need to learn the terminology, or you'll get 'bogged down in the weeds' of definitions. If you use a word like 'Logically' in a manner which no one else uses it, then we can't really have a meaningful conversation and I'm forced to guess at whether I actually understand the way you mean other words.

Speaking of others words in your initial post, POWER. I really don't have a grasp on how you mean power, you provide two definitions (capital and humanity), which lead us in two really different directions.

Also, you're on a Literature board. If you don't want to discuss other books, other writers, and the commonly held definitions of philosophy, and you feel confident in writing it all off as useless, then what are you even doing on a literature board?

Power is an ability to affect change in the world. The 2 best ways to do that: have money or have people behind you.

Honestly I'm ITT hoping to find a like mind interested in the latter. Or someone interested in discussing it in a purely intellectual sense.

I've been learning about basically political shit (Grand Chessboard, Kissinger, talks on geopolitics) just a proxy to eventually meet people and talk about things I'm really interested in.

Anyway, I stand by the fact that I'm using deductive reasoning.

The defining characteristic of consciousness is the fact that its experiencing. Which is to say, its experience is the most important thing to that consciousness.

I think it's also a given that pleasure is literally the a 'pleasurable' experience. And pain is literally a 'painful'.

Therefore the point of consciousness is pleasure.

The only way to ensure maximal pleasure is maximal power.

Money is the most tangible form of power...
and so on.

This is deductive logic.

Your manipulation of the boards rule along with an inability to follow what I'm talking about seems representative of your non-arguments against my philosophical theory.

>Philosophical discussion can go on either Veeky Forums or /his
And notice I was originally quoting scripture, mentioned that I could allude to it more, and posted a picture of a piece of writing. This thread doesn't belong anywhere but lit.

>what are you even doing on a literature board?
And were did I say I don't read? lol.

>This is deductive logic.
Totally. From a set of axioms, you deduce a set of injunctions (oughts), a moral philosophy, a way of living.

My point about logic is to show that your moral philosophy isn't the only logically consistent one. Most morality is logically consisent. Occasionally you get systems that rely on fundamental paradoxes and contradictions and some spiritual, illogical sublimation of those paradoxes, but those are the exceptions.

If you want texts on the kind of philosophy you're outlining, the first two sections of the Satanic Bible by Lavey are all about pleasure and the self as a defining moral system. For instance in Satanism the most important holiday is one's own birthday. Do What Thou Wilt is the mantra, "When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him."

I would argue that Capital is the materialization of Power. If something can't be turned into capital, then it has no power. This has lots of different ethical implications, different philosophical avenues to pursue. Marxism holds this as true and sees it as monstrous. Accelerationism also keys in on this, and in the right accelerationist view point Capital is seen as a force beyond humanity, the next step in evolution that replaces humans.

Of course the Christians and Aztecs will disagree. They know God is the ultimate power. Any material possesions and arrangements you create are but temporary, prone to wiped out in a flood, an eclipse of the sun, a divine cataclysm. It by god's will that he allows you your pleasure and by his whim that he delivers you pain.

Darwinian positions will see Pain as more important than Pleasure. It is pain which makes us stronger, leads us away from danger. Pain and death are a selection process, like pulling weeds out of a garden. Without pain, without natural selection, a species grows incompetent and weak and then WHAM a sudden change in environment and it goes extinct. Capitalism needs pain in the exact same manner, in order the divide between strong and weak enterprises. Failure is a critical part of the system, without which everything would aim blindly unsure of what is good and what is bad.

I'm not using is-ought fallacy, and it's not just morality. I'm saying that this is the only way to live (in order to achieve a certain end), and I think that [this end] is the point of consciousness as we know it.

It A means B would allow A to attain C.
Would you agree that ^ is a logical algorithm? I could write it in code so I'm pretty sure it is one.

The end game of any moral philosophy that I know if is to attain happiness. Even Stoicism, and Buddhism to some degree both seek to maximize happiness by gaining the lowest possible tolerance for it. It's basically a given that happiness is the point of life. I think there's a reason that it's basically a biological imperative.

A = Consciousness
B = [This theory of Ego]
C = Ultimate Happiness

There's more to it but I've literally spent this entire thing on succeeding to prove that it's a theory based on deductive logic.

what if somebody were to synthesize a type of heroin that isn't addictive and causes no harm, and the thousandth hit is as good as the first??

>logic
Fuck off back to rekkit
I'm absolutely sick of this oldest of memes

>Capital is the most tangible form of known power

Money is only worth what people say it's worth. So the most tangible form of known power is others' submission.

If there were no adverse effects and it felt great then the choice of doing it or not is self explanatory


>but humans are the biggest source of power in the known universe.
This is literally in the same sentence. I wouldn't call the submission of others tangible.

I read a part of a random chapter in the Satanic bible and it didn't make me want to read more.
I've read more of the Christian Bible and I was raised Atheist.

Laveyan Satanism is probably a copy of Crowley and Nietzsche. Crowley seems to be a a mishmash of Jewish mysticism, Egyptian mythology and probably more.

Overall if God were omnipotent (which in the Abrahamic religions I don't think he fully is, though God would be) then everything is His will.
The Bible heavily implies that the Heavenly plane is essentially like the mental plane of at least the Earth (The Lord punishing Job in the form of raiders and fires) and the quote of (paraphrased:) what is true on Earth shall be so in Heaven.
This, to me, says God is essentially unconscious - the US constitution even refers to God as 'Nature's God' - which would mean that life is God's consciousness, humans being the head of life.

That would mean the mind of God is essentially crazy, full of competing consciousness'. This theory that I've outlined would seek to unite the consciousness of God

To expand on the Job thing, when the Lord punished Job it ended up coming in the form of mundane things like raiders - even though it was implied He'd punish Job directly.

On uniting humanity and becoming God (and to be a conduit for God is to be anointed), this is exactly what Saul did when he became anointed.
He spoke with God's words to a group of people, and they then moved 'as one Man'.

Jonathan, Saul's son, shows that one can make themselves anointed. Jonathan became anointed when he ran into battle against a group of men with only his squire.

God actually told Moses to tell the Israelites that he was sent by "I AM".
Yahweh is even apparently 'built from' the word for I AM.
desiringgod.org/articles/10-things-yahweh-means

I think this is telling.

I also found this movie interesting

>characters hint multiple times that it may really be Moses doing everything himself
>Moses and God in the film are both voiced by the same person (Val Kilmer)

Bump to stave 404

Notice the way the sun hits the statues. The shadow falls on the front of one and back of the other (both would have one cheek hitting the sun and one in shadow)

Notice the similarity to the Masonic Pillars. They're meant to lead to enlightenment (typically symbolized by a spiraling staircase behind the pillars). One has a globe on it and the other has 'the heavens'. Like the statues, they symbolize polar opposites. Man and God.

Like the Holy Grail - Sangraal. The Divinci Code talks about how Sangraal isn't a word, it's 2. Either San Graal (Holy Grail) or Sang Raal (Holy Blood).

Holy Grail - Something attainable by man
Holy Blood - Something assigned by an omnipotent God

The reality is that it's both. The act of finding the Grail gives you Holy Blood just like the act of running into battle annointed Jonathan.

This is true in scripture but it's also true in common sense. If everything is God's will, and you control everything then you are God. Heaven is the mental plane - what is true on earth shall be so in heaven - The Lord is whoever can claim "I Am".

>In the most logical way of living, one would first and foremost seek to propagate their own happiness

That's not how logic works

Bump

And that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying you only experience through your eyes, so your experience is all that innately matters to you. Logically, the experience of others only matter insofar as it affects you.

Anyone want to guess what the redacted words were?

For example: Of ****** descent could possible be (from the number of letters), German, French, Polish etc. But not Russian.

It's Korean and Chinese I'm pretty sure.
Of Korean decent, established in the Chinese government, perform an assasination attempt on someone in the Korean government.

In 1954 we had just gotten over the Korean War (in which we accused both the Chinese and Koreans of brainwashing) and this could've been a part of an operation to sow dissent between China and Korea. The 3 digit one might be USA.

I could be completely wrong.

I'm more curious what ARTICHOKE entails. In other documents they mention 'SI & H' (sleep induction and hypnosis)

Bump

Why did you waste a thread by offering us the standard theory of today. The only thing different between what you and most others in the West, is that they still believe they believe in a universal morality though all of their actions suggest they actually do not believe in one. In the East (non-Muslim) people simply don't give a shit.

Come back when you have an interesting perspective that takes some nuance to defend because this '''theory''' you've got hasn't led to the betterment of anyone or anything.

This post is almost incoherent and you clearly didn't read the thread.

If I didn't need to spend most of it restating things I've already posted then maybe it would be more clear. Your post and my reply are creating more clutter.

Are you too stupid to talk ideas? I'm not philosophizing just for the sake of it. This is not creative writing.

I'm saying that the one immutable and instrisic thing of a consciousness is it's own consciousness / for an existence, it's the fact that it exists.

Being that you only experience life through your own consciousness, other things only intrinsically matter insofar as they affect your consciousness.

Would you agree with that, yes or no?