You're the first one here at ET to pose this many, deeply probing questions. The statements I've made do raise a new set of questions that deserve to be answered. The best I can offer is consistency, which is, philosophically speaking, the closest proxy to honesty any man has to offer. So if you can spot any inconsistencies in reason or logic,, do point them out. Before mentioning anything about my background, let me try to answer from the beginning. Yes, omniscience is among the original conditions, which conditions are gifted as a birthright, so to speak. Let's grant, or accept, or presume, for discussion purposes that the Original Being has the ability to "create". I will abbreviate Original Being to O. And let's say O creates only once. I will explain why only once later. And let's say when O creates, O creates only equal Beings, or if just once, one equal Being. Ok, suppose O is unlimited. I can't use a term denoting gender because gender is a limitation. Also, if what/whom O creates is also unlimited, I also can't use any gender designations. It is only for human consumption, for discussion purposes, that I would call one the "Father" and the other the "Son". I would prefer to avoid using these terms because this kinship is not like the kinship of human fathers and sons. Human fathers and sons may be similar, but they are by no means equal because they do not share all qualifies and conditions the same. Nor do they "own" the same amount of anything nor possess the same powers nor the same talents. So, the only time when "we were all created equal", as per the Declaration of Independence, was before time, in the land of eternity, in the normal course of divine life. People are pretty self-centered so the don't much speculate on what life was like, before time began. Man's favorite books only go back as far as time begins, to "in the beginning", but no further. Let me suggest, then, that before the beginning of the concept of time (time is a faith based illusion) the Original Being created one equal Being. Let me suggest that O is perfect in every way. Let me suggest this is the reason O only created one Being like O in every way. Why would anyone need more than one, if the one is perfect? While asking that, we could also ask why would anyone need even one more in the first place? Let me suggest the reason for having/creating one more is to maintain and even to increase the joy of sharing. It's the expression of generosity, which is joyful to a perfect Being. More than one is not going to increase the joy more than is already enjoyed. What could increase joy, however, is for the created Being to have the same, equal capacity to pro-create, in kind. You see, there is a theoretical inequality between the Creator and the Created if the Created does not also have the capacity to Create. The "son", so-to-speak, is also potentially a "father", and is equal when having created...ONCE. As you might guess, in order to maintain equality, and in order to maintain a constant increase in the joy of sharing, the line of succession is endless. Thus, there is not just a "trinity", but rather, an infinity. However, because of the perfection of the equality, no one is really counting. Oneness, among the parties, is so perfect that arguably there is only "One" . Or, at least, there is only one of this kind of Being. This being has no name, once again, due to the nature of perfect oneness. Names imply distinctions and/or differences. Arguably, this Being is extremely "humble", having none among them with an "ego" that tries to stand above anyone else, or even below anyone else, as of to be "special". In perfect oneness, no one is counting. For discussion purposes only, then, I would like to call this Being "Christ!", with an exclamation mark. The exclamation mark turns the term into an astonishment. This is to say that unless you are astonished by my description of this Being, then perhaps I am not using the right words. It would just be easier for me to say that the description of Christ! Is beyond words. Mankind simply cannot formulate the right words, or enough words to describe how astonished any of us would be to have a more direct experience of who or what this Being is, or how perfect this Being is. But I'm doing my best to stay consistent, and believe I have so far. This, I think is necessary before getting into any answers about any questions about the motives of the proverbial prodigal (wanderlust) "son", and to explain what mischief he has been up to since he invented the concept of "time". You kind of have to have a little grip on original conditions before you might grasp how those conditions have been "changed" by the wandering of the wanderlust son's mind. Total shareability is only possible in spirit space. The wanderlust son is going to invent material space which I will take the liberty to describe as reverse pantheism. To invent this, he will have to invent something new: a particle. And to govern the new thing he will invent new concepts such as particle physics. Just know that there is no such thing as a particle in spirit, as there are no separate "parts" of spirit which can be cleaned apart from any other. Let me suggest where the wanderlust son appears in this conceptual map. It is not the entire Christ! It is not the whole (rather infinite) line of succession. It is one of the Created Beings, which as said, is also by now, a Creator of one more Being. It is not its own Created Being either. It's just one, out of the whole line of succession, that has decided to be different for a day. In proposing a difference, it proposed to be special. In proposing to be special, the wanderlust son does not propose to be evil. This is not a rebellion. Indeed, this Being, this vital component in the unbroken line of succession of perfect Beings, knows nothing about "evil". Evil is a derogatory term to describe the painful end game where the logic of the wanderlust son eventually takes him. I'm using the gender term "son" to describe this wanderer, or this wandering mind, to emphasize that already, right from the start, this Being has artificially limited its own mind space in order to accommodate the sons fantasies. As I've asserted already, the Beings normal state is omniscience having total knowledge. Nor is this the kind of knowledge we accumulate. There was never a moment, since Creation, when any of the Beings in the line of succession lacked total knowledge. Rather it is given as a gift, at the moment it is needed, at the moment of "birth", so-called. Therefore, there has never been a moment of "learning" anything. What then does the Being know? It knows it's Self. This is because there isn't anything else to know! Because it Self comprises everything, knowing everything and knowing it's Self are the same thing! Christ! Is everything. Because everything (Christ!) is shared equally, each component in the unbroken line of succession may also claim to be everything, and to know everything, without any delay, without any process of "becoming", without any kind of "growing", without any "learning". To summarize, Christ! never changes. There is no need. Learning, growing, and becoming are essentially changes. The wanderlust son is going to propose to be special by adding more to his ownership of everything. The problem with this is, if his ownership of everything is maximal, how is it possible to add any more? Special status is not the end game, not even the beginning game. Nor is more even the end game. It begins as a question which may only be satisfied by curiosity. The question would be framed something like this: Who am I? As mentioned, the Being already knows who or what it is, knowing everything. Indeed, there is no such thing as a question as there is no such thing as learning. So already the "son" has implied that he may be subject to some kind of limitation, which he is definitely not. The question implies that there may be more to be, or to be had. Indeed, the idea that there may be more to be, or more to be had, is absurd in the land of Christ! You may even say it is some kind of joke. As such, the exploration of the implications of this joke are begun rather jovially. There is no ill intent. Nor is it theoretically wrong to have more, that is, to have the maximum of everything. However, while not exactly wrong, it can't be emphasized too much that it is ultimately not possible. And so, what becomes a long journey out into the unknown, begins with a single step, with a single question which implies some kind of answer. The world we think we live in, "now", is the answer to this question, albeit the wrong answer. Not just wrong, but impossible! The thought process which follows, does follow rather logically, one logic upon another, like steps. The main thought, implied in the question, is that there is more. Thinking begins. Thinking, like learning, is a foreign concept. It is very closely correlated with believing which is very closely correlated with with wishing which, when closely correlated with a mind with unlimited power, is closely associated with....drum roll please...seeing. Seeing is an alien concept in the land of Christ! which knows as it's method of observation...as it's sensory input, so-to-speak. So as you can see, the wanderlust son is just making shit up as he goes. But it is fairly logical, in a weird sort of way. Eyeballs are alien to Christ! Eyes don't see, or, at least the never see Christ! If they never see Christ!, then arguably we are all blind. The mind is what sees. More exactly, the mind of Christ! sees only itself, at all times, and nothing else. What else is there to see? The wanderlust son proposes there is more to see, more to know...if only one would seek after it. Seek! Seek some more! Don't stop seeking! There might be something more right around the next corner! Reach! Reach out and get it! Though now self limited, the mind of the wanderlust son is still very powerful, and when he thinks, he doesn't think with words, which themselves are very foreign to Christ! He thinks more with images which manifest out of concepts or principles (backed by a strange kind of logic). The ability to manifest is instantaneous, at least at first. As fast as he can think is as fast as his world manifests. By "world" I mean his new everything. By "everything" I mean his new self. This is essentially a makeover, like having plastic surgery, in order to add to, and hopefully improve ones original condition, or original stature. It is functionally "reverse pantheism" inasmuch as it is a makeover of the divine Self, which is achieved through a strange process of transformation, of addition, of subtraction, of reversal, but always through change. Most of us like what we see because we are personally invested in the changes that have been made. This is our own doing, made to our own specifications. We are loyal to the "god" which made it because we are still closely correlated with the maker, in a very twisted sort of way. We like to think we've been made, but deep down we sense that we are still the maker, still that wanderlust son, still stepping, still seeking more, and still reaching out to get more. Logically, we are seeking outside of ourselves, so-to-speak. This follows because we knew, originally, that everything that existed was found within our own Self, within Christ! Logically, if there is more to Christ!, more to be, more to be had, it must be found in the land of the unknown, outside of our Self. Our legs are for seeking (more) and our arms are for reaching (for more). As mentioned, the wanderlust son thinks with images. Our legs, then, are images. Likewise our arms are images. Hell, our entire humanity is an image, manufactured out of the imagination of the wanderlust son, which believes in what it sees! As the son believes, so do we. And why? Because what we see is secretly what we wish for. Arguably, we are the eyes and ears (and everything else) for the wanderlust son. As such, we are adding to the sons knowledge base through our experiences. Yes, it is thinking through us. As such it is exploring every possibility that there may be more. Thinking is akin to a decision process. A decision process implies there is something to be gained, if the right decision is made, and conversely, something to lose if the wrong decision is made. As such, thinking is a very alien concept in the land of Christ!, as there is ultimately nothing to lose. That is, Christ! is never in danger of losing. But the wanderlust son is, and so are we, it's proverbial offspring. The possibility of loss is yet another concept, made up by a seeking son, which is ultimately not possible for Christ! But you can see how losing is a strange way of gaining. At the very least, you gain special status by having either more, or less than the next thing (person, place, or thing). Together, we all have more than Christ! At least in theory. At least in a land of fantasies. I'll post this now so it doesn't get lost. There's more, obviously. And there are more questions that this new narrative evokes. I'll try to get to your specific questions next. I just thought this would be a necessary introduction to this new paradigm. Are you not entertained? To be continued...
That is an incredibly intriguing perspective, and it is fascinating to see how logically you construct your thoughts. The idea that time is an illusion, a creation of a mind that sought "more" when "more" was never truly possible, turns many assumptions upside down—not just about existence itself, but about the entire concept of searching. But the question I find myself grappling with is: Do I have to question all of this? Am I obligated to trace back the origins of being and time before humanity, simply because I lack the language to fully grasp the deepest mechanisms of reality? Just because our understanding of quantum mechanics, string theory, or particle physics is still evolving, does that mean we must embark on an endless search? Or is this not the exact same pattern you describe—the wandering mind seeking something outside itself that was never truly lost? The paradox is fascinating. The deeper one digs, the more it seems that the search itself is the illusion. If Christ! is all-knowing and complete, then why does the mind seek knowledge? If time is an illusion, then what is curiosity but the echo of a question that never needed to be asked? And while we are at it—wasn’t that the very tragedy of the wandering mind, the one that always wanted more, without realizing that in doing so, it only lost more? I can’t help but think of a certain scene: a gladiator staring at the crowd after a brutal battle, shouting, "Are you not entertained?" Maybe that was always the question. Maybe it was never about "What is real?", but rather "What am I actually searching for?"—and more importantly, when is enough, enough? I truly enjoy discussing these ideas, as they challenge perspectives and open up new ways of thinking about existence, knowledge, and the nature of searching itself. Edit: I could only watch the video after activating my VPN, which makes the whole Gladiator reference even more amusing—almost like an unintended test of perception. The realization clicking into place after the fact only reinforces the very pattern we’ve been discussing.
You really are patient! G is repeating the same things I heard in first year college. A couple of the students trying to sound impressive to the girls would pontificate like him. Of course those guys never got laid, they wanted action! Wow, G brought back memories of being talked at by the students who were high on schrooms or micro dosing LSD. Always monologues, no real interchange of ideas.
Ah, Trailerpark, it’s interesting how quickly you dismiss an entire line of thought by reducing it to “college talk” and “guys trying to impress girls.” Almost as if any discussion that goes beyond surface-level banter is automatically labeled as pretentious. Convenient, isn’t it? What’s even more amusing is the way you frame it—like thinking too much is some kind of flaw. But let’s be honest, this isn’t about my monologue, nor is it about whether the ideas hold value. It’s about your discomfort with engaging on a level that requires more than just casual one-liners. And instead of admitting that, you brush it off with a smug comparison, as if that alone proves your point. But let’s entertain that perspective for a second: If these ideas are so meaningless, why even respond? If it’s all just “guys who never got laid” energy, why bother engaging? Could it be that, deep down, there’s a part of you that recognizes the value in questioning things but it’s just easier to mock than to contribute? Anyway, no hard feelings. Not everyone enjoys real discussion. Some people just prefer to sit on the sidelines and throw out dismissive remarks, and that’s fine too.
No, I think you have not been here for over twenty years or engaged with him for decades. It was never a two way dialogue but enjoy yourself!
Ah, so now it’s about longevity—about how long someone has been around as if that alone determines the weight of their words. Funny how that works. I could entertain the idea that experience equals insight, but let’s be real: just because someone has been sitting in the same space for decades doesn’t mean they’ve been growing in it. Time spent somewhere isn’t the same as wisdom gained. And honestly, what does it even matter to you? I’m having a conversation, engaging with something I find interesting. If it’s not your thing, fine. But the fact that you felt the need to jump in and shut it down says more about you than it does about me. Because here’s the thing—I don’t need your validation to know that I’ve earned my place, not just here, but in the real world. You talk about time, but in just 20 years, I’ve built something tangible, worked with my hands, understood how things actually function beyond just theories and opinions. I’m not some lost kid playing intellectual games—I run a business, I’ve worked hard, and I know what it means to create, not just critique. So let’s not pretend this is about the conversation itself. This is about you being uncomfortable with the fact that someone younger doesn’t fit the box you want to put them in. Maybe the real question isn’t about how long I’ve been here—but why that even matters to you in the first place. So do not be a fucking geek.
Regarding questions. Or who is questioning and who isn't. Or what is a conversation? As best i can i'm having a conversation. I am engaging with or intend to engage with very specific comments or questions that are posed at me. What more can i do? Even if i did ask questions, i might be annoying to some, many or most. For example, Socrates used to ask questions to evoke conversations that were intended for the questioner to learn things. Or, if by letting people talk at length, they can eventually be caught out with some kind of inconsistency which reveals some cognitive dissonance, which perhaps Socrates could help clear up. They call it the Socratic Method. Though effective, it was annoying enough that most of the peoples of Athens decided he needed to off himself by drinking hemlock poison. That way, they could go back to the kinds of conversations they might have as sophomores (meaning: "wise fools") in school. I'm not good at the Socratic Method so i make more statements than people prefer. Damned if i do, and damned if i don't. I'm well aware that my many statements don't appeal to chicks. They certainly won't get me laid. So why even make statements? Because it feels good, to my mind. It feels like walking out into the sunshine from being held within a dark room. So its as much for me as it is for anybody else. Conversely, the only reason for anyone else to listen, or to engage, or ask questions is because it ought to make one's mind feel good, like being released from some kind of prison. I mean, where else are these kinds of ideas allowed to be vocalized in this world? Not very many. Definitely not in a mosque. ET is the last bastion of free speech in the world, if you don't count Elon Musk's recent purchase of Twitter/X. Admittedly, i don't have a lot of questions in this arena. I started inquiring earnestly around age 20 when i invited, and received, my first little seed of knowledge, so called. It was by far the most significant of the handful i've received since, countable on one hand over the next 42 years, making me 62 now, in time (time is an illusion). The details that i share have grown up around those seeds and have branched out and leaved out. I don't take credit for all the details that i share, i only take responsibility for how they must be consistent with the base premises. Reading a book is a lot like asking questions, if you feel you can trust the author enough to give them any attention. For example, i don't take credit for "knowing" the Dow Jones Industrial Average will reach at least 100,000 by the year 2050. A detail like that would generally come from an author that i would trust. "Knowing" it is in line with the possibilities of the kind of information + bits of knowledge that i do embrace. It is consistent. It is even expected from anyone who is really familiar with and practiced in the information that i share. I don't read very much anymore, in the last twelve years, since stumbling upon some information that satisfactorily answered a ton of questions that i had. I don't own a bible anymore but still remember more about it than the average Christian. Books that i do own and trust, even those i don't read much anymore. The time has come to practice. Preaching, as i do, is a kind of practice. It causes me to question what it is i think i know, to probe further, to clarify and to rectify my thoughts, in order to stay consistent. The joy of sharing is the motive, but it is just as much for me as it is for anyone else. I'm very aware that people generally don't have the appetite to digest any of this. I'm aware it can annoy people who don't have an appetite. I do observe this lack of thirst. It corroborates what i'm saying, and affirms it. The ideas i propose cannot coexist with the ideas that people are generally consuming. People will have an appetite for only one brand of ideas. They will not like mine if they wish to remain loyal to the motives of the "wanderlust son"...until they get weary of the lack of real calories in the things they choose to believe. Even i observe my own increase/decrease in my own appetite to consume these ideas. Even i can feel annoyed enough to just forget about it for a while and just concentrate on trying to get laid. In time (which is an illusion) it might take millions of years for weariness to cause the decisive change in thinking, which brings the wandering son's "universe" to an end. It lives by change, and it will die by change. Until the end comes (if time has a beginning it will also have an end), people will be released from the limitations of their beliefs in the same way that popcorn pops. The introduction of this kind of information is like adding heat to kernels of corn. Nothing happens for a while. Then one pops. Then wait a while longer and another pops. The wait in between pops gets shorter as the kernels start popping at a faster and faster rate, until reaching a crescendo, and then the rate of pops starts to decrease again. The last one to pop gets to turn off the lights as the "universe" is finally exited by all participants. At this point in time, kernels are just starting to pop off, at a rate of about one pop every two thousand years. If you wish, you could argue that Jesus was the first kernel pop off, to escape the limitations of his beliefs, and to return to a state of knowledge and the expanse of freedom that it offers. However, Jesus was standing on the shoulders of giants, so-to-speak. He had been collecting and embracing this kind of knowledge/information over several time-cycles (what we call "life cycles", or what some call "incarnations"). He would have been very familiar with, or even close friends with psychic pioneers like Lao Tzu or Sankara or Sidhartha ("Buddha"). He would have asked a lot of questions. At some point he would have stopped relying on his pioneer friends and associates and would have become the chief pioneer as he asked, and answered, his own questions. As a result of his practice, he is currently enjoying the fruits of his knowledge, experiencing Christ! as intended, as his Self, before the concept of time interfered with the experience of maximum, ever increasing joy. As stated, questioning is a foreign concept to the omniscient Christ! Questioning begins with the one question: Who am I? Questioning continues with each wrong answer. Questioning ends with the right answer: Christ! Jesus accepted the only answer that is right. He doesn't ask questions anymore. He stopped asking questions even before he appeared, for the last time, upon the Shakespearian stage that is this world. He returned, one last time, to answer a few questions that his friends might still have. He helped a lot of people, or at least their minds, to let go of limiting belief systems, and is pivotal, as is a link in an unbroken chain, which reaches down into the pits of hell, offering a lift out to any mind willing to grab hold and be lifted out. Each mind that grabs hold becomes itself a pivotal link. Arguably, each link is not more important than another. There cannot be any weak links, considering the amount of weight the chain must hold, considering how much hell holds on, and pulls in the opposite direction. I'm 'bout to pop off, returning to the theme of the popcorn kernels. But it still needs to get a little hotter for me, that is, for my persona. Its been a couple thousand years, so it might be my time. However, i have not turned one glass of water into wine...so far. That makes me a kind of rank amateur. Sadly, i predict i probably have yet another incarnation to pass through to reach the conclusion of the line of succession of the thousands of personas ive probably experienced over millions of years. I don't have much cognizance of those personas except to say that if i am typical, i will have been male about half the time, and female the other half of the time, rich 1% of the time, poor 30% of the time, and somewhere in the middle class the other times. I will have been most every race under the sun, and probably an adherent to half the religions known to man. So, i don't turn water into wine, i don't walk on water, and i don't bi-locate like the apostle Philip. That makes me a rank amateur, and i don't blame anybody if they don't want to listen or ask any questions. It is not my intention to appear special, which is understandably annoying. If people will listen, im saying our destiny is equality. We will indeed escape the concept of hierarchy, where everyone is special in his or her own way. Someday i will just stop preaching, and practice in a more effective, more direct method. I'll be gone, and the chance to ask any questions will have passed. Because i am a rank amateur, i do still have questions. But my questions will be more about; what is the most effective use of my time, or, what is the best way to put day to day events into perspective, or, what is the best way to meditate, or, how do i more effectively reduce pain and suffering to zero, or, what is the fastest way to arrive at the bliss of Christ!? We are all struggling with the Dunning-Kruger effect where we don't know what we don't know. It seems to take some time to work through that cognitive hellscape. I can really only ask these questions of personas who are currently turning water into wine, bi-locating, or telling me where the Dow Jones will be next week. I can only ask my questions of personas who are further along, along the way to embracing total knowledge. I can only ask minds which more completely have accepted their Self as Christ! There are very few books authored by anyone like this, so i don't read much anymore. I don't trust hardly anyone. I especially don't trust anyone who is appearing to be special, trying to maintain themselves somewhere in a holy hierarchy. I do believe, though, that my state of mind has enabled me to work a very small miracle in the markets, having discovered a relatively unique method to follow a trend until the trend is no longer a friend. So i find myself not asking too many more questions about the markets either. I am satisfied with the generally upward trending equity curves i see in the tests i have run. Similarly, i am satisfied with the generally upward trend of a rising consciousness and do believe my wealth will be maximal at the end of time. I'm satisfied that i can hasten the end of time, as i experience it, depending on how free i allow my mind to expand back to its original state.