Triune or Nondual God 🤔

[Iwannaplato]

How can 'the son', in the trinity, not be including you human beings when the word 'son' is referring, directly, to a human being?

'is referring''? as if only one interpretation is being referred to, when there are so many different perspectives and referrings out there.

Well, and obviously, an interpretation has to 'fit in' with, and 'work' with, every other 'interpretation', otherwise if 'an interpretation' does not, then it would be and is a 'misinterpretation'.

I referred to referring. And other things, things other than what you said, are being referred to than your interpretation. Because others have meant something else and referred, for example, not to human beings with 'son' in that context.

And one wonders why this act of referring manage to leave out half the human beings, when words that did not were available and could have referred more clearly.

Why did you begin to assume, and then believe, that this referring, or this interpretation, left out the human beings?

I looked at the words and then, of course, the behavior of those using those words, back then, and often now.

The saying, 'the father, the son, and the holy ghost', just refers to the invisible 'Father', the visible 'son', and how they are linked together, as One, through and by the 'holy ghost'.

That's certainly an interpretation.

Is there another one that 'fits in' with everything else?

How does your interpretation fit in with 'everything else'? What does 'everything else' include? Is this taken literally? Does it fit in with all other interpretations?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ah but isn’t all of metaphysics already operating within a simulcra? Your boy N talks about how this happened in 'how the real world became a fable' I think it was called.

What N is tryna suggest in that quote by Saully outta the WTP is that this being the case - metaphysics as a blend of intellectual, emotional, and artistic forces in man that express themselves in that final product of 'religious' thinking - what must be more substantial for the existence of this process is not any single metaphysical theory but the impulse behind it, what is driving it. The WTP could be sufficient to describe this process reductively. It would describe not only mechanistic processes but also that impulse in man to seize, control, examine, and shape the world with his metaphysical thinking.

The human being, as a perceiving instrument, and as a being ensconced within mutability and perceptual uncertainty, will always and cannot do other than guess, or concoct pictures of all that is meant by “metaphysical reality”.

It seems to me that you make the mistake of assuming, and believing, that the interpretive apparatus, the act of interpretation, is what determines what is true. This fits with our modern outlook. But an alternative is the view, the supposition if you will, that metaphysical (or supernatural) truth exists independently of the perceiving instrument, and is filtered by that mutable being; or embellished; or dressed-up through all the influences you have named: the politics of power et cetera. Your Marxian lens seems to you to be absolute, however its predicates are all reductive choices and as such lack necessary flexibility.

You put everything in reverse. You say and really believe man invents metaphysics and supernaturalism, and deny a communicating deity foundational to the universe and to manifestation. But it could very well be quite the opposite, and the “failure” to be able to define a coherent metaphysical picture, the fault, as it were, of the perceiving instrument, driven as you point out by all those forces operating in the world of mutability where we are all located and in that sense trapped.

It seems to me that you (and many others) are also trapped within the limiting conceptual structure that you have cobbled together so convincingly. But really it is all of it Nietzschean rehash, isn’t it?

Consider Self-Lightening’s extensive posts in this light. The Construct corrals the perceiving man into a reductive, determined circle. All statements are reiterations of the core perceptual predicates. It then becomes an elaborate edifice or intellectual machinery that self-proves itself at every turn.

I am come to liberate us from these self-imposed restraints, and that is the purpose and object of The 11-Week Email Course!

Surrender the Hammer & Sickle that’s got you in a pickle!

[Self-Lightening]

The human being, as a perceiving instrument, and as a being ensconced within mutability and perceptual uncertainty, will always and cannot do other than guess, or concoct pictures of all that is meant by “metaphysical reality”.

It seems to me that you make the mistake of assuming, and believing, that the interpretive apparatus, the act of interpretation, is what determines what is true. This fits with our modern outlook. But an alternative is the view, the supposition if you will, that metaphysical (or supernatural) truth exists independently of the perceiving instrument, and is filtered by that mutable being; or embellished; or dressed-up through all the influences you have named: the politics of power et cetera.

The only thing any of us knows for sure is that the perceiving (or guessing, or concocting) instrument exists. The least far-fetched supposition, then—if "we" suppose there's anything beyond "ourselves" at all—, is that only such mutable beings exist. What we filter, or embellish, or dress up, then, is only our fellow mutable beings.

[Age]

How can 'the son', in the trinity, not be including you human beings when the word 'son' is referring, directly, to a human being?

'is referring''? as if only one interpretation is being referred to, when there are so many different perspectives and referrings out there.

Well, and obviously, an interpretation has to 'fit in' with, and 'work' with, every other 'interpretation', otherwise if 'an interpretation' does not, then it would be and is a 'misinterpretation'.

I referred to referring. And other things, things other than what you said, are being referred to than your interpretation. Because others have meant something else and referred, for example, not to human beings with 'son' in that context.

And one wonders why this act of referring manage to leave out half the human beings, when words that did not were available and could have referred more clearly.

Why did you begin to assume, and then believe, that this referring, or this interpretation, left out the human beings?

I looked at the words and then, of course, the behavior of those using those words, back then, and often now.

The saying, 'the father, the son, and the holy ghost', just refers to the invisible 'Father', the visible 'son', and how they are linked together, as One, through and by the 'holy ghost'.

That's certainly an interpretation.

Is there another one that 'fits in' with everything else?

How does your interpretation fit in with 'everything else'?

When the definitions, or 'the interpretations' if you like, of and for all words 'fit in together', perfectly, so that 'a crystal clear picture is painted of, and for, all-there-is', as some would say, then that is when one knows that 'the interpretation' that they have fits in with 'everything else'.

What does 'everything else' include?

Absolutely all other things.

Is this taken literally?

It can be.

Does it fit in with all other interpretations?

Maybe not in the sense of 'fitting in with', nor 'working with', all other interpretations, but once one has 'the interpretation', that is; the G.U.T.O.E, which could not be refuted, then they also have, and know, how and why absolutely all other interpretations came, and come, about. So, although it may not fit in 'with' all other interpretations, knowing which are the True, Right, Accurate, and Correct interpretation/s, exactly, is also known.

Imagine if that ability of yours that you have to challenge others on the 'very specifics', like you can do and are showing here, was always used for 'good', instead of being used, only sometimes, and what seems like only when you want to try to expose a 'fault' in or with 'the other'.

[Age]

Ah but isn’t all of metaphysics already operating within a simulcra? Your boy N talks about how this happened in 'how the real world became a fable' I think it was called.

What N is tryna suggest in that quote by Saully outta the WTP is that this being the case - metaphysics as a blend of intellectual, emotional, and artistic forces in man that express themselves in that final product of 'religious' thinking - what must be more substantial for the existence of this process is not any single metaphysical theory but the impulse behind it, what is driving it. The WTP could be sufficient to describe this process reductively. It would describe not only mechanistic processes but also that impulse in man to seize, control, examine, and shape the world with his metaphysical thinking.

The human being, as a perceiving instrument, and as a being ensconced within mutability and perceptual uncertainty, will always and cannot do other than guess, or concoct pictures of all that is meant by “metaphysical reality”.

Is this more than 'a guess'?

Also, what is even meant by 'metaphysical reality', exactly?

It seems to me that you make the mistake of assuming, and believing, that the interpretive apparatus, the act of interpretation, is what determines what is true.

So, if you are implying here that the 'act of interpretation' does not determine what is true, then what, exactly, does determine what is true, exactly?

This fits with our modern outlook.

When you say and write 'our modern outlook' in what 'period', exactly, are you talking about and referring to?

See, what was said and written, in the 'olden days' when this was being written, to 'us', quite a bit of it was very outdated, and thus not 'modern' at all.

But an alternative is the view, the supposition if you will,

In other words, just 'another guess', right?

that metaphysical (or supernatural) truth exists independently of the perceiving instrument, and is filtered by that mutable being; or embellished; or dressed-up through all the influences you have named: the politics of power et cetera.

Are you here suggesting that the word 'metaphysical' means or refers to 'that' what is not natural?

Your Marxian lens seems to you to be absolute, however its predicates are all reductive choices and as such lack necessary flexibility.

You put everything in reverse. You say and really believe man invents metaphysics and supernaturalism, and deny a communicating deity foundational to the universe and to manifestation. But it could very well be quite the opposite, and the “failure” to be able to define a coherent metaphysical picture, the fault, as it were, of the perceiving instrument, driven as you point out by all those forces operating in the world of mutability where we are all located and in that sense trapped.

It seems to me that you (and many others) are also trapped within the limiting conceptual structure that you have cobbled together so convincingly.

Could 'you', also, be trapped within the limiting conceptual structure?

Or, does this not apply to 'you'?

But really it is all of it Nietzschean rehash, isn’t it?

Consider Self-Lightening’s extensive posts in this light. The Construct corrals the perceiving man into a reductive, determined circle. All statements are reiterations of the core perceptual predicates. It then becomes an elaborate edifice or intellectual machinery that self-proves itself at every turn.

I am come to liberate us from these self-imposed restraints, and that is the purpose and object of The 11-Week Email Course!

Surrender the Hammer & Sickle that’s got you in a pickle!

[Age]

The human being, as a perceiving instrument, and as a being ensconced within mutability and perceptual uncertainty, will always and cannot do other than guess, or concoct pictures of all that is meant by “metaphysical reality”.

It seems to me that you make the mistake of assuming, and believing, that the interpretive apparatus, the act of interpretation, is what determines what is true. This fits with our modern outlook. But an alternative is the view, the supposition if you will, that metaphysical (or supernatural) truth exists independently of the perceiving instrument, and is filtered by that mutable being; or embellished; or dressed-up through all the influences you have named: the politics of power et cetera.

The only thing any of us knows for sure is that the perceiving (or guessing, or concocting) instrument exists.

When 'you' here say and write, 'any of us', are you meaning that there is more than 'one', for sure and absolutely, or just that 'the One' is perceiving, (guessing, or concocting), that there is more than just 'this One'?

The least far-fetched supposition, then—if "we" suppose there's anything beyond "ourselves" at all—, is that only such mutable beings exist.

When 'you' put an 's' at the of 'ourselve' was this intended to be plural because there is definitely more than 'one'? Or, did 'you' just use 'that word' out of habit?

Also, was an 's' put at the end of 'being' because there is, irrefutably, more than 'one'? Or, again, was this just done 'out of habit', for one reason anyway?

What we filter, or embellish, or dress up, then, is only our fellow mutable beings.

So, if the, absolutely, only thing that can be 'known', for sure, is that only 'the one', perceiving, (guessing, or concocting) instrument exists, then any perception of 'others' could just be a False and/or Wrong perception, (guess, or concoction), obviously.

So, if the 'only thing' that can be 'known', for sure, is that 'I', a perceiving, guessing, or concocting 'instrument' exists, then the actual irrefutable Truth is that absolutely any claim at all of or about 'others' could all well be just a/nother made up concoction and guess, which is providing a False and Wrong perception, to the One and only One, 'I'.

[Iwannaplato]

Imagine if that ability of yours that you have to challenge others on the 'very specifics', like you can do and are showing here, was always used for 'good', instead of being used, only sometimes, and what seems like only when you want to try to expose a 'fault' in or with 'the other'.

So, how should one deal with interpetation and perspectives that one considers less than optimal or worse?

[Age]

Imagine if that ability of yours that you have to challenge others on the 'very specifics', like you can do and are showing here, was always used for 'good', instead of being used, only sometimes, and what seems like only when you want to try to expose a 'fault' in or with 'the other'.

So, how should one deal with interpetation and perspectives that one considers less than optimal or worse?

I am not sure what the words 'less than optimal' nor 'worse', here, are in relation to, exactly.

Obviously, if 'an interpretation or perspective' is considered, and so-called, 'less than optimal', or 'worse', then how one 'would' deal with this is solely up to them.

How, exactly, do you deal with interpretations and perspectives that are so-called 'less than optimal', or 'worse'?

By the way, is there, really, any 'should', in Life, in how you people 'deal' with any or all thing/s?

you people are absolutely free to choose how to deal with absolutely any thing, in absolutely any way that you like.

To me, anyway, an interpretation, or a perspective, either just 'fits in with' what is actually True and/or Right, or it does not.

And, in what way you human beings 'choose' to 'deal' with what you consider to be so-called 'less than optimal', or 'worse', is absolutely totally understandable, considering, exactly, how and why you all 'choose' to 'deal' with absolutely every single thing that you all do is already, fully, understood, and known.

[Iwannaplato]

I am not sure what the words 'less than optimal' nor 'worse', here, are in relation to, exactly.

Obviously, if 'an interpretation or perspective' is considered, and so-called, 'less than optimal', or 'worse', then how one 'would' deal with this is solely up to them.

Sure, ok, but how do you deal with it when you meet a perspective or interpretation your consider false?

[Age]

I am not sure what the words 'less than optimal' nor 'worse', here, are in relation to, exactly.

Obviously, if 'an interpretation or perspective' is considered, and so-called, 'less than optimal', or 'worse', then how one 'would' deal with this is solely up to them.

Sure, ok, but how do you deal with it when you meet a perspective or interpretation your consider false?

I, already, know and understand, fully, why you human beings have and make False perspectives and interpretations, so there is absolutely nothing to 'deal with' here.

Also, already, knowing how to distinguish and differentiate between the False interpretations and perspectives from the True ones means not having any thing to 'deal with', anyway.

[Iwannaplato]

I already, know and understand, fully, why you human beings have and make False perspectives and interpretations, so there is absolutely nothing to 'deal with' here.

Also, already, knowing how to distinguish and differentiate between the False interpretations and perspectives from the True ones means not having any thing to 'deal with', anyway.

I asked you how you deal with it when you meet a perspective or interpretation you consider false. The first sentences above tells me that you know why people make false interpretations and perspectives. The second sentence says you, it seems, in those situations have nothing to deal with. OK. What do you do when someone posts something, that you respond to here, or in response to you, that you consider false? Do you point out that it is false? Do you ever ask clarifying questions about the false interpretation/perspective and if so, is there a goal in doing this? Do you ever present reasons why you label it false? Do you ever ask questions because the answers might help the other person see that there persective is false? Do you ever ask them to justify the perspective/interpretation and if so, do you have a goal when doing this?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The only thing any of us knows for sure is that the perceiving (or guessing, or concocting) instrument exists. The least far-fetched supposition, then—if "we" suppose there's anything beyond "ourselves" at all—, is that only such mutable beings exist. What we filter, or embellish, or dress up, then, is only our fellow mutable beings.

Can you explain further on what you mean by what I bolded? I don’t understand

[Alexis Jacobi]

Also, what is even meant by 'metaphysical reality', exactly?

A world of impulse or imperative that operates distinctly, contrarily often, to those “natural laws” we all perceive and agree on.

In man’s world, what is metaphysical is really what determines man. I do not think we fully grasp this.

So, if you are implying here that the 'act of interpretation' does not determine what is true, then what, exactly, does determine what is true, exactly?

Truth exists — has existed — and is independent of man’s manifestation.

And as you see I use the term imperative.

1.
a. A rule, principle, or need that requires or compels certain action.

Additional questions, Age, cost $199.00 each. I accept all major cards and PayPal.

[henry quirk]

I do not think we fully grasp this.

I think we do. Why else would so many -- individually and collectively -- run away?

[Self-Lightening]

When 'you' here say and write, 'any of us', are you meaning that there is more than 'one', for sure and absolutely, or just that 'the One' is perceiving, (guessing, or concocting), that there is more than just 'this One'?

The latter, yes. In my first and last sentences, I didn't use scare quotes, but in my central sentence I did, to make precisely this point.

The least far-fetched supposition, then—if "we" suppose there's anything beyond "ourselves" at all—, is that only such mutable beings exist.

When 'you' put an 's' at the of 'ourselve' was this intended to be plural because there is definitely more than 'one'? Or, did 'you' just use 'that word' out of habit?

Neither. "Ourselve" is not a word (nor is "ourself", for that matter). The word was already in scare quotes, and moreover, the very conditional clause in which I used it already strongly implied that there need not be anything beyond "ourselves".

Also, was an 's' put at the end of 'being' because there is, irrefutably, more than 'one'? Or, again, was this just done 'out of habit', for one reason anyway?

What we filter, or embellish, or dress up, then, is only our fellow mutable beings.

So, if the, absolutely, only thing that can be 'known', for sure, is that only 'the one', perceiving, (guessing, or concocting) instrument exists, then any perception of 'others' could just be a False and/or Wrong perception, (guess, or concoction), obviously.

So, if the 'only thing' that can be 'known', for sure, is that 'I', a perceiving, guessing, or concocting 'instrument' exists, then the actual irrefutable Truth is that absolutely any claim at all of or about 'others' could all well be just a/nother made up concoction and guess, which is providing a False and Wrong perception, to the One and only One, 'I'.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. And in fact, I don't even think the "instrument" needs to exist, but only the perceptions, guesses, or concoctions.