Ethics Solved - Illumination - My Last Topic

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Ethics Solved - Illumination - My Last Topic

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:35 am

I'm going to educate you folks.

I've been reading the boards this last week, and decided to make one more post, to push you all through; to wake you up.

People always say that women are mysterious; well: decoding women is actually the decoding of life itself; here's the mystery revealed.

Males need to destroy wealth and not be hurt by destroying wealth to be seen as a viable mate for a female. He needs to actually give evidence of his fitness, a man who can destroy wealth but doesn't, is not seen as a fit male.

I'll give a couple quick examples: Obviously you all exist in some way, and so do I, so, if I say, "I don't exist", then I have worked to destroy this wealth we use to communicate. This is called self-refutation, contradiction, hypocrisy. A male requires this attribute to attract females to them sexually. All contradictions eventually solve as the base code "I don't exist". This is used to assert dominance, males are attracted to it because females are attracted to it. It is impossible to get sex with a female without doing this as a male. It's like someone who's so good at a game, they don't even bother playing it because it's boring, so nobody ever sees their skill; but that skill can be inferred in the same way all female peacocks can infer the largest male obviously has the biggest feathers, but if he refuses to spread them, he'll never get sex from a female. In our species, the only thing that facilitates sex with a female is hypocrisy from a male. This is not true in the reverse, females with no hypocrisy are practically given a free pass for sex with as many men as they want.

Here's what a man has to be in order for a female to have sex with him (first I'll explain the category and then I'll explain the hypocrisy - the destruction of wealth)

1.) Sexual Jealousy: This is a self refutation. Obviously you like that person, so you should not be surprised if others like them as well, yet, suddenly it becomes important when they like you, that all of a sudden, everyone else on earth should no longer like that person the way that you do; thus leading you to hate yourself for liking them. To hoard yourself to only one person is to make the blanket statement that nobody else on earth can possibly be worthy of experiencing your affection in this way, effectively expressing less, not more love in the world, and contradicting your statement that you represent true love.

2.) Marriage: Everyone on earth knows that relationship is basic, and that people are just going to do what they're going to do, regardless of any ceremony. To this regard, ceremony is always a lie; it suggests that ceremony is what makes relationship, when actually, it is the exact opposite. Females look for the sexual jealousy and the proclivity to marry as primary sexual indicators in males, if a male does not carry these two traits with them, the female will refuse to have sex with him; because he is not destroying wealth.

3.) Breaking context when using blanket statements: There are blanket statements that can be made, such as; existence is a perpetual motion machine. We can prove this blanket statement by virtue of us being a subset of existence and existing - if existence ever stops being; by virtue of us being existents, we wouldn't be here. Since we are here, we necessarily conclude that existence is a perpetual motion machine. That's a context for using a blanket statement. Breaking that context is to be vicious, cruel, psychopathic - an example of this form is, "It's a nice day", "I'm feeling good." --- so what you're saying and trying to condition others to be, is that "You feel good when a child is starving to death on the streets of every major city in the world, and that the day is also good?" Actually, that's the textbook definition of a psychopath. Psychopaths are uncomfortable around people who diffuse their attempt to condition everyone to be psychopaths like they are; I always say, "I'm moving through the day" "How do you feel? How's your day?" "I'm moving through the day". The context where it is appropriate to celebrate a blanket statement like this is when every being in all of the cosmos, for all time, is in heaven, absent that; an assent to the positive nature of everything is a contradiction, and it's indicative of having stopped trying to do work in existence, and instead, becoming an abuser for all time.

4.) Games and Sports: This is simple. You cheer when someone loses or fails. If the goalie blocks, the kicker failed, if the kicker fails, the goalie blocks. To cheer for failure is to condition the mind and spirit to only appreciate success in the context of destruction (what attracts females to males), instead of success. A good example of this is the example of deserving. I once said that Donald Trump didn't deserve his sex, and a young woman off to the side of the room seemed aghast when I made this comment, and exclaimed, "that's just like a male pig, thinking someone could deserve sex, women aren't objects!" I knew there wasn't going to be this long discussion where I would explain to her that she will for the rest of her life refuse to have sex with men that treat her in any way as a subject, but I did want to make her think for a bit, and I said, "Men who rape women, don't deserve sex again, and even if you don't grant that, they certainly don't deserve their rape sex." She paused for a moment, and said, "I didn't think of it that way." and then trailed off into a few contradictions to which I just let lilt through the room without response. The reason I tell this story is because some men, to the extent that women do have sex, actually, do deserve sex more than other men. Now, let's assume that all the people in the world decided, "Yes, this man deserves to be with her more than any of us." That's fine, right? Well… imagine all those people suddenly think to themselves, "They obviously deserve it more than me, but… why can't I have deserved it more than they do right now?" And then a genie appears and grants the wish, and now everyone agrees the new person deserves her more than anyone else. And then all those people, again, think the same thing. "Why couldn't I be more deserving than them?" Ad Nauseum. They are only happy, when people lose. The thing that made them hate the person at the top, is now what they are.

5.) Approach Escalation: In a species where one gender is larger, faster, stronger as a whole than the other gender (I use this word instead of sex, because it was a brainwashing program that causes scientists to use the word for sexual intercourse as the same term for that which distinguishes male and female), then in all instances, when the stronger gender approaches, the weaker gender shows slight discomfort, relative to when the weaker gender approaches the stronger one; particularly in initial encounters. On initial encounters, females should always approach first for every step of an initial encounter, and refuse the male if he ever moves beyond reciprocation for the initial encounter. This implies any activity where the intent of the male is to present himself in a manner that is suggestive of seeking sex. To not be a hypocrite in this category is actually very advanced, and I won't explain it all here. The problem with approach escalation, is that it's the only thing females choose for sex. If a male doesn't approach escalate at some point, she will lose interest in him entirely. He is trying not to add aggression to the ritual, to elicit body discomfort on the micro scale, to force the global perception that women only have sex with what they complain about relative to men; basically, women only have sex with what they complain about; so if you do something women complain about, you're doing the right thing. Wrong. You're creating the problem of needing to destroy wealth and survive in order to signal to a female that you are more fit than the man who doesn't destroy wealth; wealth being female security; and eventually, species and offspring security. Every male on earth so far, has only had sex because of approach escalation; that contradiction is what is destroying the earth. A man can either destroy the earth, or never get sex from women; that is called the female blackmail system; it's more serious than just that issue alone; I'll return to it later.

6.) Temple, Rite of Passage; Symbols of allegiance to self contradictory statements: A temple is a representation of truth; and just like a ceremony is a lie of relationship, a temple is a lie to truth itself, which you either do or do not carry with you. All temples were just built so women would have sex with men. The basic form, is a community center. If all temples were leveled for community centers, there'd actually be more of what a temple professes to provide; which makes temples a contradiction to it's stated purpose. Besides, as they say, a god who wants to be worshipped, doesn't deserve worship, and a God worth worshipping, doesn't want to be worshipped. Flags are a good example of this; once a symbol stands for goodness, it's immediately the thing to convert. To be beholden to things like thrones, peace signs, flags, salutes, bows… it's to give corruption a tool to exploit; and thus, it is itself, already corruption.

7.) Humane Suicide: If a relationship is abusive, the person is convinced that being abusive is the only thing that keeps the relationship, or relationships in general, in tact. Have them imprisoned or leave them; that's the only way to find a better situation. Sometimes life itself in this world context is so abusive that instead of getting caught in the endless drama of the abuser here; one simply leaves the relationship and suicides. But absent ethical means to suicide; you can keep people here against their will; which is actually, the greatest objectification possible of human beings. Calling suicide a mental illness, and not your moral imperative to provide; treats people as trinkets for self esteem, deals with abandonment fears, and acts as a persons chosen character witness that they brag about to make them feel important. Those who provide humane suicide are a females worst enemy on earth; because the number one indicator of self worth for a female is a child. Having humane suicide also provides accountability to representing purpose to live - it's the literal answer to what is the purpose of life; anything that causes more people to choose to live when suicide is as easy and humane as possible; necessarily represents more purpose for life/living than if lots of people commit suicide under those same conditions. The lack of transparency, allows people to degenerate life without a metric with which to measure it, and makes them hypocrites.

8.) Asshole Through Omission: Not mentioning all of this before having sex with a female, only if she asks directly what you see as true, or makes a first move on you; you cannot approach escalate when you explain all of this; which is basically threading a needle; and assuming you can do this correctly without being a hypocrite (deserving sex), the odds that you'll get what you deserve, just because you deserve it are even more slim, and even if you do get it, the context in this type of world system is that it's still stratified wealth; and while more desirable, not ultimately desirable. As part of disclosure, you have to also point out the issue of number of partner stratification on the male side, and you have to state that evil is defined as when you have something someone else wants but doesn't have, or someone else has something you want but don't have. Hypocrisy is the absence of working to solve this problem in a meta sense.

If you follow these 8 steps, any female on earth will have sex with you. It's not a mystery, they are not mysterious. Destroy wealth, and don't get immediately hurt for doing it. That's the mating ritual of this species. Men destroy wealth, women reward them for it. It's a cold-hearted machine, psychopathic and certain.

In terms of heaven and hell. The male population rightfully observes that only hypo critical, projecting, psychopathic behavior gets sex from women. Women don't have this complaint about this behavior getting the most men, the most choice or even a single choice; it's not present in the female population. It's also not present in the homosexual population. Only the heterosexual male population is this true. This means, that in order for a male to not be a hypocrite, they are the only population on earth that is accountable to representing goodness itself in order to not go to hell for getting any resource. Females and gays have to be sent to heaven because of the female blackmail system; and the incidental phenomenon of gay men not having this occur as well. To get angry at a female for being the way they are; is hypocrisy. Even if they want to "be a man" and try to be good, if a man lets them go through a painful process of becoming a good person, he's held accountable for being an asshole who got a resource. Females did it to themselves, heterosexual men, to avoid hell, cannot abuse females; they also cannot be hypocrites (they have to build humane suicide for humans - which females see as abusive - that's the only exception) otherwise they'll go to hell for it and they cannot let females be hurt in the same way a parent cannot sit and watch a child poke an electrical outlet without intervening. Males have to do all the work before females can be allowed in the "room" so to speak; otherwise the male is sent to hell for it, females have placed men, forced them, into this condition. Men who say this doesn't exist, are being contradictory; and they will go to hell if the men still doing work, don't succeed.

The only way to completely translate wealth is to build modifiable behavioral signatures for all existents and import them into an infinite number of distinct universes occupied by only one sentient being each; made through a hyper task using everyones consciousness signatures as the raw material.

And, that's how not to be a hypocrite. Everything else, is wrong.
ILP Legend
Posts: 6750
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Ethics Solved - Illumination - My Last Topic

Postby Meno_ » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:09 am

Hello Ec. Incidentally, sorry you gave up the videos, I hope this is but a suspension due to burn out.

The above indicates, without particularization the impression women get to their own, (women's view of male nihilization).

I think You are right, women , in spite of a keen differentiation of their own power motives from Mankin, secretly wish to re-identify, to a more substantial, and simple tableau, where they most likely felt more themselves.

I think impressionability is working here, against male aspirations, only to re-cover, literally, the amount and quality of revelation: of body, soul and spirit. The explicit always desensethizes the palate, makes it less exiting, and less not more revealing.
Posts: 2371
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Ethics Solved - Illumination - My Last Topic

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:15 am

I'm amazed how much he looks like the late Manda:

I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 3471
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Ethics Solved - Illumination - My Last Topic

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:43 pm

The internet has been controlled for a very long time by the governments.

I want to clarify something…

The reason that there is a perception that only assholes get women is because of the intuition that a gender dimorphic species should never approach the weaker gender. You can say that this intuition is absurd, but it is supported by the most famous sex study ever conducted.

When men asked women as approaching strangers if they want to have sex with them right now, 0% of the women said yes.

When women asked men the same question, 75% of the men said yes.

We know from this that women are averse to approach in a sexual implicated manner relative to men.

The good guys are basically like "Raj's" on the big bang theory, assuming that women will approach the men for following the rules, and will continue if the male doesn't approach escalate at some point.

The reality is that this never happens, nor does it ever work.

What this has done, is made lots of stupid people, who think they are really smart, being internet trolls, that are trained in government programs. Every message board on the internet is controlled by these diminished capacity systems that are behaviorally enforced by female sexuality; it caused their cognition to be non-referential (the only act of aggression possible).

In order to solve problems of infinite heaven, a mind needs to be referential, because the solutions only can be solved by that which exists. All governments around the world are only there to destroy wealth; to gain wealth. I can easily prove this.
ILP Legend
Posts: 6750
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Ethics Solved - Illumination - My Last Topic

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:47 pm

I also want to add…

I'm not just in this world, I'm in lots of worlds… I am hundreds of billions of years old, and I have the power to send people to hell…

I will look at what you know, and I will make a determination from there… you must understand, people who use non-referential cognition, are always stating that they don't exist… I have ZERO accountability if I hell you.
ILP Legend
Posts: 6750
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Ethics Solved - Illumination - My Last Topic

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:17 pm

This is the problem I have to look at. I'm trying to send everyone to heaven. There are people who look at that and intentionally do evil, because they know I'm trying to help them. The government is doing this. What these fucking "geniuses" haven't figured out yet, is that the women get away with EVERYTHING! I know some of this is way too abstract for people who haven't had certain experiences… but I'm being straight with you, totally straight. The law of the cosmos is non-hypocrisy, not a being.
ILP Legend
Posts: 6750
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Ethics Solved - Illumination - My Last Topic

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:14 pm

To atone:

Stop all offending behavior in self
Stop others from doing it as well
Return and restore (at a minimum) that which was injuriously taken

This is the new message I sent to the evolutionary psychologists…

I must say, it's really hard work figuring this all out on ones own, while people just keep abusing you day after day after day...

I sent this to Pinker, Buss, Haselton, G. Miller, Nesse and Jane Roughgarden…

The first exchange is to Pinker, from a mistake I made accusing Buss of stealing…
His book was 2005. I sent those e-mails in 2011-2012. All I did was reread his wikipedia page, which said he just published on homicide, and is currently working on stalking.

Stalking is super-simple btw… it's the extreme form of the observation that only yes's occur after a sequence of no's. Rape is another instance of this. Practically speaking, homicide is only justifiable to prevent rape - it's the only sane reason to keep a military.

Think about it. What's the first thing that comes to your mind when you think of everyone in the US disarming themselves and destroying all their weapons? People will fly and sail over here to rape the women. I'm sensitive to the work of Nesse, because he's auspiciously attempting to utilize the findings of psychological research to decrease abuse "evolutionary medicine". I have some very advanced tools at my disposal now, and you folks have an encyclopedic knowledge of study intricacy. That's why I think it's imperative that we get together.

The next revolution of thought is to methodically begin mapping non-hypocrisy. Here is my final teaser, some of it is a repeat of my last two messages. I am extremely morally compelled to approach distinguished evolutionary psychologists and have a dialogue to translate all of my knowledge, something that wouldn't take very long; to move these ideas from the realm of "crazy".

I hope you read this in entirety and it elicits that type of exchange with you.

I hope this is enough for you to take my offer of translating all my knowledge to you seriously enough to compel dialogue. I edited and expanded, to hopefully pique your interest more.

I'm going to summarize my take on human mating, specifically for heterosexuals, and you can ponder it, hopefully :)
Displays of hypocrisy are what males use as a mating display in our species; specifically: destroying wealth and not being harmed for it.

All contradictions, when decompiled and decrypted, solve as, "I don't exist". Obviously, the wealth here, is what is required to communicate. "I don't exist" doesn't exist in any possible universe or cosmos! I call it, non-referential speech; it doesn't refer to anything. Non referential speech, or non-referential cognition is not used for communication, only social dominance; a violence, an aggression.

A more involved discussion, if you are so inclined, involves how lack of using this system, has never acquired a female mate for a male.

After my last bout with the internet, I can now say in a few short sentences, what took me 30 pages or so, and rethought and condensed hundreds of pages worth of ideas about this. I also figured out through logic, that publishing, news media and the internet has been controlled by trained government trolls, in a narrative control program since at least 2000. Everything is rethought now in terms of my person, and I've been exponentially detecting projection and hypocrisy and eradicating it. The parts of me that were super-advanced were co-existing with self-sabotoging elements that were mired in hypocrisy.

What I realized is that hypocrisy is the only thing that can be defined as bad, one obvious reason being that definitions require non-hypocrisy to even exist, so that we can communicate. Not all things can be proven with logic. The counting numbers have an inferential proof called the +1 algorithm. 1-2-3-4-5-6-7… etc… the inferential proof is that it is a complete set of all the counting numbers, but knowing that we cannot see them all, does not allow for logical proof, only the proof of "self-evident". Arguing against self-evident proofs is one way that people use social dominance to control information. In the same way that we use inferential proof to build upon other logical proofs, freedom and choice are themselves constricted by "boxes"; innate, that evolve towards choice in every dimension. A person who couldn't choose to be gay, can choose eventually, to be gay, at a minimum, as an example.

I'm definitely of the mind that there is a huge aspect of social selection, per Joan Roughgarden, concurrent with sexual selection, perhaps even subsuming it.

I want to break down the largest class of hypocrisy to start this off: Games and Sports.

In games and sports, there are winners and losers, with the exception of one type of game. There are many counter-arguments to this point; to address all of them simultaneously, the unification needs to be stated: If the game of being a game constructor (can include games played by ones self), and the competitors, are all infinitely good at the game; then the game is impossible to play. An example of this is soccer. If the goalie and the kicker are infinitely good and playing against each other, it is actually impossible in the cosmos for the kicker to kick the ball; because kicking the ball, when both players are infinitely good; forces one to not be infinitely good; which is false by definition; therefor, the universe doesn't allow it to occur; it forces a draw. It is actually impossible for the game to be played. From this, we can easily deduce that people are only cheering and exchanging social status for losing; someone failing to be better. Cheering and rewarding for failure and expecting a better result are contradictory to each other; people are positively re-enforcing losing to derive pleasure and even resource allocation; again, a contradiction to expecting a better result (the point of celebrating).

Asserting a point of any sort, is a matter of communication; a game to which someone wins or loses. If they win, they didn't contradict their purpose for stating something (it was communicated); and thus didn't contradict themselves; they didn't refute themselves; they didn't state, "I don't exist.". However, they did succeed at communicating, rather than losing, where others will lose, and this delves further into what does and doesn't constitute non-hypocrisy.

The only scenario where it is possible to play a game and not be contradictory, is if the game you're playing allows everyone to win, in a manner with which they all subjectively agree that they won in every metric of scale for determining winners and losers, not only of themselves, but also of others looking at them. For example; two sports teams may both agree that they won, even though someone had to lose, because they make millions of dollars, and have lots of sexual choice; but someone in the crowd may not think they both won! Maybe that someone placed a bet on the losing team to win! Maybe they dislike sports! The only game that is not contradictory to play, is to solve all subjective perspectives for winning, from both contestants and spectators alike.

Hopefully, this elicits a discussion - and as I make points, if it does, please challenge me, or ask for clarification. I want to offer my complete knowledge to someone distinguished in evolutionary psychology to move these ideas beyond the realm of "crazy", and it wouldn't take very long to translate this, I am quite certain this isn't being discussed in journals, and I have answers to tons of questions about this; not only is the idea that non-referential cognition display the male mating ritual not being discussed, I've also delved maturely into the subtlety of numerous questions that arise when this idea is presented; i.e formulas solved already. Everyone, of course is massively busy, so that makes it difficult to engage. I am morally compelled to share this knowledge and mainstream it. I felt that way earlier in my life, and that was a disaster! Oh well… now, the unification is different in almost every aspect, even the conclusions drawn from implications, when there was less information to remotely process it maturely.


You may be more open to this than perhaps any of the others I messaged, so I send it to you… it's the "angels" talking again Joan...

"All white people" (my list of who I sent this to)

That was the message. I have many theories for what this phenomenon is… but it was to make me think about that particularly.

What I know above anything, is that non-hypocrisy is a standard that no person, myself included is too good for, all people are equal under this mode of analyzing.

I also know that the only way to actually solve problems, or "the" problem is to orient to a 100% referential cognition. A non-referential cognition will not be able to abstract solution itself, in the broadest sense. That men use it for mating displays in our species, has made aspects of life very difficult for this endeavor.

I will explain pointedly, that what we call nice guys, good guys, are the males who abstract, "That's what I'd do if I wanted to intentionally abuse a woman, and the guys who do it are the only ones who women have sex with." That's the core male issue. When men speak up about it, women accuse them of being mean! So men have to step back and absorb all of this crap coming from the species, give themselves a level head, and do the work. The insults are by the second, the emotional and psychological abuse… they have to absorb it, and keep steadfastly working.

The End Game::

If I personally did the right thing, which was to build a machine that controlled all of this: I stopped all rape, verbal abuse, murder, homicide, war, assault, malnutrition, disease, poisoning, homelessness, starvation, torture, dehydration, and then set up humane suicide clinics globally, and additionally spoke up about the issue of approach escalation / conspicuous consumption and number of partner stratification; I would certainly be the most deserving person for sexual intimacy. Under this condition, there would be zero female suicides, and there would be mass male suicides; this would continue indefinitely. What people think solving heaven actually is, is a delusion, don't get me wrong, it's great! But ultimately, still garbage. I may even commit suicide because I can't get sex for this, imagine all the millions of guys who are also good people who didn't accomplish that. This is actually the core problem of the species. A man who devotes his entire life to working to actually deserve sex; is oppositionally defied by women as a heartless dickhead; it's a massive turn-off; as in 0%. Women can actually increase their choices with men by approaching them with sexual merit arguments; what turns women off, turns men on. Obviously, the whole point of subjectifying women is to follow all the rules of not abusing them meticulously; but the interpretation of refusing to use what good men would intentionally do to abuse women, is projected by women as a mass, as simply objectifying them. This degree of emotional and psychological abuse, will cause mass suicide in the heterosexual male population. The irony of being told "all you care about is sex", from such an entitled population, having sex only with those who are the actual dickheads, is not lost on men.

If you literally remove all the other problems, this is the last one that looms. Solve that problem, and you solve every problem in existence.

There is actually only one possible solution. You have to make an image of their behavioral and compositional signatures, that you modify, and run a hyper-task (performing an infinite number of functions in an instant); don't import their consciousness signatures (those can be abused) (these are not robots - they are not aware in any form whatsoever - they just ACT exactly) - and step into your own universe; you can even suppress your memory of building this universe if you think that will provide the best outcome for your experience; construct your own emotional and physiological response to stimulus. The sky is the limit here. You could hyper-task the entire cosmos; using everyone's amplified compositional signatures; to give them the best construction using their own minds - instead of dictating their construction for them. In this condition, all signatures can be retrieved, or constructed, without being able to abuse anyone.

List of behaviors that are self refutations that elicit sexual relationships from men with women;

Sexual Jealousy
Initial Implied Sexual Approach Escalation
Temples of any sort
Sports / Games
Conspicuous Consumption
Extraneous Drama
Rites and Ceremonies
Theory of mind contradictions (It's a great day! I feel great! It's hot today! Etc…)
Salutes, bows, peace signs (a being that's deserving of worship would detest being worshipped - you mean peace is a child starving to death in ever major city of the world?)
Using euphoric recall for ill-gotten gains
Contradictions - very popular in all media
Not advocating global humane suicide clinics (people as trinkets for self esteem, complete objects)
Not mentioning the issue of number of partner stratification or the above issues without violating the above issues.

^^^ That is what an asshole is, only assholes, in all of human history have engaged in "consensual" sexual activity with women - actually, it's just a very advanced form of what's considered "statutory rape" - this is all behavior of non-referential cognition display

Contact me for the proofs.
ILP Legend
Posts: 6750
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Ethics Solved - Illumination - My Last Topic

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Aug 27, 2017 10:41 pm

Well... I've moved further.

The energy that coalesces all of this and us will do anything to stop abuse.

When a child moves to place a paper clip into an electrical outlet, an adult observing, will walk over and take away the paper clip. Most children will cry with anguish because they don't understand.

That is most of you. When taken care of and placed into non-abuse, most of you will cry and flail, like that baby.

Mind is the most powerful thing in all existence.

I'm going "under the radar" so to speak, "dropping off the grid" a misnomer, because it's an infinitely larger grid.

I'm working the problems of location, property and people in non-abuse.

I live in a very coveted urban village ... if a billion people moved here, nobody would covet it...

How can you place an infinite number of people in paradise without ruining it?

How can an infinite number of people have the same sexual partner without ruining it?

I'm going now to a place of pure mind, energy and spirit.

All of you graces and jerks have been my precious teachers, and now, it is time to be the adult.

The biggest slight and cruelty you can do to any being, is to deprive them of a conscience
ILP Legend
Posts: 6750
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Ethics Solved - Illumination - My Last Topic

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Wed Aug 30, 2017 3:33 am

Ecmandu, I've said it before and I'll say it again, you don't know what you are talking about.

Mods, please dont ban me just because I dont agree with the resident 'guru'.
God is dead.
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
Posts: 8219
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Ethics Solved - Illumination - My Last Topic

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:46 pm

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:Ecmandu, I've said it before and I'll say it again, you don't know what you are talking about.

Mods, please dont ban me just because I dont agree with the resident 'guru'.

You're right, I didn't !!!

Let me explain illumination to you now....

I've always been "why didn't someone say this thousands of years ago? Why don't I have this or that, or this or that, why don't we have this or that?

The more you condemn the past, the abortions, the wars, the miseries, the joys... you wouldn't be.

You condemn yourself to the bowels of hatred .

Love is something I never saw before, and then, I actually saw it, as a veil lifted.

All my criticisms of others was about them being evil hypocrites, I was destroying life!!

They are merely handicapped, and vibrant in that.

The vision is now the great beautification.

It will be my parting and joining
ILP Legend
Posts: 6750
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Ethics Solved - Illumination - My Last Topic

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:41 pm

I'll explain some things...

Firstly, I was right about temples and prayer beads and idols etc...

But people who use them aren't evil, they are handicapped. These handicaps breathe life into us, the great "perfection" is death.

The beautification is simple, the highest concept....

Imagine two people doing a job, one person enjoys it so much, that it's not even work, the other is miserable.

The great beatification gives each of us our own world where people delight in delighting us, the reciprocation is that they delight in us delighting in them.

It is no longer marionettes, philosophic zombies or slaves or robots....

I had a vision of the great beatification, I saw thevastness of. Life's abilities ...

The equation solved.

The great beautification ... there is no other with which we are and to be with.
ILP Legend
Posts: 6750
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Declaration of Rights

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Sep 24, 2017 5:45 pm

Declaration of Rights

Just like two people can do the same job, say, gardening --- one person enjoys it so much that it's impossible to ever call it "work", the other person has a miserable time, but finishes, for them, it was work ... they both feel the same satisfaction at the end.

Each person has the right to be born in a world where everyone emanates from the great magnificent beatification !! A world where everyone is happy serving them, and they enrich others by getting to know and be happy, making those happy in what little way you can with your non abusive reciprocation, everyone gets good karma forever.

Anything absent this manifestation is proof that existence is inherently evil.

It is not the actual people being sent to you, but rather a beautification of them from the infinite plane of beautification; the real them is in their own world.

This is our right, this is love without error for all beings great and small
ILP Legend
Posts: 6750
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]