Understand is always visceral when it comes to hell. You immediately understand that you are in hell. You immediately understand you need to get out of it!
Word games don’t work in hell. Only word truths.
I had perfect selective pressure to develop word truths. It’s how I survived. I’m literally handing you linguistic and cognitive gold here and you’re attempting to play word games. Iambiguous, I know you’re terrified… but existence doesn’t humor denial well.
Sounds rather subjunctive to me. Though, admittedly, I’m not entirely sure how to define that. Call it, say, a hunch.
You know, once we define that. 
How do you define green to a blind person?
You’re again playing word games.
Hell is self explanatory. You’ve only been slightly scratched by hell in your life, so you get confident, arrogant even, with your brand of moral nihilism. It does come around eventually.
It reminds me of the Dalai Lamas practice of visualizing a rotting corpse when he has lust for someone… that practice will cause him to be a necrophiliac.
You see… people are generally stupid. But that’s what they were taught and that’s all they know. They think they’re doing the correct thing, and they become morally indignant when the tables are turned.
You are truly terrified of hell (as you should be!!!), so you are putting EVERYTHING in the basket of “truth doesn’t exist”… bad move iambiguous, bad move.
Oh well, he tried. 
You don’t know what you’re talking about. I do know what’s going to happen to you. Your fear of judgement isn’t going to work. You’re so afraid of judgement that you spend your whole trial where the bloody knife is still in your hands, denying that truth exists in hopes of being set free, actually, the way your mind works, you’re sure of it.
Let me be the first to tell you, existence doesn’t work that way.
Your laugh is your fear, not your conquest.
Well actually, there is no one hell there are seven of them.
So relatively. he’ll is really a matter of perspective.
Lower levels appear more hellish, while upper ones appear heavenly to lower ones.
In cat in this mode, heaven he’ll can exclude and negate each other.
In fact such negation calls for s synthetic, whereby, the emerging simulation appears, …
Such simulations added layers of objectivity, by detracting from their subjective apprehension.
So ultimately resulting in a recipricality between them.
One man’s heaven may transpose to anihers’ he’ll and viva versa.
Reduced to it’s ultimate level, heaven and he’ll con not be discerned, and no amount of fine tuned rhetoric can redefine a distinction.
The only way them, to find out the level that can be correctly appraised, is by indulging in the unreality of it, and become total S&M creatures, whereby their sources can invert a dynamic pleasure into pain, again, viva versa.
Ec says,
“Your laugh is your fear, not your conquest.”
That is almost exactly similar to the above.
However at this level , near total confusion prevents any possible move to any upper or lower level, since it appears as a zero sum, which clouds said reasonable assesment.
The signal toward the foreseeable objectivity bars any hope of simulating (or mirroring) any further progress, so the hope to further measure progress is hindered.
And does this not reflect current levels of justification?
Meno,
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Every possible being has a consent violation.
Here’s an easy hell:
Sent to a planet with only sand where it’s always sunny, and nobody else is there but you. You don’t need to eat or drink to survive there… and you just walk around there forever if you don’t repent your mind. That’s the easiest hell I can think of.
No possible being wants to be in that hell. Again, the easiest hell I can think of.
You folks really don’t get it; this entire cosmos is imagination.
Everyone (except myself) is trying as hard as they can to defend their memories in a zero sum consent violating world. Stop that!
I’m giving you the bigger picture here.
Unless, of course, it’s the other way around:
Okay, okay:
I know this is a consent violating world. I know anyone who defends it will be sent to hell.
Laugh. Right?
Better that…
…than this:
You know, philosophically.
Ok. Fine. You means that you want your consent violated.
Man you’re fucking cocky.
Of course there are 7 heavens as well, and every one should know about that.
Hell, I never consented to be born. So, who do I see about that?
No, seriously.
There’s only one heaven and an infinite number of hells.
Heaven is positive non zero sum realities attached to individual desire matrices for all beings.
Hell is anything else.
I knew you were the same person!!
Ahh… you think you’re smart.
Here’s the deal. The leading cause of death is birth. Disagree? It’s perfectly logical. But, the leading cause of life is also birth.
You see, it’s not black and white. Consent is something that doesn’t deal with birth, it happens much later in life — birth is neutral consent, not a consent violation.
Okay, let’s say this is true. How does it fit into your understanding of existence itself? Why this and not something else? Or, for that matter, why anything at all and not nothing?
How did consent itself come into existence? Or, for that matter, Hell?
Also, if you were really, really pressed and someone demanded that you demonstrate your answer beyond merely believing it is true “in your head”, how would you go about it? What would you do first? A proposed experiment perhaps? Or a personal experience you can relate?
I’m not mincing words with you here. Zero sum realities always violate consent. It’s the most “duh” thing in all of existence. To defend your marriage, your flings, your sex or even having a child here is an abomination. Your only escape is literally always regretting EVERY memory here, and definitely not having sex! (Sex being big stakes in a zero sum reproductive species!)
My heroes have never been gods as the “light kings”, my heroes have always been the evil beings. I figured out long ago that’s if there’s THEE “light being”, that this being is pure evil… this “perfect world” is darkness itself… and fuck that being!
But that’s exactly what you are doing: mincing words.
Why? Because your words are only connected to other words. They define and defend each other. You don’t connect them to any demonstrable proof that allows others to explore the extent to which they might be applicable to the actual lives that they live.
Your words are just farther out on the limb. Again, expressing things that to some here are little more than intellectual gibberish. And to others seem “idiotic”. Things that can’t possibly be demonstrated “in reality”.
But: it’s not like others can “prove” that you are wrong, right?
It’s all only in your head. Connected to whatever “condition” prompts you post the things you do.
And I think I almost mean that.
Probably, and the do say of 7th heaven