The Trinity of Being

a reply to: Kashai

"Is what their is subjective."

You shouldn't think of subject as being fictional but something that is relative to a subject, a person, or a concept, and the concept itself is relative to its will or energy that was conceived. All a soul is is a living concept (like a running measurement). A concept is a measure of will. A subject is a classification, or again, a concept of will, behavior, or energy (spirit).

So then, ultimately, subject depends on the will of a person or "the field of organized energy".

i.e. What we see is mostly determined by what we hope to see, our faith, our love, our own will, "our emotion" as we have conceptualized it, in relation to the newly added will, which we take in and go on to conceive as "inter-subject". Astrocyte is speaking spiritually but using psychological / scientific terminology: "affectivity-intentionality" should be split into "affectivity" and mean will or energy or spirit while "intentionality" is an image of conception (a quale). (Like my words being the image of my awareness and my awareness being my conception of my spirit. Intentionality has measure and image combined because what you see is the image of your measure: Yeshua is the image of Father, like 1+1 is the image of the measure of my will to measure out the numerical value of two things.)

Edit, in short: Something that is subject is subject to a concept and a concept is subject to its will.

a reply to: Bleeeeep


The point I made means that to me subjective experience are real perhaps from the sense of emotions fundamentally.

a reply to: Bleeeeep


In respect to the Science it is actually plausible that our minds can access information in relation to its wave state.

And as a result perceive and interact with reality from such a perspective.

a reply to: Kashai

Like how to feel about something is within the very thing you are experiencing? If so, I would agree with. I think fundamentally, that is exactly what things are and why so many lifeforms perceive things in the same way -- confusion only coming in when you have a mixture of spirits or will that you do not know how to rightly divide.

About the other post, I thought you made that weird sentence, "Is what their is subjective", to test the readers' own conception (in an attempt to say subjectivity is meaningless.)

So what did you mean by, "Is what their is subjective"? Can you rephrase that? That is a very weird sentence. "Their", meaning they own something?" Is what there is, subjective?" Is subjectivity all that there is?

a reply to: Bleeeeep

As in over their

To put it in another wave our wave states are as animated as we are but from the orientation of a wave state.

In so far as the soul I relate to consciousness from the perspective of the wave state able to transcend the separation of sets in the electron cloud in relation to multiverse theory.

In that sense each of us being akin to a facet in a diamond.

Then of course there would be the matter of the parallel universe's within each particular facet that apply due to interconnectedness.

a reply to: Kashai

I do not think the lowest state of information is quanta. I think the lowest state of information is in "the wave state" or in the Spirit. I do not believe in emergence - I think it is more like a hologram, or dna, or fractals, in that every piece contains all information of the whole, and that is why you can use energy to do anything that is possible: it all has the same order or source information within it; all things possible (the order of all things) preexists the creation of anything.

I mean, science says what? 4 fundamental forces exist, and they somehow create retro-causal order byway of quasi-forces? (Order from nothing, nowhere, chaos, or randomness back into itself?) Nah man, that is BS. There is only one spirit by which all other spirits get their will: by the Spirit of God (everything is already within him, and he is simply measuring it out.) You can't have some crazy retro-casual order out of chaos bs - it's madness.

Edit:
It's like saying the order for a car didn't exist until car parts were put together to make a car. That's "emergence" simplified.

What I'm saying is that unless the order already existed, it wouldn't have been possible to make a car in the first place. Hell, if the will and order for it didn't already exist, the first car maker would have never even seen it to begin with, because that is where he first saw it himself: in his spirit / his will. All this stuff is coming from the Spirit, as translated by Father, into the Body (the Son / Physicality).

Look what God says to Job:

Job 38:1-5
1 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

In my opinion, that says it all. It's not make it up as we go along - Father is measuring out the Spirit. That is how he can know us before the foundation of the Earth: it's because everything already existed. The reason it seems like there is new stuff is because we exist within infinity. If we were on the outside looking in, then it would look as static as 1, 1.1, 1.2, ... 2, because we would see that everything is already ordered.



What do you think my interpretation would be? Many worlds [until determined] theory? That's probably the closet science has, I guess. I would have to add in [until determined], though. Once determined, it "collapses".

As for your theory: maybe, idk. Idk where soul and spirit actually divide. Maybe a soul is a specific kind of spirit or force?

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Kashai
God is love
Jesus is Peace
The Holy Spirit is Happiness.

True Love exist in the presence of Happiness and Peace.

It also presents that emotions at some orientation (i.e. Heaven) take up space while what we consider normally objective,in such an orientation to reality?

Is what their is subjective.

Respectfully speaking. B.llocks!!

Your only kidding yourself. There is nothing respectful about you saying "B.llocks!!."
Merry Christmas

a reply to: Bleeeeep


Interesting quote.


Symmetry in relation to Chaos theory is apparent in Nature.

At issue is the degree that consciousness plays a role in respect to the fundamentals, with respect to the quanta.

Consider the idea that human like consciousness can orient to reality in the theoretical form of planks space-time where it factoring as relevant to nature to that degree beyond a borderline condition in relation to the present.

The retro-casual mechanistic expression does not take into consideration that with regards to the electro-chemical activity of the brain?

A direct translation could exist in relation to the human condition beyond introspection from the perspective of the wave state, as in particle-wave properties obviously inherent to matter.

See there is every reason to consider that consciousness is also relegated from the context of animated activity in the sense of not only its particle aspect. But also in some equivalent to the organisms wave state in consideration to how an organism functions in its particle state in direct translation to the wave state. Thus creating a human condition in which what we are capable of perceiving and interacting with in the context of the perspective of the particle is translatable to its equivalent wave state in perpetuity.

Naturally as in nature respectively.

a reply to: Kashai

You have to take care when listening to scientific theories because they use words that mean something else outside of their theories and scientific terminology.

Take the chaos of chaos theory, for example. By their definition, chaos isn't mere confusion - chaos is unknowable nonlinear order - it's order out of non-order. And no, they don't mean that they can't measure it because they do not have a means to do so - they mean that they measured it and it is literally some undefinable nonorder order. And it is the same with the random of random mutations (like in the theory evolution - those random mutations). They literally believe that some nonorder or chaos exists and caused order.

As for retro-casuality, it means that something in the future caused something in the past to change. They think that by determining one thing, it causes something that was already determined to be redetermined.

Even nature and natural: What is natural? What is nature? It means behavioral order, right? But they say, "don't you dare call it will", or "don't you dare say mutations fulfill needs or desires." And why? Because they want to deny the spirit - they do not want people believing in will - everything must be causality (cause and effect). And to explain it away (how causality cannot be the first cause), they want to have retro-causality so a nonlinear effects can come out of nowhere or chaos and be its own cause. It's a paradoxical attempt to deny God.


Symmetry? I don't know what symmetry is but I can tell you it's not chaos. I mean, maybe it's a spiritual body or a "field of organized energy" being measured out in parts, like how dna is divided and measured out? Doesn't that make more sense?

Not sure about retro-casual chemical reactions. I think probably what you're addressing is how I tried to explain above: that emotions and biological changes are themselves measures or conception - sort of first responder measurements of a subconscious mind, that take place before you're even consciously aware of them; even conception passed on from ancestors, as instincts. What are souls but living concepts? Did we not get our conception from our ancestors? From the moment we are conceived we are conception - living concepts in the likeness of Father. Tulpas in the mind of God. Are you asking how we might see the future? I think it's because we're translating our spirits and all the information is in there already to be seen, God willing.

But yeah, you have to watch those theories or they'll try to slip some crazy nonsense in without anyone noticing.

a reply to: Bleeeeep


We apply the mathematical relationships of Chaos theory to understanding the weather today.

Symmetry in everyday language refers to a sense of harmonious and beautiful proportion and balance. In mathematics, "symmetry" has a more precise definition, that an object is invariant to a transformation, such as reflection but including other transforms too. Although these two meanings of "symmetry" can sometimes be told apart, they are related, so they are here discussed together.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Kashai

Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focused on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect.[1] Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general.[2][3] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[4] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[5][6] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[7]

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

Chaotic behavior exists in many natural systems, such as weather and climate.[8][9] It also occurs spontaneously in some systems with artificial components, such as road traffic.[10] This behavior can be studied through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps. Chaos theory has applications in several disciplines, including meteorology, sociology, physics, environmental science, computer science, engineering, economics, biology, ecology, and philosophy.

source

Read just that over view very carefully. When you get to the actual heart of what chaos means, you'll accept what I said above.

Causality is cause and effect. Cause creates and effect that then becomes a cause to a subsequent effect and so and on...

So then where did the first cause come from? It can't be an effect that is it's own cause, that is a paradox. If cause and effect is real, the first cause had to have been the effect of something without cause. The only thing that meets that requirement is free will.

They want to deny that you have will. They want to hide it behind the guise of chaos.

How about this: How about "causality" is our ability to measure the will of spirits that constantly behave in the same manner. How about they have free will, and they just choose to do the same thing over and over like we all choose to follow the patterns set forth in our spirit? No? Are you not free to translate your spirit? Are you not free to determine your will?

You have to watch those guys, man. They would have you deny the Spirit.

Not really Chaos theory theoretically also relates to life in potential...the rest is just an interpretation that in relation to Materialism denies that point.

In potential Chaos theory alternative to materialist ideology offers that Consciousness creates its own effect that makes possible what we generally define as real.

Given the conclusion that Consciousness created reality the reason that we are capable of experiencing Love is because such an experience is inherent to creation and therefore fundamental to life.

When applicable to human like consciousness, in potential implied is a level of order that transcends biology as we currently understand it, relating to our accessing biology from the perspective of a wave state, actually.

Time for bed Bleeeep; looking forward to your next response.

originally posted by: Violater1

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Kashai
God is love
Jesus is Peace
The Holy Spirit is Happiness.

True Love exist in the presence of Happiness and Peace.

It also presents that emotions at some orientation (i.e. Heaven) take up space while what we consider normally objective,in such an orientation to reality?

Is what their is subjective.

Respectfully speaking. B.llocks!!

Your only kidding yourself. There is nothing respectful about you saying "B.llocks!!."
Merry Christmas

more B.llocks!

TRINITY = Master (Father) & Apprentice (Son) & Craft (Spirit)...

"Made In His Image" Means You Are Made In The Image Of The Flag Of Your Nationality...
To Have Dominion Over The Earth And The Skies And The Seas... Encompassed By The Spirit!
It Is Holy... War!

Try Not To Get Lost.... While On Your Travels For Truths!

a reply to: Pinocchio


"Honestly" Pinocchio?

Meditation and Contemplation provide rather interesting experiences beyond mankind's competitive tendencies.

Don't knock it till you try it.

a reply to: Kashai

I don't know, to me it looks like there are sort of sets and each set is within the other, like:
The Son is within Father and Father is within the Spirit AND the Spirit is within Father and Father is within the Son.

Father and the Son are both spirits within the Spirit.
The Son and the Spirit both have conception and so are within Father.
The Spirit and Father both have bodies and so are within the Son.

The Son is the body himself, Father and the Spirit get their body from the Son.
Father is conception himself, the Son and the Spirit get their conception from Father.
The Spirit is will himself, Father and the Son get their will from the Spirit.

They are one and inseperable.

Ephesians 1:
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Consciousness (Father) creates or images but it is after the counsel of his own will (his own purpose). His purpose is his will from the Spirit. He is not just doing whatever he wants - he is translating the truth of the Spirit (the body of the Spirit) as, or into, the Son's body (physicality / the body of conception).

Another thing I thiink but I am not sure about is:
The Spirit's body is what we call "fields", that much I think is right, but I am not sure which is which:

The Son's body is either what we call physical images (quanta) or he is mental images (qualia).

or

Father's body is either what we call physical images (quanta) or mental images (qualia).

See:

John 14:
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Probably the answer is that physicality (quanta) is qualia in the mind of God (within conception).


So, consciousness is a spirit in the spiritual and physical body (and maybe even in the conceptual body, like some people have made tulpas)?

Maybe our own consciousness are tulpas in the mind of God?

Long story short: I don't know man, it is harder to divide consciousness (soul) and images (body) than it is to divide spirit and soul.

The image is within the concept, like the whole of a idea is made up of words or forms, but each word also has its own concept.

Try to figure this out, if you can:
The image is within the concept, like the whole of a idea is made up of words or forms or images, but each word, form, or image is also a concept or has its own concept.

So which is first or who is within who? Seriously, try to answer that. Are concepts made of words or are words made of concepts? How do you even divide a concept from your will to conceive? Aren't these words the image of my will as I conceive it? My will is both my will to conceive and what I conceive.

How can we divide them?

Imagine you encounter an object that every time you try to describe it? It changes just enough to make your effort no longer consistent or otherwise obsolete to understanding it.

a reply to: Kashai

Because the will of the translator is partly what is being translated / measured.

But where did he get his will?

Just as I said above.


Think about it like the glass is half empty or glass is half full.

The half empty glass is half empty because the translator's will / spirit is pessimistic.
The half full glass is half full because the other translator's will / spirit is optimistic.

The will of the translator is what is being measured, but he, himself, got his will from the Spirit.


When you try to explain your thoughts you are measuring out your will, where it is your will to do so.

These words are the translation of my spirit, as I see them. They are first a reflection of my measurement, then my spirit.

Son leads to Father, who is the awareness of the Spirit.

My words lead to my awareness of my spirit.


Can you see what I'm saying?


Think about it like a calculator doesn't just tell you everything about itself, it tells you what you measure of it. Your will, whatever you will to measure (1+1, 1+348, 5x1, whatever) is going to be the answer you get. The Son (word / form) is the image of Father (translator / measure) and Father (translator) is the translator of the Spirit (will / forces).

Now transfer that understanding over to everything.

Your keyboard or input device is the image of someone's translation of their will to produce the image of their awareness of their will. when you look at your input device, you should see it is a translation of someone's will, as they measured it out.

So what is that keyboard the image of? It's the image of their will to produce something they can sell to you, right? That is what that keyboard is. It is the image of someone will to sell you something, a keyboard is how they imaged getting your money from you. lol

(That is what seeing spiritually is about. To see the will of something.)

And all things follow that same pattern. All things.

a reply to: Bleeeeep


A translator can only translate what he or she understands.


Hypothetically speaking you go back in time with a modern day automobile. How such an object could be interpreted would in all probability, be well outside its true function.