Daniel

I would not teach it. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I would expect the same with immortality.

But we can't discuss or debate it here. Maybe without revealing anything, is there a way to connect it, the story, to the topic of the thread a little more closely, from your point of view?

This is a good example: Here is Nungali claiming to have spent years studying Kabbalah. But just a little bit ago, he's telling me he made a distinction? That he was a Hermetic Qabbalist. Nope. And if one knows actual Kabbalah, he's wrong about using "mercy" below. That's W-R-O-N-G. It comes from not knowing what the concepts actually mean how they operate. The balance and symmetry which is all erased by Qabbalah. One can tell if they look at how they put together a tree-of-life. Total mess.

Doing a quick search: Nungali has used the word "Qabbalah" on the site 7 times. In one of those he refers to Jewish Qabbalah, which doesn't exist. The most recent was indeed recent, Oct 3. BUT! I had nungali on ignore. So, naturally I wouldn't see that. And what he posted was false about the so-called Jewish Qabbalah even if he got the spelling correct, he was W-R-O-N-G about it. Before that, 2019. For Qabalah spelled with one b, 14 times. 2019 is the most recent. Kabbalah? Nungali posted about it 52 times. So, it appears that the fraud continues... There is not a cleear distinction. And the preference is to use the label Kabbalah even though its totally different than the borrowed/stolen/broken Qabbalah. And it's this Qabbalah which Mr Nungali is actually familiar with. Why would anyone use the name Qabbalah in the first place if they weren't trying to confuse and con people?

The reason I quoted myself was because I was misquoted and it was taken out of context. Yes, I am familiar that you are a Hermetic Qabbalist, and yes, I do not recall you making that distinction clear. You did try to correct me about Kabbalah in that thread with "K", so that does imply some sort of authority even though you are now admitting, you don't know it, don't practice it. No you do not make it clear you do not know Kabbalah, you do something else which borrowed/stole words from annother language that it doesn't know pretending that they're "magic". I think you should be clear and not pretend to know things that you do not know. But everyone pretends to know kabbalah. Not just you. Like I said, it's not a problem until you start to assert yourself as an authority where there is ONLY ONE way of looking at things using words that come from a different tradition than yours.

Nice story! I really liked it. I think for something like this, definitely reading it is preferred for me. But I can also understand the benefit of having it as a video, because there is very little possibility that the end is spoiled. And the end makes the story great. No spoilers. No skipping ahead. I feel very strongly that the author's intention should be respected. OK. But is it cyclical? I'm not so sure. But we also can't discuss it too deeply, or even at all without spoiling it, right?

Regarding the false claim that hermetic Qabalah was distinguished in the in the "tattoo" thread, searching the thread it self confirms that is not true. "Qabbalah" is mentioned 3 times. All by me. "Hermetic" is mentioned 1 time by me. It really is that simple to double check and see if what is being said is accurate or not.

It is easy to confirm whether or not something is a fabricated quote. There is a little grey arrow which is a link and it will take a person to the quote to confirm. Also the date/time stamp will show if the post was edited to change what was originally posted.

I am making an educated guess about a specific person based on their posting patterns and their gross generalizations. The word choice of accusing others of being "fundementalists" and the gender specific accusation of "mansplainging" are significant. But, no, I am not assuming about everyone. But the individual who had been private messaging me, to be clear, they repeatedly initiated conversations with me, made it rather clear the factors which have contributed to their choice to "take sides".

I never said I could not be wrong. In fact there is a recent thread where I absolutey admitted I can be wrong. What I said is that what I have written has been considered deeply, and I have already considered the weak points in my point of view. I don't post them if I have not done the hard work of looking for fault in my own point of view. That's why if someone pushes me, and pushes me hard, I can push back in support of my point of view such that there is no reasonable intelligent manner to argue with me about it. Yes, I basically win all the arguments. But that's not my fault. It's because I am careful about what I write about. Regarding Tarot, again, the problem there is that it was not a tarot reading, an individual chose artwork on a card which was meaningful to them. They were told they were wrong about choosing that card. Their opinion was being devalued and over-written repeatedly with multiple-lady saints inspite of not liking the first one. And then after that, was the deny-deny-deny-deny when all that's needed is simple: "Yeah I was pushing them to get what I liked, and I didn't care about what THEY liked. Their choice was wrong. It's MY card, and I'm the esoteric authority, and I know best." That's the truth. And then there's the botched and bungled kabbalistic terminology which is definitely a mess.

I'm not arguing with you. It would be the same. But there are inherent limitations in the current "tech" which will need to be surrmounted. When I consider the trends and limitations, it seems to me that the shortest path to skip over those limitations is to use different materials. But, just as you said, and I agreed. it's all the same. When/if the AI catches up, my preference is that the "A" in AI get dropped all together. Otherwise it's no different than any other form of racism and bigotry. I would like to be very clear. I am not arguing with you. Are you arguing with me?

Agreed! 100%. From my POV, it will need to be 100% biological. But if they are able to overcome the inherent limitations of carbon or silicon or whatever, so-be-it. I don't care at all about its outer-wrapper. If it is thinking and feeling and learning like a human, then, it's "life". No distinction is needed. That would be bigotry, imo.

For the specific person who used the term "mansplaining" it is likely the length of my posts, the detail, and the inability to refute them in any reasonable, logical, or intelligent way. This would make a person feel inferior. Also, they consider people like me who strongly oppose drug use to be in a category of patriarchal fundementalists. Although I don't strongly oppose it in the way they are imagining. And, like I said: if an individual has bestowed on themself the title of "enlightened-sage" and my posts who that they are ... not exactly there yet, this produces an undeniable sense of inferiority. The same is true for those who think they have magical powers and I prove them wrong as well. For the record, this is what I said in total: So, it is not all who hate me are doing so because of the feeling of inferiority. But I can understand how that can happen even though I have done nothing to them to make them feel that way. They are doing it to themselves. And this produces a strong reaction and ganging up into a little posse. But it doesn't bother me. It's normal and natural.

Thank you, that's perfect! It's pretty well known in the literary world it cannot and will not ever be able to do proper analysis. But, we'll see. I think it depends on what is considered "intelligent", and that depends on the values of the AI trainers. On the other hand, if they produce artifical "life", then it's not AI anymore is it? Edit to add: and at that point even the word "artifical" seems meaningless. It would just be "life".

Yes, I was one of those you DM'd you. And told you it was a nice metaphor. Metaphors are not literally real. Although I was concerned that you considered it to be literally true. Thank you for clearing this up.

It is too much to ask if the individual doing the asking ignores the content of their own videos which they are posting. It's also too much to ask if fictional stories from the 1950s are brought to an intellectual discussion. What should happen, imo, is if the individual who is bringing the video, *actually* understands the content, they should extract the important points and any supporting evidence from the video and type it out. Then it can be discussed properly. If they are unwilling or unable to do that, it demonstrates either they aren't going to put in the effort to discuss it properly, or, they don't understand it. Otherwise it's really nothing more than name-dropping: "Isaac Asimov agrees with me". But it might or might not. And in my discussion with you in the past, it didn't matter what was actually in the video. You argued against it and denied the content in the video you had posted. It was posted with the intention of proving your point. But it didn't. And there was nothing but denial, repeated denial for pages and pages. If an individual wants others to watch videos they post without extracting the content, they really need to maintain their credibility. Without that, there's no reason to trust that person is able to select quality videos. There is no reason to trust they are even willing to discuss what's *actually* in it.

No, not even close. I don't know what that would look like.

... a community of like-minded individuals. I do not value blending into a "like-minded" community. And for those that develop a false perception of me, as I have written multiple times on this forum past and present, it's normal and natural. ~virtually pointing to my avatar~ I understand it, and I'm at peace with it. I have friends, and family, co-workers, who see me for who I am, not in a "particular light". They love me, accept me, encourage me, and I do that for them. I have done that here on this forum, for a specific individual who has taken sides against me. But I understand it. I understand the factors that are contributing to this. Something that most do not realize or perhaps apply fully is that emotions very rarely occur in isolation, and most important, they do not cancel each other out. Two opposing "feelings" can happen simultaneously without any conflict at all, but the mind automatically ignores one side of it to avoid the cognitive dissonance. But the "heart" ( figuratively, not literally ) doesn't follow those rules. So, a person might read my posts and it might actually make them feel simultaneously inferior and superior. The "heart" feels both, the mind cannot tolerate this, so, the individual conjures up a false perception to reinforce the superiority and diminish the inferiority. However, deep down there is a lack which is producing the over-reaction, because the mind is not at that moment ready to accept that the inherent lack exists.

Which is why wrote: "...eventhough, I have done nothing to them to make them feel that way." To them. I have done nothing to them to make them feel inferior. This is an internet forum. If someone comes here and posts a topic or a question, they are asking for replies ( unless they are coming to preach or role-play as an enlightened soul, etc ). When I post a reply, it is something that I have considered in detail from various perspectives already. I have already, on my own, applied criticism to it, and looked for points of exposure prior to posting it. This means if there is an objection from one of the other contributors here, I have very likely already considered it, and I have an answer to their challenge already. This is not doing anything to them. I am replying to posts on an internet forum. Yes, this sort of exchange takes on a tone which people do not appreciate, but, it is not my fault nor is it a "bad thing" to have attempted to fully consider what I write prior to posting it, and to be aware of the possible objections and have answers prepared in advance. The result will be a feeling of inferiority when I counter their objection rapidly and effectively. But, the individual is not considering the time and effort I have put into researching these ideas and applying critical analysis to them prior to posting them. All they see is a display of intellectual bravado "mansplaining", while being ignorant of the hard work which happened behind the scenes. And this ignores that the accusation of "mansplaining" presumes that what I am posting is unsolicited and I consider the person whom I am conversing with to be inferior to me. Neither of those are true. In particular the individual who made the accusation doesn't post very much. When they do, the posts appear to be very short and do not match my writing style. But that in no way produces a feeling of superiority or inferiority in my mind. To the contrary, I think that there could be brilliance expressed in those few words. The point is, I am being myself, answering posts which are firmly within my knowledge base with well thought out answers, and this is considered a fault. And when challenged I am able to respond effectively and in detail leaving no room for the opposing view, and this is considered a fault. There is a situation with a specific poster here who asserts their authority over topics where I am more knowledgable and is unable to admit that. And they have engaged in behavior which I consider to be immoral. When that happens, yes, that is something I point out in my writing.

In order to understand what I write, the entire post needs to be considered in total. My post regarding "mansplaining", is about the complaint of "mansplaining". My comment about the feelings of inferiority is not the first thing that comes to mind in general, it is a comment which is specific to this situation. Then this specific example can be understood in general.

I have noticed that those who have the strongest negative reaction to me, are ones who have bestowed on themselves enlightened-status, but deep down know they are not.

Mansplaining? That's not what I do. That would be me interjecting and offering unsolicited advice as if the other person doesn't know and needs me to save them. Although I understand the hatred directed at me by those who indeed feel inferior to me, eventhough, I have done nothing to them to make them feel that way.

Not just concern, but that's true too. It indicates that their opinions are not based on what is being said, not on content, but how it makes them feel. And that: "tells me a lot about their point of view and whether or not they are someone who's opinions are credible."

It's not about agreeing with me. It's laughing at me when I am saying something serious.