Thanks! u/Graphenium:
The worldview expressed in the Law of One/“Ra Material” and the Hidden Hand interview
https://www.wanttoknow.info/secret_societies/hidden_hand_081018
The way I see things, these two sources explain existence, the state of our world, and the meaning of life far more accurately than any other. One is a “channeled” work, and the other is a long series of Questions and Answers between a conspiracy forum (RiP ATS) and a self-proclaimed world-controller. I see them as complimentary, showing a deeper reality by showing two sides of the same coin. One side being that of Service-to-Others, and the other being Service-to-Self
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ASG9Vy4Tl/round-table-suggestion-thread/c
Thread will stay open for 3-4 weeks thanks to a very helpful suggestion.
Except, if you aren’t free to choose between “truth” and “untruth”, then “truth” just about ceases to have meaning. “Reality” becomes a static painting, forever unchanging. You become an automaton. Pretty certain God kickstarted existence as we know it precisely because of how pointless such stasis is.
Is it really a trap when they tell you it’s a trap? Isn’t that just a warning at that point?
Reality is living, not static... truth is something you can grow into, not just agree with. It is participation.
Imagine it this way... it is not a fork in the road. It is a well (infinite). Its depth and the descent is what makes it so interesting.
I guess not every trap hides itself. Some traps announce themselves...
Reality not being static is predicated on choice. If there are no choices being made, you are just an automaton following your (static) programming. Do you think chatGPT measures a statements “truth” before it presents an answer to a query you pose it? Of course not. For “truth” to exist, so must “untruth”. Growth is only possible in the face of death. If old things never died, new things would never grow.
What are your thoughts vis a vis the southpark clip? Do you disagree with the notion it expresses?
The infinite is not static, it is dynamic by definition. The infinite when discussed is usually treated like a finished object because we have finite minds. It is not.
Yes, but untruth simply doesn't exist... the answer or goal is ChatGPT hallucinating of sorts. The untruth only exists because the truth exists. It is a parasite to the truth. but the possibility of untruth can make alignment more meaningful.
I suppose the type of death matters... dying to self or ceasing to exist? Change, transformation can be a death of sorts and that encourages growth. Not annihilation say....
I'm sorry, I do not see the south park clip.
Edit: nevermind, I see the clip
Perhaps we might have different emergent interpretations: I see it as the stakes exist because Butters could avoid the pain, misinterpret it... fall in with the emo (goth?) kids. Experiencing sadness is meaningful because it is a choice to align. He has exited the distorted view.
"to feel the joy, I must feel the sad" shows the dynamic interplay of aligning with reality. Growth, joy, and even sadness are meaningful because they arise from conscious engagement with reality. Alignment provokes emotions, and the emotions themselves are relational to truth, not independent forces.
Edit: to clarify further and maybe this is where I deviate from the surface meaning of Butters line - Sadness and joy are not opposites or dualities... they are relational feedback from reality. Participating fully in life provokes both, and that participation is what makes alignment, growth, and free will meaningful.
Almost like it’s some type of catalyst for growth! And a pre-requisite for growth at that! (Note: someone had to break Butters’ heart to catalyze that growth he experienced). Just as every story needs an antagonist and every achievement requires struggle, I can’t imagine the world where we get all the benefits of “growth” with none of the negatives (e.g. sadness, heartbreak, death, etc.)
Think of the Garden - was existence before the fall more or less static than it is today? Was there more, or less, capacity for growth?
Honestly I agree with most of your takes in isolation, but at the same time I see them re-affirming the content of HH/LoO, while you clearly understand them as doing the opposite, which is interesting