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.
6,000,000 words and none of them were “you’re right, my bad, I shouldn’t be such a disingenuous faggot.”
Oh well, maybe sometime in the next 5 years hey?
First, I don't use that word to mean your definition of "willful misinterpreter".
Second, it's very rare that I'm willful and disingenuous about my misinterpretation. The closest I come is when I say something like "if you really want me to believe what you're saying literally", to demonstrate the gap between what's said and what the person thinks he said. That did happen here. Also you didn't see the gap, so I failed that.
Now, I do admit mistakes, including greater ones than misguessing that a person was able to follow my argument. We two have indeed had conversations where I've said I was wrong to make a hasty judgment from a difficult parse. But this is not one of those times. But, since you don't see it, I'm not pressing it, because that's not the point of OP. I have edited the comment out of consideration, even though I believe it was not namecalling or violation.
I suppose I also deserve a little pushback for my trying to honor you by returning to your material and my seeking to be honest with you enough to get conversation going. So I won't complain about your side swipes. But we can return to collegiality anytime. The central issue I'm working today is whether you ever want to make a commitment to a worldview or whether you want to be free to promote anything based solely on gut emotion without reference to logic. Sometimes I work with you winsomely to suggest propositions, sometimes I work more antagonistically to narrow down propositions. But it seems like when it's time to come down on a core belief, Graphenium Usually Always Chickens Out.
If we were to explore "all is one" we might get so far as agreeing that all that exists is true creation and all that is false does not exist. Reality exists, thoughts exist, thoughts map reality truly or falsely. Thoughts that map truly harmonize the reality of the thought and the reality it refers to; thoughts that map falsely refer to no reality. So the thought that "evil is good" would be false, because evil as a construct can never be a real creation but only an absence or deficiency effect of a real creation. And I don't see Ra/HH saying anything differently from "evil is good", no matter how we slice it. So try a proposition for me.