Morality (a discussion)

Natures foundation is built on the 4 off electromagnetic force interactions and not atheistic science's half logic science nonsense which requires mythical forces to explain it.

So according to an alternative philosophy in which nature concurs, the morality BALANCED and UNITED formula is +/-=+/- and allows for a neutral that EXISTS.

Whereas the COMMON and presently embraced formula across all the sciences is that +=- and - =+ and does not allow for a neutral that EXISTS.This is precisely the reason why secular science and philosophy claims that a SELF doesn’t exist.

The second equation being divided and DUALISTIC and has been derived from JUST the out of the moment consciousness state whereby dualistic reasoning has been practiced, completely ignoring the in the moment consciousness state as if it doesn’t matter and is irrelevant in the whole scheme of things.

Neutral exists and has an opinion just like + and -.

You can’t cancel out neutrals in nature, all you can do is balance them.

They vibrate between each other like all other matter in the cosmos at the Marco/ Micro levels.

I would suggest that the philosophy behind nothing actually exists including SELF stems from a foundation philosophical logic that +=- and -=+.In other words everything cancels out.

I would suggest that if an individual has already decided that they don't exist and have never existed then it is impossible for that individual to have an opinion on anything. Therefore the issue we have with the +=- and -=+ claim is that the individual who is claiming it doesn't actually exist to claim it. The fact that the individual does claim it is proof enough that they do exist.

I would suggest that as this +=- and -=+ logic claims nothing actually exists, the assumption is that we can then start again and make up our own stuff.

I would suggest that the issue is that when it comes to morality and absolutes such as good and bad you cannot define either. Presently, the philosophical stance is that as good and bad cannot be defined then we need to GUESS that they are the same hence why we get the formula +=- and -=+

I would suggest that this logic has then been taken into science and applied.

An example of this is that the present scientific claim is that the + and - forces of a magnet are the same and therefore a + force = - force hence cancellation.

However, you can't balance a + magnetic force with a - magnetic force in nature because this interaction provides an attraction and not a repulsion. Similarly, you can't balance a - and - or + and + magnetic force in nature because these interactions provide repulsions and not attractions.

The only way to balance these forces of nature is to balance a + and - force with a + and - force which produces a vibratory balance.

So this suggests that you cannot cancel out these forces of nature. All you can do is balance them. So natures true formula would be +/-=+/- and not +=- and -=+

Really? You heard from Smiley? Or are you talking into thin air as usual?

But say hi for me if you did.

I’m not talking into thin air Leadfoot.

The claim that good is bad and bad is good (+ is - and - is +) is the foundation for modern day science and philosophy.

This claim is a based upon a GUESS and not sound science.The claim is that as good and bad cannot be determined then good and bad are the same.

That would be fine if nature agreed with this logic.It doesn’t and we have definitive proof that it doesn’t.

Before you can claim that equal but opposite forces like good and bad are the same you first need to be able to cancel out the equal but opposite electromagnetic forces in nature.As this is impossible then your claim about equal but opposite good and bad being the same is merely a possibility and nothing more.The fact that science is even stacked up against you because equal but opposite forces in nature vibratory balance rather than cancel. firmly places you on one side ONLY of two possibilities.You have divided or separated yourself from an alternative possibility therefore.

You mistake being dense for being deep. That is some of the thickest incomprehensibility I have ever seen outside of a schizophrenic's journal.

What is your occupation?

Bobsul,there is such a thing as balanced meditation you know.Inward only meditation is an unbalanced consciousness practice that concludes that SELF doesn’t exist. I did that type of meditation for years and it doesn’t work .Buddhism never invented inward only meditation.It just put its own label on it.
You need to practice inward/outward meditation to understand REAL science.Modern day science doesn’t understand consciousness remember.I’ve done my apprenticeship Bobsul. I understand consciousness.

You probably won’t believe me but I have the greatest respect for meditation techniques and I know that knowledge gained from unbalanced inward only meditation when applied to consciousness is not the way.I know this because I know that inward/outward meditation is the way because it respects and balances consciousness and the knowledge gained from this type of meditation technique makes perfect sense at the psychological level which is the only thing that matters at the end of the day.

Juspur 10. If only that meant something to anyone other than you.

There are many individuals who know what I mean Bobsul. It is obvious that there are a few that struggle on this forum though.The only way you will ever understand morality is if you first understand consciousness and how you relate to it as an individual.Individuals know what I mean when I say “bring yourself into the moment”.What is a bit of a challenge for them though is understanding the science behind why they can’t remain there.It is no coincidence at all that buddhism or INWARD ONLY meditation is modern day science’s religion.Modern day science doesn’t understand consciousness though.It’s their “hard problem”.Inward/Outward meditation has all the answers not inward only meditation.

You may understand what I mean when I say “bring yourself into the moment”.You may also be able to do this.What you won’t be able to do is remain there.I teach the science behind why not.

Morality is presently based upon an assumption that good is bad and bad is good good.This assumption came about because scientists believe that as neither can be defined then they must be the same.Science is therefore based upon a pure guess which isn’t reliable science.So that’s cleared that one up.

This guess was also based upon the two electromagnetic forces in nature cancelling out because again it was assumed and still is assumed that a + force of an electromagnetic = a -ve force of an electromagnetic.Hence +=- and -=+

However,scientifically,the electromagnetic forces in nature do not cancel out because it is impossible to cancel out the electromagnetic force interactions of two spinning electromagnets.Therefore,rather than just +=- and -=+ logic being at play in nature -=- and +=+ logic is also at play as well.So that has cleared that one up.

So what has happened is that initially science incorrectly wiped the slate clean when it came to the 2 electromagnetic forces of nature and started again with its own science.So that has cleared that one up.

If there is a scientist out there who can dispute the above I haven’t heard from them yet.

Juspur 9-1/2

Bushwa of the first order. I know a girl who balance a hammer on her head, doesn't make her a carpenter.

The thing is Bobsul,we know now that the single big bang theory is Bushwa of the first order and we know that it is impossible to cancel out the electromagnetic forces in nature, both of which were the guesses of a half logic failed science.There are few worried scientists out there now who have spent their lives pursuing a nonsense philosophical half logic science that nature doesn’t agree with.

The magnetism theory just gives and gives and then gives a bit more….lol…The gravity theory gives absolutely nothing at all because it was a non starter nonsense theory from the beginning.Tesla tried to tell them but they wouldn’t listen.

All of the sciences come down to whether the electromagnetic forces in nature cancel out.Einstein thought they did.Tesla knew they didn’t because he was way way ahead of Einstein scientifically.This is why he nonchalantly flicked Einsteins theories off his shoulder as being non starters.He was right to do so of course.Einstein wasn’t sure of himself scientifically. He was a mathematician for goodness sake and not a very good one it now turns out,which is why he referred to Tesla when asked what it was like to be the cleverest man in the world.Full logic science changes morality possibilities.

We had a dog called Carpenter.


He kept doing odd jobs around the house.

Jusfart10

I think you're more a believer of the big bong theory. Nothing you have to say means a thing. You yammer to hear yourself drone.