₦airaland Forum

chieveboy:
For any book to pass as the Living word of God hence, it must be able to be questioned and it provides tailored and unique answers in real time back to the user.

It is the word of God regardless of subject in that all creation runs back to "...in the begining God said..."

Think of it as an oracle.

If so, all current LLMs (ChatGPT, Claude, Kimi, etc) are closer to being a truer and actual living word of God than the Bible and Koran.
They contain and can serve information on virtually all walks of life and counting.

They do not suffer the dead-end and closed-loop problem the religious books we referenced suffer that poses a great question whether God was done with working with mankind and having this speeches by God documented.

Dtruthspeaker:
All the spring offs of Sat... are showing themselves.

Which surgeon, mechanic, pilot etc did not become these things by learning how to deal with people and solve problems?

As the able truth speaker, I think you stand a better chance at identifying the pilots, surgeons, mechanics, etc who studied the Bible or the Koran and learned or qualified to be Pilots and so on.

For any book to pass as the Living word of God hence, it must be able to be questioned and it provides tailored and unique answers in real time back to the user.

It is the word of God regardless of subject in that all creation runs back to "...in the begining God said..."

Think of it as an oracle.

Dtruthspeaker, do you know why your comments are usually deleted? It carries too much negative vibration.

Usually by your fruits, we know you.

It is said that the things Christ did ( not touching on God himself), the whole books in the world would not contain it. This could be true, but only for that age.


If you consider that not so many books or paper where available at the time that statement was made, and Nvidia had not invented say the Blackwell chip, yes ; but today? I don't think so!

Heck we can even do it with chips that can fit a school bag and have more capability and capacity to store a hundred times more the whole books ever written!

So with static books compiled from sources or authors whose qualifications in matters of life oscillates around petty trading, agriculture, Jewish theology/mysticism, carpentry and other 'hand works', one would of course not have anything living in that static book in the actual sense of it.
Living involves motion. If the Bible and Koran was in video form, then you can say you have some degree of nearness to true 'Living Word'.

Also important is that the social, political, technological and scientific circumstances and gap today is so widely different that creations of people in modern times would be termed "flying horse" and "chariots of fire" as they did back then. Our technologies might be worshiped and deemed "Holy".

DeepSight:
What are you driving at.
Speak, I bid you, I conjure you.

lol getting there. Don't let that truth speaker guy catch you conjuring chieveboy. You risking Holygoes faya

lol, just kidding

Before we proceed further, we must come to make an effort at putting some flesh to the term "Living word of God" or just "Word of God".

If you want to make sense even in human terms, anything Living has one notable characteristic: It evolves, grows or changes.

Since God made everything, this characteristic is evident in all of its creation where nothing ever remains the same, and not the same thing is told everyone for ever and ever even as in the case of Moses, Adam, Jesus, Enoch, etc if we are to go with the two referenced/religions above.

So if an intelligent being we would call 'God' is to issue out a (living) word to a Moses today, they would definitely not go back to the the word issued 2,000 years ago. The message will cut through to present events and circumstances.

It will not be wildly unrelated and require the interesting but absurd Israelification and Arabification that must occur for the message to be made relevant at all cost.

A living word/God will meet you in your identity because it made provisions for you or it knows and acknowledges you in the present tense/state, not an after-thought copy-and-patch kind of setting.

One can be understanding with Christians and their Islamic counterparts when they make claims on the completeness of their scriptures on truth if one looks at it from a metaphorical or symbolic angle in the sense where if one says "God created everything" in a book, than that book contains all truth sort of. This is being generous while risking throwing the baby away with the bath water.

The issue however is our brothers in the two cliques above mostly are not raised to remove the hook, the line, and the sinkers any time they meet such statements. They swallow everything as is. Anything short of that may be perceived or declared as blasphemy, apostacy, back-sliding and any of such exotic names.

A living and complete word of God should function and behave like ChatGpt (LLM) which you can query and it gives you relevant answer relating to your exact question.

It also should be frequently updated and not remain static and suffer archaism.

All peoples should have something for them without the need for an Igala man to be an Israeli or Arabian by faith for it to be relevant.

If you confront a Muslim, he tells you the Holy Koran contains everything about life and creation.

Meet a Christian, and he says the Holy Bible is the Living Word, and is Truth.


The two books we used above to reference the religious books and also any written discourse on spirituality, religion or mysticism however suffer several problems that throw the claimants further away from the target truth.

For instance, no one to our knowledge had studied especially the Bible or Koran to become a surgeon, mechanic, pilot and such, neither do we study any of the two as requirement for any fundamental human endeavor. Here I am saying without the two, life would go on, probably more smoother in some cases...

So if the Bible or Koran is not made to behave like an interactable oracle much like ChatGPT and the likes, then those things should be referred to as "Old Word of God".

Cont'd.

Lies, he never laughed at NDC. He actually was very professional in announcing the party to the senate.

Could the OP be wishing that the new party be a laughing stock or what?

ReasonYourz:
I want to understand why in IFA exposes family issues and people attacking you thru witchcraft but in Christianity is does not unless you meet a prophet of God who can see.

Its because Ifa is an advanced science.

If the Yorubas have taken Ifa much more seriously and originally as presented them by the advanced Soul who brought it down to earth, The whole world would have been better off in sciences, health, technology, arts, etc. This is because if you visit other heavens where these knowledge exists, their science is the same as their religion if they must call it so.

Mind you, Ifaism is whatever the white man is trying to achieve/attain via his endeavors of biology, physics, chemistry and so on.

This is beautiful. If you have money, go build a hotel there now. The Mambilla is a tourist attraction.

People who feed and mainly peddle bad news about Nigeria thinking it s a form of campaign may not be aware even their family, relationships, health, business etc feeds from it.

Bad news like good news is contagious, it always work on the peddler first regardless of why.

Theawakensoul:
Firstly
No, you’re not talking to ChatGPT.
You’re talking to a human being who actually thinks deeply and takes time to structure his thoughts.

Clarity is not AI.
Depth is not AI.
Most people just aren’t used to it.

Its not the "depth", its the heavy employment of emojis and unconventional stanzaic lineation of your paragraphs

Now to your point…

I see what you’re trying to do, you're stretching the idea of relativity down to the atomic level to argue that “dry land” is not truly dry.

But let’s not confuse levels of description.

Yes, at the atomic level:
👉 Everything is in motion
👉 Matter is mostly empty space
👉 Solids and liquids are made of the same fundamental particles

That’s physics.

But here’s where your argument slips:
👉 You’re mixing ontological truth (what something is at its deepest level)
with
👉 functional reality (how it exists and behaves in experience)

At the level we actually live and function:
👉 Dry land behaves as solid
👉 Water behaves as liquid

The bolden is you man: relativity of truth.
You are creating problems for yourself when you decide to make man the center of the universe, reality or truth. Your ideology pegs truth to what it is to especially man. But is this true?

And that distinction is not arbitrary.

If you jump into a river…
👉 You don’t stand on it like land
👉 You sink, flow, or swim

That’s not “relative truth” in the way you’re presenting it.

👉 That’s consistent observable reality

You are having issues because you made man the sole audience and center of the universe., probably because you will run into the relativity of truth if you factor in the rest of entities in the Observership spectrum.

"If I jump into a river", Am I or is man the only entity/creature capable of jumping in a river in the universe? Even if only man can jump into a river, will the outcome be consistent across board even if looking at it from body-mass angle? Before then what is even the scope and definition of this "consistent observable reality"?

I assure you by the time you begin defining the scope of this "observable reality", you would have to deal with a law of nature or truth found in the saying that "no man steps into the same river twice". This aphorism deals with a real problem in physics known as 'Qualia'. In solving this problem, you want to ask what then is actual or objective truth or reality?

Now about other organisms perceiving differently…

That’s fine.

👉 Perception can vary
👉 Interpretation can vary

But reality doesn’t become anything just because perception differs.

A bat uses echolocation.
A snake senses heat.
Humans use sight.

👉 Different interfaces. Same underlying world.

-Did you catch the paradox and relativity of truth occurring here?

-Whos viewpoint is true then of the three if the objective or "underlying world" is or remains the same?

-If none or all, then what does that give you relative to my assertion about how truth as far as observers is concerned is relative?

So again:
👉 Experience can be relative
👉 Perception can be limited

But that doesn’t make all interpretations equally true.


Because if we go that route fully…
👉 There’s no difference between illusion and accuracy
👉 There’s no way to refine understanding
👉 Everything becomes “true” and that collapses meaning

And that’s not depth.
👉 That’s philosophical overreach.

I once told someone here that reality (truth) and even meaning is simply an 'agreement to make acceptances' (given the qualia problem and its offprings)

A physicist named David Bohm did a work about Order and Chaos. Long story short is that Chaos is simply a non-understood order. Use this to rethink what you would call "illusion", then use my ideology of 'agreement to make acceptances' for what you would call reality, truth, accuracies, understandings, and such.

PS: 'Agreement to make acceptances' is borne of the ideology that nothing man accepts as truth, real, solid, correct is as is, relative to the grander interconnected and interchanging uni/multiverse which may be to a larger and more reliable extent be accepted as the ultimate reality or True as it were.

The assertion or phrase identifies mans reality as a perception or consumption of a short or 'isolated' part of a grander and passing event of the grander truth or reality and terms it his reality or truth. While admittedly this is a necessity if man must have a physical experience and is the only way physical reality can be viewed and experienced, this same admission and concession to the ideology further buttresses the point that reality, truth as perceived and consumed by man is relative and not ultimate. All truths are true, but for and to man, mostly not beyond. Give man truth beyond the scope of acceptance and its either useless or false for him even if it is truth.

What I’m pointing to is simple:
👉 There are levels to truth
But not all levels cancel each other out.


So yes…
At one level, matter is vibrating particles.
At another level, that same matter forms stable structures we interact with daily.


Both can be true.
👉 But they operate in different contexts.


So the real discipline is not just saying “everything is relative”…
👉 It’s knowing which level of truth you’re speaking from
👉 And not mixing them carelessly


That’s the difference between:
👉 Sounding deep
and
👉 Actually being precise


I AM — The Awaken Soul (TAS)
From Conditioning to Consciousness
Question Everything. Discover Truth. 🔥

All boldened are incidences or occurrences of the relativity subject matter, and you practicalized it so well. Does it makes sense now?

Dtruthspeaker:
See again what your association with deluers have done to you?

I clearly said "Which child did not verify if their father is Dangote?..." but see how you have twisted it into a saying i am asking you i"f the child grows up,".

And this is of course the fact that it does not make sense how the person who you said was lying is still the same Dangote, the father, who you said that the liar, was telling him that it is his.

Clearly u twisted and so far from Truth that you no longer remember that we all checked and verified how the person who we were told is our, father, is our father even beyond pictures and everything.

And that in proof we saw the pictures of he who is said to be our father and that the pictures proved it. And of course why do you think wedding pictures and parents and baby pictures are hung on the wall?

Your colt has made you no longer know the difference between Truth and delu

You are right as always.

Dtruthspeaker:
See, your delhu does not let you see Truth if not you would have known that supposed atoms in solid things like dry land do not move. And dry land does in its natural universal and truthful state does not vibrate, so no atom is moving. And dry land cannot be seen as liquid sea, it takes delo to see that

You are right

Dtruthspeaker

Waiting for your answer. I notice most times your responses are closed.

It occurs when responses will require intelligence, and the respondent opts for some other that is incompatible.

Dtruthspeaker:
Which child did not verify if their father is Dangote? Did the child not ask for pictures? And will not ask if you would take him to his house? And would he not ask if Dangote would come visiting so that he can verify?

God makes sure that every human verifies everything that is why we are always liable for the decisions and choices we make.

I said a child lived with and was spoon-fed by Dangote. In elementary terms, the statement means from birth, the child is in Dangote's house. He knows no other as father.

You are asking if the child grows up, he should request pictures of Dangote whom he grew up to know as his father. Did you ask your father to furnish you with pictures of your father?

Are you not certain beyond reasonable doubt that the person who raised you from birth is your father?

Make your question make sense to yourself.

Theawakensoul:
I actually appreciate this response, because now we’re getting into something deeper than surface-level arguments.

But there are a few important distinctions that need to be clarified.

First…
You said truth is relative, multi-leveled, and subjective, using examples like the drunk man seeing water on the road.

Let’s slow that down.

👉 The experience of the drunk man is real to him.
But the object of that experience is not.

The road is still dry.

So what this shows is:
👉 Perception can be subjective.
👉 But truth itself is not automatically subjective.

Because if everything becomes “truth” based on perception…
👉 Then the word truth loses meaning.

It becomes:
👉 “Whatever I experience is true.”

And that creates a problem.

Because now…
Illusion = truth
Error = truth
Misinterpretation = truth


That’s not layered truth.
👉 That’s confusion between experience and reality.


Now your point about certainty is interesting, and partly valid.
👉 Yes, certainty can arise from truth.
👉 And yes, it can also arise from falsehood.

That’s exactly the issue.


Because certainty itself…
👉 Is not proof of truth.


A person can be completely certain…
👉 And completely wrong.


So when I said:
👉 “Certainty can be a barrier to truth”

What I’m pointing to is this:
👉 The moment certainty closes the door to questioning…

It stops growth.


Because truth, if it is truly truth:
👉 Does not fear examination.


Now about your statement:
👉 “Truth wishes to be experienced”

That sounds good, but it needs precision.

Because not every experience leads to truth.

👉 Some experiences reinforce illusion.
👉 Some reinforce conditioning.
👉 Some reinforce bias.

So the real question is not just:
👉 “Have I experienced something?”

But:
👉 “Is my interpretation of that experience accurate?”

That’s where awareness comes in.


Now your final point:
👉 “No one can catch ultimate truth, it’s always one step ahead.”

That’s actually closer to what I was pointing to.

Because if truth is always deeper than our current understanding…
👉 Then certainty should always remain open.

Not rigid.
Not defensive.

But...
Open.


So instead of saying:
👉 “Everything is truth in its own way”

A more grounded way to say it is:
👉 “People can have real experiences…
but their interpretation of those experiences can be limited, distorted, or incomplete.”

That keeps:
✔ Experience valid
✔ But still allows truth to be examined


And that’s the difference between:
👉 Awareness
and
👉 Assumption


So we’re actually closer in perspective than it seems.

The only adjustment is this:
👉 Not everything experienced is truth.
👉 But every experience can be examined to move closer to it.

And that’s the whole point of questioning.


Peace and blessing to you.

I AM — The Awaken Soul (TAS)
From Conditioning to Consciousness
Question Everything. Discover Truth. 🔥

Kindly confirm if I am discussing with ChatGPT given the nature of your writing.

On truth being relative, the so-called dry land when zoomed in would be a sea of moving and active atoms which is the same fabric and building block of what ever a human would refer to as liquid. This means, dry land is relative to the vibratory rate of the atoms on land and not universally dry land.

On earth and in the physical plane, you would not lack a plethora of entities or creatures who based on their biology, are unable to make a difference of the states of matter as a human would have it given their own vibratory rates and make up. Yea?

So dry land is solid, true, but to who? This is the relativity factor of truth.

Dtruthspeaker:
Which child did not verify if their father is Dangote? Did the child not ask for pictures? And will not ask if you would take him to his house? And would he not ask if Dangote would come visiting so that he can verify?

God makes sure that every human verifies everything that is why we are always liable for the decisions and choices we make.

Read slowly what I wrote in the particular paragraph. Ensure you understand first...

Theawakensoul:
🌿 WHAT IF CERTAINTY IS THE BIGGEST BARRIER TO TRUTH?


Let’s start with a simple question…

👉 What makes you so sure?
Not confident.
Not hopeful.

👉 Certain.

Because certainty feels powerful.

It gives you:
👉 Stability
👉 Identity
👉 A sense of control

But here’s the uncomfortable part…

👉 What if that same certainty…
is the very thing blocking you from seeing more?

Think about it.

When you are certain about something…
👉 You stop questioning it.
👉 You stop examining it.
👉 You stop exploring beyond it.

And in that moment…
👉 Growth slows down.

Because certainty closes doors.

It says:
👉 “I already know.”
👉 “There’s nothing more to see.”
👉 “This is final.”

But truth is not something you arrive at once…
👉 It’s something you continue to understand more deeply.

And that requires openness.

Here’s the problem many people don’t realize:
👉 Certainty can feel like truth…
even when it’s just familiarity.

You’ve heard something enough times…
👉 It becomes normal.
👉 It becomes accepted.
👉 It becomes “true” to you.

But repetition is not the same as verification.
And confidence is not the same as correctness.

Now ask yourself honestly:
👉 Have you ever been completely sure about something…. And later realized you were wrong?

It happens.
To everyone.

So what makes this time different?
What makes this belief beyond question?

Because the moment something becomes “untouchable”…
👉 It stops being examined.

And anything that cannot be examined…
👉 Can easily become misunderstood.

This is why questioning is important.

Not to destroy belief…
👉 But to refine it.

Because if something is true…
👉 It will remain true even after you question it.

But if it changes or falls apart under examination…
👉 Then what you had was not truth.
👉 It was assumption.

Now here’s the deeper layer:
👉 People don’t just hold onto certainty because it’s true…
👉 They hold onto it because it feels safe.

Certainty removes doubt.
It removes confusion.
It removes the discomfort of not knowing.
But growth often begins where certainty ends.

In the space of:
👉 “Maybe I don’t fully understand this yet.”
👉 “Maybe there’s more to see.”
👉 “Maybe I need to look deeper.”

That space feels uncomfortable…
👉 But it’s where clarity begins.

So the real question is not:
👉 “Am I certain?”

But:
👉 “Am I open enough to be wrong… if I need to be?”

Because that level of honesty…
👉 Is what leads to real understanding.

Not blind confidence.
👉 But conscious awareness.

So maybe certainty is not strength.
👉 Maybe it’s a wall.

And the moment you’re willing to question it…
👉 That wall begins to break.

If something in this made you pause…
👉 Don’t ignore it.

That pause…
👉 Is awareness trying to expand.

📘 Christ Consciousness: The Path Yeshua Walked
👉 https://selar.com/christ-consciousness

Because sometimes…
👉 The thing you’re most certain about…
is the very thing you’ve never truly examined. 🔥

I AM — The Awaken Soul (TAS)
Question Everything. Discover Truth.

@highlight
#fy
#fyp
#fypシ
#TruthUncovered
#SpiritualAwakening
#ReligiousManipulation
#theawakensoul
#spirituality
#LiesOfReligion
#deconstructreligion
#spiritualawakening

I see where you are coming from and its a bit tricky on "certainty being a barrier to truth."

Firstly semantics and pragmatics plays a role in that, so it cannot or should not be generally applied, but note that certainty is a product of both truth and falsehood.

1: Truth leads to certainty, but then so does perception (right or wrong) which is the only medium for the consumption of truth. A catch exists here: Truth is a city which can (only) be reached via two roads of rightful or wrongful perception. which ever road used, you must get something.

Example: A person lied to from childhood that their biological father was Dangote having lived and was spoon-fed by Dangote would be certain that their biological father was Dangote. And as you rightly conclude, they would not be making any effort at verifying this because their certainty is already a barrier to the truth they would likely not want to be told.

2: On the other hand, truth without the certainty of its observer or it's audience via a personal realization/experience would be of no effect, it would simply be unrealized or objective latent truth. Truth however wishes to be experienced, realized and acted upon. This is the 'goal' of life--for living. So certainty is both the outcome of truth and its opposite.

Interestingly, the word touted as "faith" with connotation to 'blind belief' in the religious scriptures is actually supposed to be "Certainty" which actually does not work with blind belief. Original Faith or certainty which only works with knowledge, information or personal confirmation is the 'actualizer' of reality--where reality must not necessarily be an objective or universal truth in the sense that a drunk person seeing the road turning to a sea of water is certain, and is having a 'real' experience relative to himself that the solid road is liquid, an irony exists here...


By and large, Truth in my view is relative, multi-leveled and infinite even so long as the object of perception is biologically subjective. The drunk man sing the liquid road is seeing something that exists and is true relative to himself, so much that should they goes inside this "imaginary" water which is dry land to onlookers, the forces of Placebo Effect may or could cause him to drown and die inside.

So truth has levels and is relative even as it is truth to use the nostril or gills to breath. This means those who worship stones, the phallus, Jupiter, atheist, are all experiencing truth in its forked state because it is mostly the only way. A law of truth to note is that no one can catch or observe ultimate truth, it always has one more step ahead.

This hacking of the NSA's phone could be why you see boko haram successfully ambushing and killing generals and our boys at the war front.

Rufai's own I perceive is not the only one. They have a network of these things in place.

interesting take and quite inspiring.

This is a very big improvement and achievement for Nigeria having just finished a Buhari era where if Wale should have stolen the whole of the CBN building, he will remain in office as if asking us to do our worst.

I wish to also let Nigerians know that if not for the very abusive and uncouth elements we have as followers of the "progressive" leader, we would have had a president we could influence via Twitter. Lots of motions would have been moved, adopted online and executed to the benefit of all.

But you see, this will not play out well for the product they are selling, and they will do anything to make it impossible...

They are for the betterment of Nigeria only when 'the goodest man' in the country is the one doing it...

DeepSight:
+
You are speaking well but you are still missing the point.
To make it clear as briefly as possible. -

- It is not an agreement with those who disagree with it. Laws are made by a government usually by an agreement of the majority - if morality is subjective then there is a minority that does not agree with those laws and for them, there is no basis for those laws as you did not get their agreement. So it is not by agreement for them. However, there are also cases where laws are decreed by one person (for example in a dictatorship or absolute mornachy). So again, if morality is subjective where is the basis for any criminal laws.

Criminal laws only make sense if certain things that are objectively and rationally evil or bad.

Otherwise its just your opinion vs my opinion and you have your way because you have the might.

Very well said. If you however look into the idea of this 'agreement' I have been referring to, you will find also that there is no written or generally-agreed instance where it is said that reality is merely an agreement to the reality of what is being observed, relative to the collective subjective state of the observers. It is not a popular ideology neither is it widely written, so do not take it literal or in that sense.

"Agreement" here is not speaking of a signed or unsigned one. In fact I think only a few of us adopt that ideology. 'Agreement' as used by me can simply be defined as the conscious/unconscious acceptance of the subjectively-observed reality as an objective reality. his agreement is the same thing as people nearby perceiving the aroma of the neighbor's soup and conclude it was good. They didn't quite put that soup in the mouth. Even if they do, non will ever taste the soup as it where due to the state or quality of their sensoria--the nerves to the tongue, tongue, and even their ideology about how that very soup should taste if you factor in that the mind has a way of making its own reality as to what the observer expects it to be.

We by nature make this kind of agreements or acceptances for it to be possible to have experiences within a level of manifestation which is the physical plane, and then human for one.

Note that even for the conventional "agreement", a disagreement with it is already my 'agreement' to it. This time, the conventional agreement is oscillating between the twin bounds of the quality of my 'agreement'.

This 'agreement' when done right is a way to "hack the matrix" as they say.

DeepSight:
+
Again, I don't have any problems with the above. It's just that the implications don't go away. . .so do you for example agree that there is no basis for criminal law?

There is basis for criminal law because that's a play of Agreements we spoke of.

Technically, Agreements are the interoperability interface which must be established for one or two Subjectives to have some form of objective experience (in a community, state, relationship, group, religion, etc.). These agreements or laws are derivatives of the Subjective experiences of the participants which are not or may be universally applied--but not necessarily based on objective reality, which may be written, unwritten or even genetically programmed.

Lack of exposure to deeper levels of causative variables like past life and reincarnation, or even genetics may see someone who takes out a life because the "victim" took theirs in a past life usually resulting in criminal law/enforcement making bad decisions by escalating a universal criminal case using communal or state laws. Subjective or man-made laws are limited and do not have all variables and factors accounted for even in the case of the expertise of the investigators and that of the human judge.

Despite the limitations of criminal law, it however is grist for the mill of the grander, comprehensive and perfect universal laws which seem to be enforced rather too slowly, but then they is enforced more wholesomely.

DeepSight:
+
I don't have a problem with all this. What is missing is the fact that you are not attaching an objective moral value to human judgements and acts.

So long as you don't do that, you have to accept all the implications I listed.

Because if it's all subjective, then it's fine whatever each individual believes is right for him to do. And you can only overcome or suppress it by force. Even then, you will not have changed his subjective morality. You would only have had your way. Via might being right.

You will recall in the earlier thread for lord.reed where i mentioned even what we accept as reality is not objective, I said what we have are 'agreements to reality' in the sense that subject objects of perception are used to perceive what the observers call reality. That the fact that subjective eyes, neurons, brain cells are used could never birth objectivity in its 100% state, hence its just us agreeing that yes, blue is blue even though for all of us, no one is seeing the blue as exactly as it might be.

Having not to accept implications would then mean I lose myself completely body and mind, else, it is impossible to not have a choice from right, wrong or neutrality. Objectivity all of the time is not possible as far as the human experience is concerned--no contradiction here. What a human would call Objective or when a human goes neutral, they cannot do that beyond the subjective feeds they get from their sensoria.

The real way of having objective perspective is only when a human strips themselves of their sensoria (eyes, nose, skin, tongue or mind generally). Reason as you know is the limits and capabilities they impose.

These sensoria are mathematically equal to opinions even before the match begins. They are also equal to implications, definitions and sides. In other words, our senses are equal to Subjectives. There is another way however to have actual (human) objectivity: All souls using the human body of a single person. This way, whatever is observed is using same electric wire and wiring, so the experience will be one and the same for all, giving us a human objectivity.

We have two ideologies presented in the above statements...

DeepSight:
+
No worries so long as you understand the implications of this, some of which are -

1. That you should never condemn any act by anyone no matter how extreme. At best you can have your opinion of it and if you have superior might, you can use that superior might to suppress it.

2. If anyone has superior might they can also legitimately use that superior might to enforce their subjective views of what is moral, even if it includes mass murder, slavery, torture of children and innocents and mass rape.

3. There is no basis for criminal law as that amounts to forcing subjective views of morality on others who may disagree with such.

4. If in my subjective view it is right to rape and torture your wife for no particular reason, I am right to do so, and your own subjective view of such an action is your cup of tea.

That's exactly what I am saying but you seem to reason that saying morality and rationality is subjective equals tolerating any. You are not looking at it from the 'originality' view point in the sense of metal just being metal and not poison or medicine.

Derive an understanding from the following and apply it to what I say about rationality and morality being subjective and relative:

A Hot pot on fire is on its own. No one says it is hot or not yet. It is the first time a pot was placed on fire in this life.

A child touches it and gets burnt. They at that moment develop an opinion (rationality) about pots on fire. What the child found could become a religion if taken further. This is how all rationality, morality etc are formed including un-aliving, grape and all what any would call such.

The pain of having one's beloved unalived is when a negative opinion of mur.der was formed. Even at that, if the unaliving of a same person brought liberation or freedom to the observer, it is good. So all unaliving are not objectively bad or good. You just have unaliving waiting for the experiencer to paint it.

DeepSight:
+
All morality is therefore subjective in your view and no act can bee said to be objectively or rationally good or evil?

Spot on!

DeepSight:
+
I mean there are acts that would be evil. E.g: the holocaust.

No, its an action primarily with several permutations of effects.



Those affected and those emotionally or "rationally" invested are the ones who would say it is evil and also good. Note how what you think was evil, the perpetrator believes its good.

Why don't we see news of Indians being caught with drugs only Nigerians?

DeepSight:
+
There is evil, no?

There are relatively objective forces only. What paints any as good or evil is the third party.

DeepSight:
+
I like the part where you say advanced souls run the universe. Do you think their objectives are always elevated or altruistic?

Both. The created universe of matter and space cannot survive without the altruistic or malevolent or positive and the negative.

We or Observers are the ones who have all the interpretations and semantic:

Good, Bad, beautiful, ugly, tall, short.

But everything simply is 'ISing' without bias. The taster of the pudding is who now says something is negative or positive.