Hypothesis: A conscious individual could not recognise another conscious individual without sensing their point of contact (reality) and consciousness as something held in common, it is therefore impossible for individual consciousness to be fully encoded in the individual body. It must be determined simultaneously by internal/self and external/other consciousness. Since consciousness had to be socially evolved together with its reality, their co-evolution would allow for the social connection to be encoded and physically manifested in that reality. The only known mechanisms that could satisfy this hypothesis are: entanglement on the subatomic level or coherent biophotonic emanation of all conscious bodies, directly sensing one another as the same consciousness. On this view we sense others as instances of ourselves, biologically autonomous but sharing the same consciousness.

The conflict between obedience and moral comprehension arises in all religions.

The silent assumptions common to all Abrahamic religions:
1) what is premised as "God's Commandment" is a commandment consistent with the being of God (which may not always be true, as scripture is mediated, written and interpreted by humans, and humans are fallible);
2) every Commandment was meant to be obeyed, rather then merely examined, experienced and overcome;
3) the meaning of every Commandment is explicit/univocal and our interpretation of it is the only correct one (this creates the subjective illusion that religion grounds univocal morality).

If God commanded us (as a test) to do something bad under the guise of religious authority, we would be compelled by our moral essence to defy the commandment. Only a test of independent moral discernment can prove that we have internalised the essence of morality and are therefore true to the image in which we were made.

I am not suggesting that we Ought to disobey religious commandments and traditions as a rule, but only disobey them discerningly when we are ready to assume full responsibility for our moral judgement, on pain of metaphysical consequences if we are wrong. Some people, insofar as their moral conscience is not sufficiently developed, may be better off by practicing strict obedience, contradictions and all, until they become aware of their own contradictions and driven by a sense of moral necessity, fully accepting their liability for any moral errors.

If obedience/compliance with religious dogma and tradition does not ground individual moral judgment, then what does? I have provisionally answered this question here: philpapers.org/rec/KOWODO In short, the logical structure of meaning-as-being (Logos?) already entails the necessary limits and value-orientation of human conduct, as every other path leads to progressive degradation and ultimately to annihilation of consciousness. From this we can derive the norms of what we understand as moral conduct, and religions attempted to express this in Age-appropriate language (by Age I mean the epoch/era in the human evolution of meaning).

Humans are getting better at deliberating, working on resolving disagreements, so even if perfect rationality is unachievable the more we try to understand the reasons for our disagreements the stronger and more consistent we become as a kind. Governments do not like it because it makes them less relevant and us more powerful.

The more aligned people are with objective morality, the less political authority can be asserted over them in the name of moral authority.

“The need to be in control through prohibiting behaviour is based in a need to defend against anxiety in oneself, and to control anxiety.” Bain, Alastair. “Sources of Authority: The Double Threads of Wonder and Anxiety.” In Dare to Think the Unthought Known, by Ajeet N. Mathur. Finland: Aivoairut Oy, 2006.

A common strategy used by the predatory ruling class to insulate themselves from the liability for their crimes is to inflate the scope of injustice to include as many other people as possible. By designating race, religion, gender and sexual orientation as the primary axes of injustice, most of the world population can be polarised as victims and oppressors, so that their manufactured, in-your-face antagonism forces the population to address these more immediate ‘enemies’ before the physically absent predatory class. All race, climate and gender-themed protests are just PR campaigns intended to shield predatory bankers and hereditary parasites from the rage of the masses. Isn’t it amazing how quickly Occupy Wall Street morphed into BLM and Antifa and Drag Queens contra MAGA and Proud Boys and TERFS… then neo-Nazis, Blak Sovereigns, Marxist educators. Change the story, change the lead. None of it is real. There is only the ruthless capital and the little you.

Noting can be “good (or bad) for the planet” because the planet is not a Self and does not care for what is good or bad. When someone is using the argument of “good for the planet” they only express that something is good for them, satisfying their own desires. In short, they are lying.

Why would anyone care what is “good for the planet”? They don’t; people care only about what is good for them, and they manipulate others by misrepresenting their desires as selfless, in order to get what is good for them by means of what is bad for others.

The existence of the planet depends on consciousness more than consciousness depends on the planet. Consciousness is a necessary condition of meaning and therefore of all existence, while planets are contingent existents.

Huge amount of info in this article, https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/gag which resonates with my post here: https://t.iss.one/NormalParty/3147 Occupy Wall Street was in 2011.

Just to be clear, are international bankers, technocratic WEF, and their military death squads left wing or right wing? What about lockdowns, the ‘ring of steel’, medical coercion and mandatory face masks… left or right? What about people dying being “good for the planet”? Left or right? Nativist supremacism? Black & Red flag, people & place, blood & soil? Left or right?

Does Albo support decolonisation of Niger? He is awfully silent on the issue. What about Aboriginal elders and Voice advocates? How about the Greens and Stan Grant? Have they nothing to say, not interested, don’t care? Vive la France? Anything?

Every time you take a ‘loan’ from the bank you contribute to inflation and ensure that banks will profit from it at the expense of everyone else.

I am careful not to prioritise any particular instance of human suffering that is currently promoted by the corporate media, so I stay off the topic of Maui except where it is relevant in broad, conceptual terms. I noticed that even just alluding to it yesterday activated the programmed emotional patterns in people, so I will avoid it completely for the time being. Maui became a currency, like every other disaster promoted by the corporate media, the current thing. Every ambulance chaser wants a piece of Maui.

The leader of Burkina Faso is clearly not the belligerent dictator he is portrayed as by the imperial mass media. Young and perhaps over-idealistic but also eloquent and determined. Privileged “Blak Sovereigns” (racial supremacists) do not care about this. They do not want Aboriginal people to develop, to modernise, but to remain in the oppressive stupor of Stone Age superstitions. Blak Sovereigns are just a guise of white supremacism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfJoBCRSpjI

A counterclaim to the Blak Sovereign assertion that Original Owners are entitled to charge rent.

Aboriginal people have monopolised an entire continent for 40,000 years. Since the Earth is a shared human endowment of which we are all Original Owners and beneficiaries, Aboriginal occupiers/residents are liable to pay rent in arrears to the rest of humanity (according to their own standard of entitlement). Assuming a generous rate of 1% interest p.a. and accepting the measly payment of just 1 gram of gold for the first year of occupation, the outstanding debt is 1.0E157 tons of gold per person. It is almost as if Blak Sovereigns were trying to set the Aboriginal people up, on behalf of the mining corporations.

Meaning cannot be discovered or given because it is not something ‘out there’ but within us, something that is socially evolved in countless mutations of older meanings, and as such requires conceptual continuity from the beginning of consciousness.

On 14 October 2023 Australians will be voting on constitutional recognition of nativist supremacism, the cornerstone of Nazi ideology.