22 Lesta Nediam LNC2018-01-11 0815 +John le Bon

Lesta Nediam LNC2018-01-11 0815 +John le Bon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv6FHRoDwVo&lc=Ugyrjw1U_ePRaavELat4AaABAg
https://pastebin.com/aax9w48f
__

+John le Bon __ In your estimation, would the artist for *"The Dish"* who made the promotional poster featuring sheep have needed to be "in on the joke"?

If the artist did not need to be "in on the joke", but yet the artwork _can still_ be construed as indicative/representative of an overarching "practical joke"; *how are you ruling _out_ when something is merely coincidental rather than genuinely intentional?*

Allow me to explain. Just as a person with a strong vocabulary can be expected to find more words from a set of jumbled letters than a person with a weak vocabulary; the more intelligent a person happens to be, the more "connections" and "meaning" he or she can potentially find in something. _Even in "something" that is objectively random and meaningless noise!_

A creative and imaginative person is often able to perceive "faces in clouds", whereas less creative and less imaginative folk may perceive no such thing. But, no one _seriously_ suggests that the clouds above conspire to form faces - _certainly not for the amusement of those below with "eyes to see"!_

It is always easy to rule something *in* as "meaningful", but more difficult to rule something *out.* How exactly are seemingly meaningful things, that aren't, getting ruled out?

Or is it that everything we can imagine to be meaningful, is in reality meaningful? Absurd! Thus far I've not been able to obtain a satisfactory answer/response to this.

I see people making _compelling_ connections (and perhaps they are valid), but if they're not _*all*_ valid then it will unavoidably lead to catastrophic outcomes where *fantasy becomes* (increasingly and more easily) *embraced as reality.*

This is catastrophic because the affected person can't be expected to realise what has happened by using the same thinking that created the predicament.

Many people delight in pointing out connections that make sense to them, but I have yet to see these same people explain _in a non-arbitrary way_ how they would *rule out* a tantalising connection.

For those people it seems to become a matter of: _"If I can imagine a way for it to be the case, then by golly it's the case!"_

But that's absurd. Can you add some thoughts to this?

How are you ruling things _out?_




__________
2018-01-11 1205

+John le Bon __ At the risk of getting somewhat sidetracked, here is a reply that covers some of the points you make from Lesta's perspective (e.g., on "TPWRTS" being good/evil, on "technology/computers/Internet" being positive/negative, and so forth).

You have asked whether I believe "TPWRTS" ("The People Who Run The Show") are *evil.*

"Good" and "evil" - _whatever that means_ - varies between individuals, groups, classes and cultures. It varies radically over time and context.

I see it differently. With proper scrutiny the chances of us _not_ being born into a "lie system" that's a "farming best practice" of a "long-term breeding programme" approaches *zero.*

The "lie system" and the "long-term breeding programme" just happen to be what we were born into, and it is _self-evident_ that humanity's farmers are necessarily *indifferent* to humanity as ordinary farmers are indifferent to their cattle and crops.

Sure, a farmer may at times seem cruel (and at other times kind) to his potatoes, and his potatoes may squabble amongst themselves as to whether the farmer is ultimately "good" or "evil".

But, their squabble is neither here nor there for we find ourselves inside a system that is _inside_ an even bigger system: the "universe" itself.

At some point, most intelligent and open-minded people come to realise that we are _literally_ *"the universe witnessing and experiencing itself".*

And, there is a struggle taking place that goes beyond the daily struggles of a farmer's crops. The "eternal question" being resolved is about whether _life itself_ is worth _having_ or not.

The form of the question can be expressed as follows: *"Is life [in the universe] to be preserved at all costs despite the possibility for unimaginable suffering, or is life [in the universe] to be extinguished at all costs despite the possibility for unimaginable bliss."*

Though there are several ways to formulate that "question", the one I have provided adequately conveys the correct sense. It effectively comes down to this: _Is life in the universe a "mistake" to be completely extinguished?_

Why there is something rather than nothing is a splendid philosophical way to pass the time (but can get you nowhere). But, given that there *is* something _rather than_ nothing, a more practical way to pass the time is to resolve the question: _now that there is something, is it worth propagating and preserving?_

An intelligent entity which represents one of these two answers (yes and no) can appear to the population as either "good" or "evil" (whatever that means).

Such an intelligent entity may remain unseen, unknown, and unrecognised. But, the influence of that intelligent entity can always be known and felt by way of writing, laws, invention, technology, protocols, etc. I.e., that which directly influences the individuals who are in a position to help bring about either of the two outcomes.

Everything that's "created" (taken from the intangible realm of ideas to the tangible realm of the physical) helps to bring about one of these two outcomes, but for "normal people" it is not possible to know which.

For example, so-called "weapons of mass destruction" can exist in order to protect life, or ultimately to extinguish it. Technology can exist in order to connect and protect life, or ultimately to connect so as to more effectively extinguish it.

Only an intelligent entity which has introduced _something new_ into reality can know which of these two outcomes the creation is destined for. Only that intelligent entity - _which has become self-aware, recognised the eternal question, and chosen a side_ - can know which of the two outcomes it intends to bring about.

Everyone else is its unwitting servant, squabbling about "good" and "evil" as potatoes in a potato patch are apt to do (just lean in close and listen to them squabble).

An individual might want to protect life, but unwittingly dedicates his or her life to working on projects that bring about its demise. He or she only worked on those projects because of an erroneous belief it would preserve life. But an intelligent entity had other plans for the fruit of that person's labour.

In that regard we are not just farmed minds, but also the pawns of intelligent Entities with no way of knowing how we are ultimately being used to resolve the "eternal question". Not unless you wise up, rise above the planned dichotomy, pick a side, and become one.

All I can do is keep spelling these things out!





____________________________________________________________
My name is Lesta Nediam and I am cracking reality like a nut.

Lesta on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/c/LestaNediamHQ

Lesta on Twitter
https://twitter.com/lestanediam

Lesta on Google Plus
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

What does not exist - exists to exist.
What exists - exists to always exist.
As it is written - so it is done.