Secret Principles of Immortality, Edition 20

In the previous article I came to the conclusion that at all levels, the use of ambergris involves the following series of steps: 1. Stated opinion, 2. Philosopher, 3. Seer, 4. Trickster. This has a difficult meaning. Because it seems obvious that in this case the person in search is on trial. A similar claim is made about the philosopher Socrates, as about the average seeker of ambergris. Perhaps that criticism can be dismissed as non-religious or non-sacrosanct. Most people understand that the average person only seeks an average treatment. It is just a matter of definition. Thus, the “definition” becomes the ambergris of the average person. Much of this has been reported in some sense in previous articles.

However, the point remains difficult, because it is uncertain what the additional meaning of these descriptions could be, if it does not relate to some object of truth. There is the implication that the seeker is being judged on the basis of absolute truths and, furthermore, that the character of those truths alone is sufficient to corrupt all but the most capable individual. (The summons of the word ‘capable’ and ‘guilty’ can cause the chills.) In a sense, the divinity might suspect that the person is not a person at all, that he is something else in disguise. You might think of it as a kind of ‘pseudomorph’, like a plant, that takes on the characteristics of an animal. As is typical of psychology, there are some omens in the works of Otto Rank, who wrote about the Doppleganger without much apparent reference to ambergris. One might suspect, however, that if the world welcomes poets, it also welcomes those who do not bleed before revealing the truths that matter to them. In some cases, this revelation may be the sanctity of sincerity or seriousness, as a pure quality that needs no words to reveal itself, while in other cases it seems that some ‘cowgirl’ convention may require writing or even storytelling to come together. with the trail of honest scholars. However, these judgments, of sincerity or narrative, pose problems in themselves, since the seeker is taxed before he realizes the most dinty bit of importance, that is, with the media or something similar that has political or political importance. self-reliance to guess or adopt formalities. that precede locomotion to the “better place” that he or she anticipates.

Returning to the subject of the four categories (declared opinion, philosopher, seer, trickster), there are several theories about what could be understood by the ultimate truth that serves as a background for the knowledge through which one could progress, or otherwise, to be judged. One of them is the Babel perspective, according to which the only reason these categories occur is because the immortal thinks that the individual is insignificant, as a non-seeker, or determines that, in any case, he is being judged. another person, like even someone. specific in knowledge, such as Plato or Socrates. Perhaps in the Babel setting, immortal knowledge is a transcription, and it occurs only by memorization or loss of lands, or some similar procedure.

In fact, one could quickly look from Babel to another perspective, because it does not seem to provide any useful angle on the perspective of literary ambergris specifically.

Another angle is to ask what exact knowledge describes the criticism that the seeker may not be qualified to obtain it. One perspective is that this knowledge is not far from what a rough person supposes the world to be, or that a substance like ambergris carries a creative ability that would unfairly alter the world with rough thinking. In my writings so far I have assumed that ambergris is not powerful enough to create the world, but it may involve philosophical abilities that influence, but do not alter, the works of gods and goddesses, or their representatives and their writings, etc. . Clearly in my mind, this idea that ambergris or immortality can be raw is something to get over. There is no path to divinity that does not involve an extreme degree of cunning or sophistication, and there is no way to dissuade the sage from creating a new form of these on their own. The danger, as seems common, lies in the personality, not in the capacities of the mind. That is, if the mind determines the level and all levels have equality. It may be a joke, but it serves to reason.

Below is an overview of the categories available when, based on the terms adopted, the final results cannot be achieved:

1. The trick is to doubt the wisdom of the philosophers.
2. The trick is that philosophy lacks wisdom
3. The trick is, ‘how to be wise’?
4. The trick is, ‘there is no trick’

While these answers assume that there is a trick, it is true that the fourth stage involves deception, so that is the conservative measure to take.

What if the terms are riddles? Here’s a translation:

1. Don’t ignore anything
2. Real systems
3. Useful life
4. Already there

Those four stages, in whatever form, are helpful. At least in the sense that they can be exaggerated.

With that, I will conclude this article.