>8968472 lb

I see this perspective echoed in a reasonable degree of places, but I don't necessarily agree that Lucifer is always bad.

Instead, I think that we need to shift focus of the perspective to who Lucifer effects. Being the light bringer, the ones in the dark will always see her as being "bad" or objectionable.

If we instead take perspective from the underdogs or those who harness the light but have yet to realize it, Lucy can be the savior we desire.

It definitely matters how you look at it and once you realize that if you swap the perspective for the things [they] believe and take the opposite perspective of what they believe to mean what (You) ideally prefer, then you can grasp that a lot of what they say is inverted not so much because they plan for it to come off that way, but because your perspective of the truth garners you objectively the opposite of their truth.

Humans have this obnoxious issue where they always think about their perspective as objective when, in reality, it's nearly always subjective. Knowing this, don't mistake my explanation for a refutation of objective truth, but an assertion that insists humans nearly always think subjectively even when they don't think they do.

Sophism quite regularly demands an emotional attachment, which, in my perspective both justifies logical analysis and refutes its necessity simultaneously, but I guess we then move in to this sketchy ass territory that will pretty much always devolve in to semantics and just about nothing more valuable.

I know this turned out to just be me rambling for the most part, but I'm hoping the bigger picture gets across.

>>8968999

>>8968472 lb

>>8968987

Let's try a different approach tonight:

Why can these allegories not be anything more than astronomical explanations of a time long past?

Why can no other entity or entities have visited us and compelled the stories of old which all seem to overlap?

Why do these stories have to be only allowed to explain how things once were and how they've changed outside of this planet and why can they not explain things like burried and elongated skulls, generous evidence of a wide variety of humanoid species having existed and all of the other curious yet pervasive phenomena that is scattered all throughout mythology from a plethora of historical civilizations?

It seems like you really want us to only think of these things as stories that explain how the stars and planets moved and nothing else.

Keep in mind, I agree with your theory up until you dismiss the prevalence of evidence suggesting there's a lot more than just astronomical explanations at play here.

>>8969051

>Lock and key

Well… that's a "book".

I still feel like this is a bit early, though.

>>8969058

being this dismissive and refusing to engage only makes you look more faggit to me, talkslikebotfag

>>8968903

>Kundalini practice

It seems like you have a shallow understanding of these things.

Both of the things you describe have to do with the chakras and opening them.

Yes, faggots use a cheat code more or less, hence the rainbow symbolism, which is supposed to symbolize the rainbow bridge, which symbolizes the bridge between you and the Creator's spirit within (You).

So, in other words, faggots use the rainbow symbolism to mock the ones who do it the right way, which sex is NOT NEEDED FOR.

The Y is the triumvirate and it depicts a dynamic, which has been explained here a few times… which I would know because I try to talk about it when adjacent topics arise.

Of course, I could be wrong and it may be three families Q wants us to look at. I've also enjoyed anons suggest it's the Vanderbuilt family (which seems a bit less likely). Either way, I think the triumvirate was established a while ago, about around the time "The Moon" arrived here.

Maybe this isn't a good time to go this deep in to the dream though.

Also, Y = Masculine where X = Feminine.

Now think Generation Y, X, and Z and you have the explanation for the tranny push around the world.

Oh, and have you ever noticed how a T is a flattened Y?

Isn't that odd?…

>>8969114

Maybe I'm just feeling pretty lazy tonight but I'm not sure what you're saying, anon.

Think you could reel it back in a little for me?

>>8969162

I truly appreciate your being well-versed anon. Unfortunately, I'm not typically able to communicate my understandings of these subjects for my lack of available words, but I've been informed (more or less) that we have much more effect upon these events than we realize, be it far off plasma interactions to quantum mechanical events.

Odd things happen once we go too far outside of the "simulation" and the things you describe are direct evidence for that.

Keep in mind, the majority of what happens in this realm is conjured through a simultaneous consensus of perspective. Yes, individuals play a huge role in these phenomena, but the reason bigger events happen is largely because it's observed from different perspectives. What's weird is how they change when fewer perspectives capture them…

Anyway, I appreciate our convergence of ideas and certainly enjoyed the last line of your post.

While I certainly desire these things to be revealed more to all of us in a more objective sense one day, these conversations that help us inch closer to them are often very rewarding.

>>8969200

I guess what makes you an easy target for my perpetual devil's advocacy is your always posting the same exact way…

Maybe just stop trying to stand out so much and we won't have to always confront each other over and over again.

>>8969207

interesting.

keep us updated, anon. I'm intrigued.