Soth de Witan seeing very little difference between point-i and Vedanta

July 10https://bra.in/4vP3G9

The difference between the Vedas and point-i absolute

July 11, 2022 — https://bra.in/8vmaeJ The difference between the Vedas and point-i is absolute Existence and its mysticism are the bullshit that is the mayhem

Essentially, I see little difference in what you're saying, to Vedanta, and yet you and Pierre reject those ideas, as if some imaginary authoritative figure is imposing the idea of 'incomplete man' on a poor human subject, or that there is an imaginary place we are told we need to get to that does not exist. What is the difference between your meaning (psychology is a big problem/Meaning denial is an ego defense, defended with fierce defiance) and the meaning contained in the Vedas (self is an illusion/remove attachment to everything/ego is in the way etc.)?" --Soth de Witan

Soth de Witan The error of the Vedas that persists (exists dynamically) is that things are generated (albeit at its "base") impersonally, everywhere, any time. It is thereby like the scientific term, "self-organization," hence cybernetics. Cybernetics, on the basis of self-organization, effectively is the abysmal error that automated systems represents regenerative control, i.e., that artificial intelligence is the Vedanta.

The difference between the Vedas and point-i is absolute. The former is about WORDLESSLY knowing the nature of the one life-force in terms of systems that somehow (by practiced intuition) represents truth. Point-i is that everything is word and that the deep-mystical quest for some measure of the Vedanta is its denial.

Point-i is the idea that mysticism is the bullshit that is the mayhem.