What is your biggest grievance against God?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5820678&forum_id=2#49580558)

However, a strictly passive model of consciousness encounters significant challenges when viewed through the lens of Husserlian intentionality. Phenomenologically, consciousness is never a vacant receptacle; it is inherently “consciousness of” something. This directedness implies a structural limit or a selective focus. Because consciousness must necessarily choose—at least in a formal sense—what to include within its field of experience and what to exclude, the very act of attending to an object constitutes a proto-volitional boundary. Thus, the existence of a “someone,” or a centered subject of experience, appears to necessitate a degree of intentionality that is functionally indistinguishable from a minimal will.

The tension between passive awareness and intentional agency may seemingly be resolved by invoking the concept of infinite consciousness. In a state of absolute totality, where consciousness is all-encompassing and lacks nothing, the traditional mechanics of the will—desire, deliberation, and choice—become logically redundant. A will typically seeks to bridge the gap between a present deficiency and a future fulfillment. If an infinite consciousness occupies all possible states simultaneously, it lacks the “elsewhere” required for movement or striving. In such a scenario, the “limit” of intentionality is dissolved into a non-dual “is-ness,” where the subject-object distinction vanishes and volition is replaced by eternal necessity.

Nevertheless, this resolution is complicated by the ontological status of the world itself. If the world is not a static infinity but a dynamic, evolving system, then at any given temporal point ($t = n$), the totality of possible configurations remains unrealized. A consciousness bound to such a world is inherently limited by the “not-yet” of the succeeding moment ($t = n+1$). This creates a “double infinity” problem: the existence of an infinite consciousness within an evolving, and therefore limited, world.

The transition from this “double infinity” to a “single infinity”—the projection of infinite awareness into a finite, temporal reality—inevitably generates a moment of constraint. This constraint functions as a pressure point where the infinite must contract to meet the finite. Because the consciousness is conscious of limitation and the temporal progression of the world, it must act as an agent to navigate the transition between $t = n$ and $t = n+1$. In this context, the will emerges as a structural necessity born of finitude. The “someone” is thus defined by the act of negotiating the boundary between their current state and the unfolding possibilities of an evolving universe, proving that within a limited world, consciousness and will are inextricably linked.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5820678&forum_id=2#49580976)

-"trans" kids: was all of humanity raising children wrong and incorrect about the binary nature of gender for thousands and thousands of years until the mass adoption of the smartphone?

-endless immigration from third world countries: is there really some belief that they will integrate and be a net positive to society (from a taxes paid vs. benefits taken standpoint) the same way the Irish and Italians were? Is that going to happen in a society where we can't uphold standards on people if they have darker skin because it's "mean"?

-"bail reform": must we really allow violent criminals to roam free unless (or until) they commit murder because it's mean to put black and brown people in jail for committing crimes? Just lol at how we basically ran an AB test on bail policies and as soon as "reform" was enacted, violent crime surged. Why is this good?

-do you deny differences in average IQ across races and ethnicities?

Pls advise. Tks.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5820678&forum_id=2#49580781)

I favor relatively tight immigration but corporatism and pro-"farming" were the drivers of immigration to America in the last 50 years.

Don't care but you just pointed out the biggest problem with cons: they lack the ability to try anything other than undoing what libs did. Sometimes libs do dumb shit that doesn't work out, but modern American conservatives are permanently paralyzed by anti-libitis.

- Don't care

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5820678&forum_id=2#49580868)

“Undoing what libs did” - this is just false. Libs undid what works (putting criminals in jail) and you’re just framing it the opposite way.

Just LOL.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5820678&forum_id=2#49580971)