Universalism is a theological and philosophical concept with universal application or applicability. Universalist doctrines consider all people in their formation.

In terms of religion, in a broad sense, universalism claims that religion is a universal human quality. This can be contrasted with non-universalist religions. Religion in this context is defined as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

More about it later. Was a side track from looking up Hosea Ballou who was credited with

Moderation is the key to lasting enjoyment.

newUniversalism seems a bit more enlightened than Ecumenism which seems to be like Islamism only different. In considering beliefs one can collect piles & factor them into all sorts even yours (seth& d’A..ho..) & come then to a pile of belief-factoralizations etc.  All have something in common a belief model & a behavior implied. #TskTsk – the selfies out there all want to be unique #BellyLaugh . laughing .. Me(I) is different!


I don’t have any vested interest in Universalism per se.

I believe in intrinsic qualities to reality. A very few, which affect all things, and thus all things, no matter how complex, are built upon them. #LOA is one such intrinsic quality, and not a religion.  

#yep the world is full of people with beliefs – enjoy yours – XOR
Free yourself & get rid of beliefs ! Don't be a BELIEF robot - M.R.

Well okay null
count me out of #universalism.
i believe that things are #specific …
every so very #specific.
I can not even step in the same river twice.

But sure there are principles that are seen obtaining all over the place. 
That there would be just one such dominating principle, seems ludicrous to me.
Nope, i make that not so, by virtue of my #WillToBelieve! 
or in the case of a single dominating principle,  a will to disbelieve null

#LOL … so then, you invoke #LOA as the means by which you banish #LOA as a intrinsic principle.

But of course, the very fact that you can do that is what makes #LOA an intrinsic principle. null

Only intrinsic principles can operate on themselves, including but not limited to making the principle itself go away.

huh?  how did i invoke #LOA as a means to banish it as being intrinsic?

”i make that not so, by virtue of my #WillToBelieve!”

… that’s purely applied #LOA.

You can’t not-use #LOA, no matter how hard you try.

You can even use #LOA to set up a condition where #LOA does not exist, and maintain that condition. But it is still #LOA being used to create that non-loa context. It dosen’t “go away” as long as you are involved in any kind of a reality experience.

It’s like the holodeck on Star Treck TNG. You can use it to have any experience you want. You can even use it to create an entire universe where no such thing as a holodeck exists, or a universe where the laws of physics are different, or a universe where pink elephants are common … but no matter what, you are still on the holodeck. null

Quite frankly, your entire reality experience is happening on your own personal holodeck. Your thoughts are the programs that generate the experience, and your beliefs are the operating system, the framework used to structure what your thoughts call forth. #LOA is simply the machine code … what the holodeck processor was designed to run on. Doesn’t matter what higher language you program your experience in, it all ends up as #LOA when your scenario is played for you to experience in the holodeck arena. And when you experience another? That other is being created according to your specifications on your holodeck, even though the other only actually exists on their own holodeck … and you can make your version as much like, or as much different, from any other representation of that other as you want to … and if you think you have some special means to make your version just the the original, then you are more likely making your version more like what you believe the other to be. To truly experience another as they are, you not only have to not try and represent them, you must also loose your own identity and not represent you. As long as there is a spec of your own ego and beliefs around, your version of another is all yours … and the more you try and get them right as not your idea, the more they are your idea only. It’s the paradox of otherness. You cannot truly know another until you truly don’t know you. But that’s okay. It’s all part of the grand design.  

Sorry null, all i will say about that story, …
about that pattern of thinking, 
is break it and you will feel better null.

I feel really good. Always open to even better.

#LOL … Mark writes …

“the selfies out there all want to be unique #BellyLaugh . laughing .. Me(I) is different!”

translation … everyone out there is trying to be different, but not me, I am trying to be different!  

You go Mark. You have developed your own unique selfie … I’ll grant you that.  

i interpert Mark’s …

the selfies out there all want to be unique #BellyLaugh . laughing .. Me(I) is different!

… as meaning that he wants to be “cut from the same cloth” or “the same as every other human”. 

Is that what you mean, mark ?
whereas ...

Me I, know that i am unique, and i am also “cut from the same cloth” as other humans.  
I express my uniqueness in how i connect with others … only i can do that …
not some generalized human.



Nope! – almost the exact opposite!

Which is what I said … i.e. Mark is going for the ultimate selfie ... the selfie that is not a selfie … the one who is “truly different”, not just “trying to be unique”.  

okay, but ...

i don’t grasp that “being unique” is any different than “being different”. 
fact is:  nobody has had my experiences except me, 
that makes me unique and different from any other being.

Ahhh … but the difference is you are trying to be unique. You are taking a selfie.

Mark is trying to be different by not trying to be unique. The ultimate selife.

well you said i was “trying” .. i did not say i was “trying”. 
i said i was unique …. it is not an attempt … it is a fact … it is something that i know.
i am trying to send out #newsletters … that is something that i am “trying” to do.

Actually not.  The #AlreadyAlways program a “selfie” runs is “I am unique”  –

1:23 Let’s set that one aside for a moment and look at another such truism, which also applies to our current consideration. We’ve heard many times the assertion that “everyone is unique.” It’s true that the culture we live in provides us with a seemingly limitless range of possibilities from which to create our personal self-identities, beliefs, and behavior. But a closer look reveals that our cultural assumptions act as a kind of filter through which certain ideas simply do not pass.

1:24 While each one of us can claim to be unique in some way, we must keep in mind that we all fashion ourselves in relation to the culture in which we live and develop. The “lone wolf” may scorn the “sheep” of society, but the lone wolf is a much more common identity symbol than the sheep. Both notions clearly exist “inside the box” of our cultural framework, and neither is unique. Every aspect of a person’s individuality—indeed, his entire experience of self, life, and reality—is largely a product of the culture in which he lives. And of course, everything he knows to be true, and all the knowledge that he can access, is also based on this unrecognized cultural framework. Becoming aware of this framework creates the possibility of freedom from it, and freedom from it empowers our ability to discover the truth for ourselves.

Ralston, Peter. The Book of Not Knowing: Exploring the True Nature of Self, Mind, and Consciousness (pp. 16-17). North Atlantic Books. Kindle Edition.

i pretty much said of myself what #PR said above …
I express my uniqueness in how i connect with others … only i can do that …

For me, going beyond an existing cultural “framework” of connections is me creating or expressing new possibilities into that framework.  Nor do i expect others should have that same urge.  That is just my thingey at which i have arrived.

discover the truth for ourselves – PR

… ahh, the “tell”. I read all of what PR says above as correct. And yet, at the end he gives us a “tell” of where he is really at in his reality journey. A better way to phrase this would be “discover the truth of ourselves”. It is not clear for sure just from this only, but it is likely PR has not yet made it to the vista where he is seeing that “the larger truth he has discovered and is speaking about is the truth he is creating”.

You may be surprised how much of your Me(I) you owe to your culture.  You’ve above just redefined uniqueness as expression in connecting which artifact of language doesn’t leave anything in my mind similar to uniqueness .
I do get that connecting is your thingy however – perhaps your driving force behind fastblogit. null
BTW, the #PR thingy is broken & does not represent the author Peter Ralston of BofNK – fuck the turd who broke that.

He’s NOT! that’s your thingy(circus,monkey) .

I hear you shouting “I’m NOT”. IMHO you don’t know what Peter knows or how close he is to groking this about reality. All you know is where you are at, and how you are interpreting Peter’s communications in the light of your journey.

The #PR thingy is not broken. You and Seth simply do not have enough votes to change it to the re-presentation you prefer. It does re-present the author of BofNK as I perceive him.

This is a fair “voting based” system of re-presentation. I thought fair politics was your thingy mark.

well when i say “expressing” i don’t restrict myself to just linguistic representations …
rather expressing myself is everything that i say or do regardless of how it is mediated.

Yeah fuck the turd who corrupted our usage of #PR … making each of them represent a lie.
The person who created that corruption does not take responsibility for the consequences of his actions.

actually we do … we were using the term “PR” way before you implemented your game.

Speak about yourselves – you will LIE LESS!

Nope. Remember you proposed that before and I did a data search and there were only a handful?

I’ll happily spot you an extra 12 … I’m still well ahead using #PR.  

… remember, only one count’s per unique comment or thought.

Conversation forked to thought 23951

Seth & I have 2 votes. Someone engineered things so that shouting & mob-rule work so that his own #SoTheFuckWhat prevails .

i seriously doubt your statistics .  and i suspect your own usages were mostly faked.  and your definition is a lie.  and i do not want to play that kind of competitive lieing game that way at fastblogit in any case.  but hey, continue to be a stubborn ass hole trying to impose your structure on those of us who obviously do not want to be subjected to it.

Nathan 75
Seth 37
Mark 6
Additional plain text Mark + Seth 12

75 > 37 + 6 + 12  

All is fair (except when mark is on the wrong side of it … then, the system is #SoTheFuckWhat & #SSDD )


Who talks about the photographer? not me! Do you seth ?

even if null accepts that such a competitive game at fastblogit … i am the judge ...

you need to add seth + mark together as we were using the same definition

so it’s 55 for a truthful definition  vs 75 for your lie.

As the judge i would have to look at each of your 75 and see if they were used just for the sake of your score.  Intuitively i know that most of them must have been faked, because we were taling about PR a lot and long before you came on the scene. 

But i don’t want to play that game here at fastblogit.  It’s very nature rubs me the wrong way.

This is not Wikipedia, where individual champions of their own brand of truth decide upon the content that is true or not. A system which, #btw, ousted Peter Ralston (aka #PR) for being a self appointed crackpot. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FPeter_Ralston 

This is a fair system where the people with the most ACTUAL USE votes on their side decide what a re-presentation is … just like congress.  

You guys just don’t have the uses on this (and thus the combined votes) and that really twists your rainbow panties!

i do not … and nathan knows that. 

Where does d’A..hol. talk about the photographer? & why is his nose back in his rainbow panties fetish?

As I have said before, this image (and this is not the image of a photographer, but an image taken by a photographer named Peter Ralston) … this image best re-presents the Peter Ralston of BofNK that I know and understand. When I saw it, I immediately recognized his “soul vibration”. 

… I have the use votes, so it is my choice to choose the re-presentation … and I choose this one (currently under #PR) as best representing Peter Ralston.

seth once agreed to this fair process too, until this happened → About: Universalism - comment 76818

Peter Ralston speaks best for himself & Cheng Hsin  –
BTW I recently found a erroneous bio on C.F.Russell on wikipedia.  It is not my job to correct it.

You never spent time with him & probably didn’t finish any of his books – so your fantasy, nathan is private to your circus & monkeys  <– news article – perhaps:

Neither is it your job to shit on the fairly determined re-presentations of other’s here.

When you banter your reality the most, you get to choose. When others do, they choose. Fair is fair.

Maybe so. Or maybe you are so close to the trees you can’t see the forest.

Who knows? That’s why we have a fair voting system. So that you mark, and others like you who would strong arm if they could (I have no doubt about it) must play fair. Your truth is not THE TRUTH.

well it is true that Peter Ralston’s article has been deleted from Wikipedia  as a result of their social process … and that a direct stastical approach lead to a more unbiased presentation of him at google Peter Ralston.

But fact is that your definition, of #PR,  is a corruption of the language that me and mark were actually using.

That is the salient edge upon which this dispute rests.


Conversation forked to thought 23952

Doesn’t matter. Except that it would be breaking the 3 rules of social interaction, I could go and convert all your and Mark’s old uses to actual #PR tags and I would still be in the lead.

This is not about who did something first, it is about who is currently doing something the most, and getting the widest coverage with it … and that is true to natural language.

If your argument were the best way to do things, then right now I can easily say “you are gay” and you will immediately take that as a big complement without any doubt or hesitation. If you hesitated to do so even slightly, then you know how language really works … which is how we are honoring it here.

#SoTheFuckWhat – you call something fair & a “voting” system & spin your shit – enjoy da’ #juice

… until it is your spun shit that wins you the votes and you get your #juice … then “it’s all politics and fair” and you will be calling me a “whiney little bitch like #HC” if I complain.  True story.

p.s. I suggest you put up a group glossary term for #HC mark (currently unclaimed) … if you don’t, I will. Fair warning if you prefer to look at my re-presentation for all time.  

#BellyLaugh null 

well every instance of what a language term means is particular and unique.  What definition that should be placed in a dictionary in a very large corpus of usage does not necessarily apply to a small one.   In this case you are outvoted 2 to 1.  This is far more direct than you seem to want it to be. 

That is why this language game cannot be automated.  that is why i allowed it to be tried here as long as i was the final judge.  Your example pointed up why a dictionary does not work controlled entirely by stastical usage without resource to context or the intentions of actual people.

… and actually, you were the one seth who insisted it should be about “actual use”, not just personal votes … much for those reasons.

And looking at the code, it is very “fair actual use” because it does’t even count multiple comments on the same thought. It is a “one use per thought id” count. Doesn’t matter how much I spread it around the comments of a thought. You can’t get more fair than that in terms of actual “language spread”. We only count true different thoughts.

You are simply holler’n about the twist in your crotch (and you leg attacking you) … not about true fairness or about true language.

… and apparently you did not read or comprehend what i just said …
in other words we are talking past each other. 

It is a social art to create a practical dictionary.  It’s should not be used to change the meaning somebody intended when they invoked a sign.  But that is the consequence of the act that you perpertrated and the system that you yourself implemented.   Do you think that Mark’s and my feelings about our use of #PR are not real?  Do you actually think that you diminish them by insulting us?   Do you even care?   No, this particular case is where human thought in context should obtain over automated thought + a single person’s attempt to control a situation for their own adgenda.

Do you think I am lying when I say this image of #PR best represents “the way he feels to me”?

That is the truth. I found this image during an authentic search where I was truly “tuned in” to what Peter Ralston represents to me, in my life, and to the world.

Do you care about that? You have never even acknowledged the value of that. Yet, vibrational representation is far more important to me, and to a lot of people, than the pixels you care about.

In this particular case, I have the usage to be able to have what means the most to me represented. And quite possibly, if my friends where writing here, they would agree with what I see vibrationally. You and Mark quite often get to ram your white washed viewpoint of the world down my throat. In this case, you can’t, by fair use that happened before the glossary was created.

And you call me unfeeling and uncaring? Fuck you Mr. Bigot!

But language is best used to communicate identities between people …
not to impose you own peculiar subjective vibration on others.

Certainly you must realize that substituting your subjective appearance of a different person’s face for Peter’s is your own peculiar vibration that is not shared by me or mark.  Language is used to transmit vibrations that can be shared … not impose vibrations that can not.  It is best used to establish agreements … not to impose them.  That latter is called #propoganda and is widly accepted as a corruption of language. 

“Black” is not “white” notwistanding whatever #Trump says.

Why would I worry about if my view is shared by just you and Mark?

Did the person who changed the word “bad” to mean “really good” or “sick” to mean “awesome” go out in the world and take stock of what it meant to others?

No, they simply did it and by natural process has become the norm. When someone says “thats sick” we know they mean it is really fucking awesome!

By random chance, I happened to apply the tag #PR in a whole bunch of thoughts, because we were talking about him a lot, between the time #hashtag’s were started and the time the glossary was invented. More than you and Mark had used the term before, even not as a hashtag.

… so now it is “the norm”. That is what both you and I should be caring about. Not what you and Mark individually think … not unless you want to start a crusade to go and revise “gay” and “bad” and “sick” and a whole lot of other terms in the vocabulary of your reality back to what they originally meant. That is not how language works. Your term got superseded. That’s natural. It happens.

how language naturally evolves is a totally different subject.

The process of establishing “the norm” by publishing a dictionary is the subject here.  The  usage of #hashtags and their definitions actually makes the dictionary process more immediate … it is a great advance null.   You happened to find (or contrive)  an example where our system did not work in context for the particular people and words involved.  Me thinks you should accept that it did not work and let our thinking advance to something that does.  

This one problem can be easily solved simply by moving your definition of PR into your own group.  That is one of the beauties of the systrem that you designed.   But #PR is not a norm that is accepted by a majority of the people who want to use it.  It is not useful for our communication between each other.  It does not transmit an identity between our minds with any integrity.

But it does work very well for me. I feel good whenever I mouse over #PR and see the representation that matches my internal vibration. I would not feel as good if another picture were there.

Why should you and Mark strong arm my good feeling away? I have done the due diligence to have the most actively represented usage of that term feel good to me. That IS how natural language works. The dictionary majority does not strong arm the words of the common people. The dictionary adapts to what is being used. Dictionaries are always changing. They are not an authority, they are a representation, and so is our glossary.

Glossary terms are more than just communication with others, they represent feelings to self too. Don’t you sometimes mouse over #done just to get the good feeling of Tina’s “hand slap”? Don’t you mouse over some of the other hashtags for similar reasons? They make you feel good. The #PR tag makes me feel good and I won it fair and square … why can’t you accept that?