Sins=Guilt Guilt which leads to understanding.

[Enix]

Alot of people misunderstand this.
They become snobs or hard hearted.
Fear always comes back to you.
(energetic food or discoloring.
feeds  nature) Evolution? Darkness?
Some sins are harder than others, based on circumstances.
difficulty pursues.
We always have free will.
We always have free choice.
How one decides to work on Karma is individual choice.
How one grows  and knows.
Choice
I prefer not to be blinded.

Extreme evolution that is a decision.
With Understanding you go with the flow and decide.
If you go with the flow your letting nature make the decision.
Reincarnation works towards processes of evolution.
It creates powers and leads to understanding.
Darkness creates evolution (usually by selfish intent.)
Understanding comes in many ways

You either Know thyself and go with the flow of nature or you don't in which case you'll keep evolving.
But don't get stuck in a dark pattern of things or you'll be blinded by the light.
Like an astral snake that creates compassion, understanding and chaos.
They work by instinct, they don't mean to do this.
If you loved one I don't know what the hell would happen.
If you loved it to much and abandoned it, it would probably either be sad or bite but I'm just guessing.
poor little guys.
oh well

[personalreality]

I am genuinely interested.

Captivating.

[Chris J.]

Once again, your knowledge is too much for me.

[personalreality]

It's not knowledge, it's a personal perception of reality. 

It's very well written.

But it's a subjective writing, it's like a journal entry where the journalist pretends to be writing to a crowd.

It's artful ontological musings.

Doesn't mean it's anymore wise than any thought you think.

[Yin]

so I should frame it and put it on my wall?

[Enix]

No you should turn it into your new religion!
The main thing I was getting at is by understanding the flaw of the error or impulse, but with an understanding of the nature.
You learn from it.
Guilt is released and learning is enhanced.
You no longer make the error
Its more than personal though
As above so below

You have to come to an understanding of Guilt to transcend it.

[Stillwater]

It's artful ontological musings.

What do you mean by that? What is said about the different modes of being, or their lack of existence?

[personalreality]

ontology is the study of being, which equals the study of reality to me, and any observation about the "human condition" counts as an ontological musing.

[Stillwater]

... and any observation about the "human condition" counts as an ontological musing.

This part is not true.

There is only small subset of thoughts about the human condition that would count as ontological. Thoughts about living conditions, social equality, romantic involvement, developmental psychology, and expression through art history are all thoughts about the human condition, but none of them is properly ontological.

Ontological thoughts about the human condition would include, "Are humans the same as God?", "Do humans have a soul?", "Are human minds an immaterial substance?" and, "Do humans have the same kind of existence as numbers and letters do, or is our existence fundamentally different?" You may have meant "human condition" to refer more narrowly to considerations like these, I suspect.

Trust me on this one, I have a degree in philosophy 

I will try not to be so pedantic in the future. 

[personalreality]

A philosophy degree doesn't meant shite to me.

All you people learn to do it argue properly, with logic.

[kurtykurt42]

A degree in Philosphy is definitely a good starting point but I would certainly not be contempt with only that. The world we live in today is full of exciting new education opportunities and resources.

But with regard to reality I would say that beginning at the time that we are born into this world we experience sensory input into the cortical brain and its comprehension of information in terms of the “earth model” becomes natural. This process allows us to differentiate between various places and objects allowing us to more easily grasp our own reality.

Although, it is important to note that the holographic universe of conscious experience in which we are a part of, is perceived differently depending upon the observer and his index MPO (i.e. earth). The observer may not be human and of course his index may not be earth which will undoubtedly affect the individuals information processing and thinking processes. It is because of this reason that we must learn to undefine reality and understand that reality is a highly subjective term that should not be used lightly.

[Stillwater]

A philosophy degree doesn't meant shite to me.

That is just to say that I have some familairity with the study of ontology. I think you might have read too much into the statement, lol.

All you people learn to do it argue properly, with logic.

It is surprising to think, but formal logic generally only allows one to prove in explicit terms what they already knew in a more colloquial sense. There is indeed an accepted connection between many words and phrases and first order logical symbols and connectives, but most functional phrases in English actually don't have fixed logical equivalents. "Everyone loves a woman", for instance. That phrase is held to have at least six possible readings, including the ideas that every person loves a different woman; every person loves any woman; there exists a woman that all people in the world love; for every person in the world, there exists one, and only one specific woman that that person loves, and none of them love the same woman; should there be a given woman, it can be shown that all people love that woman, and at least one other reading I am not thinking of. The words themselves can be fixed individually as logical constants, but somehow the whole thing is much more ambiguous.

I am just trying to point out that you can try to keep your reasoning consistent with logic, but once you step out of the narrow world of first order logical  statements, there is no way to ensure that there is a one to one relationship between your phrasing and possible logical interpretations.

And you can add to this the notion that while it is possible to reach sound conclusions if your premises are known to be certain, there are very few things that can arguably be known for certain in this world, and thus very few conclusions that can be argued to be sound. You can try to get past this problem, arguing that there are things in plain sight everyone knows to be true, but amazingly, you will find that almost no standard of proof is great enough to claim to know circumstantial things about the world. I am not saying that one can't know anything, but rather that you might be disappointed about the things that are agreed to be provable. Mostly stuff about numbers, really And Descartes and others doubted even these....

[personalreality]

i didn't read all of that yet,

but disregard most things i say. 

when i read it properly I'll respond properly.