Bid Abstract Form Free: Fill & Download for Free

The In-Betweener, is a near omnipotent, cosmic level abstract entity, created by Lord Chaos and Master Order.The near omnipotent abstract beings that represent all chaos and order in reality, and appear to lesser beings as a bald headed man and an ever morphing round mass also resembling a usually purple head.The In-betweener has all of their abilities, therefore he is a reality warper on a universal level, his (it’s) power is such, that he may be even mightier than Galactus, depending on the situation, and his power can even effect those with power greater than the world eater.He’s also a pompous dick, more even than that other asshole, The Stranger.He exists to balance opposites, life and death, hot and cold, good and evil, and is in constant struggle with Chaos and Order, wanting to be free to balance the Multiverse.He was actually created to further the struggle between his two creators, such is their nature to be in constant struggle.As a result of his disobedience, he has been imprisoned many times by his creators, the only safe place to imprison him is a neutral zone, a place where there are no forces for him to use his abilities against, like the Nexus of reality.He can be as powerful as he needs to be, Marvel has rated his strength and power as “incalculable”, meaning too great to be estimated.Like all abstracts, physical force doesn’t work well against him, it only slows him down, and if his physical form is destroyed, he, like all abstract use’s an m-body from the dimension of manifestations, he can return.Because he also represents the balance between strong and weak, and physical and non-physical, he can be temporarily defeated, mainly by three methods:VASTLY POWERFUL MAGIC…It should be noted, the In-betweener was split in half, the Chaos side, and the Order side, when he fought the Avengers, and was far, far from his normal immense power level.2. VAST COSMIC LEVEL POWERPossessing more raw power than the In-betweener:3. BEING UNIQUEFor every Eternity, there’s his opposite, Death, for every Infinity, there’s Oblivion, for every Galactus there’s….there’s…nothing!Galactus has no counter-balance, no opposite, nor does Thanos.Not really a power, or an ability, but this is something that the In-betweener has difficulty dealing with, for there is no opposite power he can use against his opponent.Some beings, like Galactus, are unique in all creation, leaving the In-betweener unable to use his ability, of using his opponents “polar opposite”, or “opposite energy”, against them.In such situations he resorts to actual raw power, which he has in abundance.The In-betweener hypothesized that he himself was Galactus opposite, in this reality, and the only thing that would defeat Galactus was more raw power, at which time, drifting toward the middle of the universe, the In-betweener would have more of and Galactus would not.Galactus, of course, thought this was bullshit! (So to speak), and rejected the notion that he had an opposite that was equal to him in power.This theory was agreed upon, by the Tribunal himself.A “full powered” Galactus is said to equal Eternity, since the In-betweener has no offense, or defense against Galactus, it’s difficult to ascertain who has the greater power.Both are near omnipotent, the difference is, the In-betweener is a true “abstract entity”, and they are always, with the exception of a few, more powerful than physical beings.The physical beings that DO possess power greater than the In-betweeners, have a power that is near, or greater than the Living Tribunals, like the Beyonders.The In-betweener operates at a level that is always near omnipotent, Galactus however, can be weak at times.It should be noted, In-betweener used the soul gem, in his battle with Galactus, if this helped him in some way, is unknown, the soul gem doesn’t work against Galactus.Because he is a cosmic force, and not directly of our universe, he can force even beings who are omnipotent to do his bidding.Not only did he force Death to kill when she swore she would not, he rudely dismissed her, afterwards.As a result, Death was pissed, and would never forget such transgressions against her.Thanos promised vengeance upon him, in retrieving the soul gem, this helped persuade Death to let Thanos first pursue the infinity gems.The In-betweener is also an agent of the Living Tribunal.The In-betweener is also unique in our universe, so much so, that the Infinity Gems don’t work against him.Makes you wonder where he was when Thanos possessed the Infinity Gauntlet.Where does he rank?Right near the top, but under Chaos and Order of course.

One of the many differences between the libertarian mindset and the authoritarian mindset is how it approaches abstracts. “Society” is such an abstract.Abstract Versus Concrete EntitiesIf you hear comments like, “America wants” or “The community thinks” or “It’s good for society”, you are probably not talking with a libertarian. You see, there is no real entity called “America”, “community”, or “society” that has wants, desires, or thoughts, or to which good or bad things can happen. That is an anthropomorphism of an abstract.Instead, in the concrete world the only thinking entities are human beings. And only human beings have wants, desires, thoughts, dreams, actions, etc. And only to human beings can good and bad things happen.Authoritarians Speak for Society“Society” is the authoritarian’s trick to pretend to combine in some magical way the myriad wants, desires, thoughts, etc. of the individual members of a group into a single want, desire, or thought, which he then attributes to his anthropomorphic abstraction “society”. <0523>Authoritarians love abstracts, because no matter what you might want, or think, or desire, or how a project affects you, the authoritarian can tell you, with all the certainty of the grifter, that you must surrender (under pain of violence if need be) your selfish wants, thoughts, desires, and put up with the adverse consequences to you, all for the good of “society”, which he, as ruler, uniquely knows.(Now, if you are a very careful observer, you will notice that the needs, desires, wants, and thoughts of society-as-revealed-by-your-ruler rarely match up with your needs, desires, wants, and thoughts, but almost always match up with the ruler’s needs, desires, wants, and thoughts. As surprising as that may be, it makes the use of an abstract like “society” oh-so-profitable for rulers.)Libertarians Watch What Individuals ChooseTo the libertarian, “society” is not a starting point, but an outcome — a result of the desires and actions of the individual members of that society.We start with the the real individual people involved, and allow them to maximize their own lives as they desire. Unlike the authoritarian, we do not coerce them through threats of state violence into being only pawns for an authoritarian’s a priori concept of an ideal “society”. Libertarians instead wait humbly, not knowing the outcome of this particular society, but instead allowing the individual people of that society the freedom to create whatever society they believe would be best for themselves. <0889>And the resultant “decision of society” is revealed at the end of the millions of distributed, voluntary, consensual, peaceful interactions of those individuals. They get to create that society that works best for them, given their individual desires, their individual priorities, their individual actions, and the interactions that work for each of them.Example: Authoritarian’s Use of SocietyTo illustrate this difference, let’s say that a ruler — after doing whatever mechanations he requires to determine what is best for society — proclaims that “It is good for society to do Project X.”Now, the ruler’s determination of what is best for society might have been through a burning bush divine revelation about what would happen in the future to all the individuals in that society with and without Project X — but that is highly unlikely. In most cases, it is simply payback to some cronies who funded his rise to power. But because the authoritarian “society” only reveals itself to the ruler, and because only the ruler speaks for “society”, when the ruler speaks, “society” has spoken, and “it” wants Project X.As ruler, either he uses threats of state violence to force the individual people to labor on Project X, or in the more modern method of subjugation, he allows the people to work on whatever they can, and he then extorts through threats of state violence the product of their labor for Project X. (That labor mostly ends up in the hands of his cronies). And if a few (million) individuals need to be sacrificed for “society”, well, gotta break some eggs to make an omelette (Which is why authoritarians tend to be so mass murdering — the individuals are irrelevant given the desire of “society” as revealed by the ruler. )But should we start to think ill of the ruler for threatening and extorting or even mass murdering, we are trained by the ruler’s apologists (whom society very much wants, the ruler will tell you) to remember that the ruler too is just a humble servant of “society”, only doing what he must to serve “society” (whose ‘wishes’ only he could know.)Once Project X is complete, the ruler — after once again mystically consulting with “society” — will inevitably pronounce “society” much better off for having spent whatever amount of labor and human lives he stole for that particular project, regardless of the benefits the people are missing had they used their own labor and their own lives in pursuit of what they would have preferred.And that is the role of society for an authoritarian.Example: Libertarians’ Use of SocietyIn a libertarian society, though, the individual people make their own individual decisions about how to spend their individual labors. No libertarian society enslaves nor plunders any man, not for the benefit of some abstract “society” (nor even for the rulers’ cronies).If enough people like Project X and believe that Project X will benefit them more than, say, a new dress for little Suzy’s recital, well, that group will dedicate their labor to Project X, and we libertarians, seeing this result of freed men making their choices voluntarily, would then say, that this society — composed of those specific individuals — had wanted and created Project X.But if Project X does not really benefit those people more than the alternative uses of their labor, they will not waste their labor on Project X. And in that case, we libertarians would then say that this society — composed of those specific individuals — did not want Project X and had rejected it. <0680>And that is the role of society for a libertarian.Cost and Benefit Incentives RequiredNow, you can see that in the libertarian case, if one really wanted Project X, you would have to sell it to enough of your fellow citizens that they voluntarily chose it over the other possible uses of their labor. It would be very important to your sales process to ensure that Project X really benefited enough of them to attract their labor. It would similarly be important to keep the costs of Project X down so that the threshold for acceptance versus rejection is low and the people will not have to give up too much of their labor to Project X.But in the authoritarian case, once the ruler determines through his Mephistophelian processes that “Society wants Project X”, the costs are largely irrelevant, and the benefit to the individual members of that society is similarly largely irrelevant. In fact, in the authoritarian case, it is only critical to ensure that the benefit to ruler is high, so that when the ruler consults with his mystical “society”, that “society” will tell him that your Project X is critically important.Once you convince the ruler of “society’s” great need, you need not worry about the individual members of that society! They will have no yes/no choice in the matter and because of the violent coercion that the ruler will apply to them, they will all have to submit their labor for Project X, while forgoing any “selfish” desire else they may have preferred spending their body’s labor on.A Start Versus an EndAnd in this way we can see that the authoritarian starts with “society” and uses the individuals in that society as his disposable slaves to do his “society’s” bidding, which only he can know. But the libertarian ends with “society”, as the revealed behavior of diverse, freed, individual men, each valuable in and of herself, each with different goals and values, and each choosing for herself what she wants to produce with her own labor of her own body.See Related:0335: Is there a trade-off between self-ownership and social order?1223: Why is roads the go-to argument against libertarianism?1172: What is the strongest argument against libertarianism?0248: Parable: The meaning of the social contract1144: Do libertarians believe that the needs of individuals trump the needs of society?0891: Is libertarianism necessarily radical?1232: Why do private companies deliver quicker and better than the government?0751: What differentiates government action from private action?0444: Would libertarians support an omniscient God as a political ruler?0889: Why can’t libertarians tell us precisely what their future society will look like?1196: What must governments learn to transition from a centralized economy to a free market?1217: Is universal human literacy worth achieving?1030: Are authoritarians good people with policy differences, or just evil people?1055: What is more important: policies that work better, or policies that are more ethical?0523: The impossibility of utilitarianism.0680: How might freed men in a libertarian society have paid for the moon landings?→ More essays on <Epistemology and Mysticism> by Dennis→ Return to the <Table of Contents> for Dennis’ Libertarian Essays<, Slavery, Conseq, GovViol, Epistem, DifUnd, GovFail, Roads,>

One needs to continually be reminded that the Purānas are ENCYCLOPEDIAS. They contain everything from Atomic theory to Zoology so when asking a question about the verity of something one must be more specific about the subject.I assume you are asking about the Preta-kāṇḍa which deals with death and the afterlife.The answers is these are descriptive stories, narratives and legends which have an implication in defining cultural beliefs and asserting values, and which inform ideal practice and behaviour.According to the principles of exegesis (Mimāmsa) the primary function of Scripture is to give practical guidance in how to live a Dharmic life this is known as the VIDHI — and this is the most important part of Shastra.In order to support and encourage the desirable practice, the Shastra describes incentives and to discourage the negative acts they give disincentives. All the incentives and disincentives are called ARTHAVĀDAs. In other words they are metaphoric only and not to be taken literally.In the Preta-kāṇḍa it describes the journey of the deceased called PRETA or “hungry ghost” into the after-world and its exit interview with a panel of Judges Yama – the Lord of Death, Chitragupta – the celestial accountant and Varuna – the celestial Intelligence-gathering agent.The deceased person is asked to give an account, discussion ensues followed by judgment and then it is sent either to a heaven if its good deeds are excessive or to hell if its bad deeds are dominant and if neutral then one returns to earth to continue the spiritual journey.The underlying theme of all these stories is about DHARMA and ADHARMA.The only time when people’s minds are capable of full and attentive focus is when a close relative or beloved has died. So during the 10 days after death the Garuda Purana is read in order to emphasize the nature of Dharma and to re-orientate the minds of the listeners to true ethical and spiritual values and to reinforce their practice through the introduction of a post-death reward and punishment system.This is all ARTHAVĀDA - it is not to be taken literally! One needs to focus on the behaviour being eulogised and not the consequences of that behaviour.WHY are these stories told if they are not to be taken literally? Because there are different levels of attainment among the śrāvakas (listeners).uttama — the best and most intelligent with an academic and philosophical bent of mind – who instinctively know Dharma.madhyama – the middling who are bright, clever, intelligent, educated but not much inclined to abstract thought who get confused between Dharma and Adharma.kaniṣṭha – the “small” folk - those who are simple and non-academic, basic education, who belong to the masses and are not naturally inclined to Dharma and often mistake Adharma for Dharma and are generally following their natural instincts without the filter of Viveka (discrimination). They are prone to superstition and need encouragement and support.It is for these latter folks that the meaningful and metaphorical stories of the Puranas are told.When I conduct funeral ceremonies I quickly assess the caliber of the participants, their family and friends and then direct my explanations and teachings to suit their qualification as uttama, madhya or kaniṣṭha.The mere fact that the majority of readers of this post are on English Quora we would assume you all to be of the uttama or madhyama category and therefore can dismiss all these metaphorical narratives as ARTHAVĀDA.The practical outcome of the Preta-kāṇḍa is to prescribe rituals for the passage of death and process of grief. These rituals have a profound effect upon the participants from a psychological point of view. The are like a kind of Gestalt Therapy. Their function is to:–To help people to recognise the fact and the inevitability of death.To develop coping strategies to formally process their grief in the company of the close family and friends.To perform ritual i.e. stylized acts which they believe will contribute to the welfare of the deceased and thus free themselves from guilt pertaining to their possible neglect of the deceased person.To benefit the deceased who is believed to hover around for 10 to 40 days after death and to inform them of their altered state and to bid them farewell and to depart into the Great Beyond!(Whether they are actually benefited or not is speculative and not really important - the major positive effect of these rituals is on the family and their processing of grief.)