Hi, thanks for your comments.

personally, I do not see the highest priority or even obligation in preserving my own health

Since every other priority you could have (except your own death) relies upon your own continuation and health, it is simple logic to determine that health is the highest priority.

I would even say that it is this very statement that, long before 2020, led to the event that then occurred, that health was designated as the highest social good

I am not sure what event you are referring to here. In my experience, the majority of people do not consider health to be as high a priority as would be sensible. It sounds like you are identifying governmental interference in health more than you are highlighting a collective human agreement to ensure health is the highest priority.

The moment you use this as an argument towards your perceived opponents, you confirm their view more than you doubt it.

We seem to have a very different interpretation of the topic here. Health is not something that needs to involve opponents since to have opponents is itself not healthy. Health definitely isn't a weapon. One of the biggest misunderstandings about health on Earth is that people have completely denied the role of free will in health. If we are overriding the free will of others or feeling overridden ourselves, then we are not in a state of health. Health cannot manifest in a body that is involved in a push and pull struggle of will. This is part of the cause of so much of the illness on Earth - the constant stress of perpetual conflict and imbalanced minds struggling to find peace takes it's toll.

The expression "prevention of human death" is quite a shocker and double-edged.

Because when two supposedly opposing worldviews both talk about preventing death, however, they are not really opposing each other, but confirming to each other that this must be the first and foremost concern of human communities.

So as not to be misunderstood, I am not saying that the negative statement "one need not be concerned about the prevention of human death" is acceptable, rather I would avoid this formulation.

Since I am not you and you are using this formulation, I am asking if you are saying this because by doing so you are sending out a common form of communication and language that is meant to reach those who do have the same goal (prevention of death), and are "just on the wrong side"?

I am having difficulty understanding what you mean by these comments. Life literally depends on the prevention of human death. The entire process of human reproduction is a workaround for the problem of death and attempts to prevent the everlasting effect of total human death. If you think that human death is just fine then you neither understand life or health.

If two opposing worldviews talk about preventing death then they must share some common ground, providing that they are genuinely using the same definition for the idea 'preventing death'. However, I am not clear which worldviews or scenario you are referring to - perhaps you mean the difference between the gov/pharma strategy for 'preventing death' and other strategies? Yes, people can have very different ideas about how to prevent death, but again, it comes down to free will. Those with a free will must take the action necessary to prevent their own death in the way that they personally choose. Those who attempt to stop them doing so, do so at their own risk and actually risk harm to themselves. Free will means we get to do what we want/need to do but cannot override others.

An added complexity here is that many people have an undercurrent death wish, that causes them to take actions that lead to their own death - they may take others with them. Such people could absolutely be proclaiming that they are trying to save lives. The waters here are very murky indeed.

are saying this because by doing so you are sending out a common form of communication and language that is meant to reach those who do have the same goal (prevention of death), and are "just on the wrong side"?

I am simply sharing the benefit of a vast amount of human hours in exploration, practical application and experience - drawn from countless generations, lifetimes and individual sources. People can do with it what they choose.

are saying this because by doing so you are sending out a common form of communication and language that is meant to reach those who do have the same goal (prevention of death), and are "just on the wrong side"?

Billions of people continue to die. If people have fear at being informed that there are ways to improve the situation then that fear would mostly be the fear that already existed and which was being denied so heavily until it was brought into focus by the thoughts which stirred in response to my words. There is nothing to fear in the prospect of healing, balancing and evolving. Guilt requires blame and I am not blaming anyone here. Blame can, similarly to fear, be stirred when it lies dormant in the thought/emotion processes of individuals. When such emotions stir from the unconscious, the mind can often wrongly assume their causes are within whatever people/events or other triggers were around in that moment, but in reality these feelings can have deeper origins that predated the present moment. This is part of the nature of unconsciousness and it's processing. Bring thoughts and feelings into the present moment is only really useful and powerful if we increase our understanding and awareness simultaneously. This requires enquiry into the origins of the thoughts and feelings, especially the fear and anger. The failure to do such enquiry and the tendency to simply blame and attack others for what was laying dormant already within us is one of the main forms of denial on Earth and one of the main reasons that human evolution has been so stagnant for so long.

The blame or shame in being seen as a killer works pretty well, I find on both spectrums.

Everyone who causes death is to some extent a killer. The realisation of this requires us to introduce compassion and self acceptance to remove blame and shame, allowing the door to open to new realities and healing. Highlighting that death is happening and we all have some involvement is not an act that is inherently blame laden.

As Allan Watts put it, this could be seen as a game where "I am more enlightened than you are".

Enlightenment means 'increasing understanding'. I am more enlightened than I was when I was 5 years old because I have questioned more, learned more and experienced more than I had then. We can all increase or even decrease our own levels of light. We can therefore also have more light than each other at any given moment. There isn't really a way around this and hand waving away the need to increase understanding as simply a 'petty game' is another damaging pattern caused by 'spiritual people' that has also served only to keep humanity stagnating. We cannot continue this much longer, the systems on Earth are tragically dangerously out of balance. Those who intent to survive have a window of opportunity that is small.