time to take the finger off the ignition switch

[Dontaskme]

.

The black and white world, there, if you focus and look for ''it'' vanishes.
.

Why can you not be made to disappear so easily?

He can. Just add him to your foes' list. It's so cool.

You wanted proof ..so I gave you proof.

But your so absolutely sure no one can prove what you want them to prove ...you'd rather ignore the proof given, than be proved wrong that someone can prove what you wanted them to prove....bye the way, ken would have given same proof as well.....hahaha what a fool you make yourself look.. you are so weird I actually am starting to pity you.

[sthitapragya]

He can. Just add him to your foes' list. It's so cool.

Not good enough, I'd still know he was around, somewhere.

Yeah, but the satisfaction of seeing his post finish within the space of 2 cms is something else. Try it. It is like watching a 3D movie for the first time. And you don't get to see anything he writes!!!!

[Nick_A]

sthit wrote: Nick_A wrote:
What is one supposed to do with their finger once they've taken it off the ignition switch?

You know what you in particular can do with the finger. In fact everyone here can take an educated guess what you would do with it.

But this is just a belief. It isn't science. Has a peer reviewed study been published on what should be done with this finger? If not, there is no reason your hypothesis can be accepted as fact.

[Hobbes' Choice]

He can. Just add him to your foes' list. It's so cool.

Not good enough, I'd still know he was around, somewhere.

But when he is somewhere, he's nowhere.

[sthitapragya]

sthit wrote: Nick_A wrote:
What is one supposed to do with their finger once they've taken it off the ignition switch?

You know what you in particular can do with the finger. In fact everyone here can take an educated guess what you would do with it.

But this is just a belief. It isn't science. Has a peer reviewed study been published on what should be done with this finger? If not, there is no reason your hypothesis can be accepted as fact.

Only you can require a study on what to do with your own finger. I suppose you also need a manual for all your body parts.

My hypothesis of what you probably do with your finger is best left a hypothesis. If it is fact, we don't want to know about it.

[Nick_A]

sthit wrote:

Only you can require a study on what to do with your own finger. I suppose you also need a manual for all your body parts.

Of course there is this matter of choice which requires the scientific method to make the correct decision so as to be approved by experts. Suppose we are talking about the middle finger. I could use it myself or I could give you the middle finger. What to do? This is why we need the scientific method to decide the proper function of the middle finger once it has been freed from the ignition switch..

[sthitapragya]

sthit wrote:

Only you can require a study on what to do with your own finger. I suppose you also need a manual for all your body parts.

Of course there is this matter of choice which requires the scientific method to make the correct decision so as to be approved by experts. Suppose we are talking about the middle finger. I could use it myself or I could give you the middle finger. What to do? This is why we need the scientific method to decide the proper function of the middle finger once it has been freed from the ignition switch..

Your understanding of science is horrendous. Science does not define a code of conduct. But then what can you expect from someone who rejects the very God he worships? Have you figured out yet, whether the Hebrew God is the father of Jesus or not? Try and get your religious beliefs right first since they are of foremost importance to you. The middle finger can come later.

[Nick_A]

sthit wrote:

Have you figured out yet, whether the Hebrew God is the father of Jesus or not?

If you could ever stop arguing long enough to reason with an open mind it would be obvious to you that the Hebrew personal God of the Old Testament is not the same as the Source beyond the limits of time and space within which existence takes place. Think of what "Father" means as it relates to Jesus. It isn't some guy with a long beard screwing around with Mary. But since your greatest joy is arguing, stick with worrying about what to do with the finger of choice.

[Reflex]

sthit wrote:

Have you figured out yet, whether the Hebrew God is the father of Jesus or not?

If you could ever stop arguing long enough to reason with an open mind it would be obvious to you that the Hebrew personal God of the Old Testament is not the same as the Source beyond the limits of time and space within which existence takes place. Think of what "Father" means as it relates to Jesus. It isn't some guy with a long beard screwing around with Mary. But since your greatest joy is arguing, stick with worrying about what to do with the finger of choice.

I have a couple of suggestions what he could do with his finger.

[ken]

example of this.

You also say that the mind and brain are independent of each other.

I do not recall saying that but I do not dispute that is something I may have said.

You have no proof of this.

HOW does sth know that I have no proof that the Mind and brain are independent of each other?

Because you have not given it. If you have it, give it.

Did I or did I not say that what I want to say will not even be close to be close to being understood for quite a few years yet?

Did we or did we not both agree that what I want to write is a working progress, and that sth will wait for the "conclusion" before sth could and would make comments about this?

[sthitapragya]

example of this.



I do not recall saying that but I do not dispute that is something I may have said.

You have no proof of this.

HOW does sth know that I have no proof that the Mind and brain are independent of each other?

Because you have not given it. If you have it, give it.

Did I or did I not say that what I want to say will not even be close to be close to being understood for quite a few years yet?

Did we or did we not both agree that what I want to write is a working progress, and that sth will wait for the "conclusion" before sth could and would make comments about this?

Absolutely. But then you would have to show proof of your work-in-progress. And why do you believe that what you want to say will not even be close to being understood for quite a few years? If you are worried about your definitions and language,there are a lot of language experts who can decode what you say so there is no worry on that count.

So show me the proof and I will start work on it.

But you must understand that by definition, if you don't have ready proof, what you have is a belief. It is not my insistence. It is the definition of the word in the english language.
Unless you are implying that what you have written is way ahead of its time and humans don't have the capacity to understand. Which do you mean?

Oh, and just for your information, the concept of the 'i' and 'I' being independent is something that was propounded by Adi Sankaracharya in his theory of Advait. It is something which every Hindu has grown up believing. That includes me.

[ken]

Because you have not given it. If you have it, give it.

Did I or did I not say that what I want to say will not even be close to be close to being understood for quite a few years yet?

Did we or did we not both agree that what I want to write is a working progress, and that sth will wait for the "conclusion" before sth could and would make comments about this?

Absolutely. But then you would have to show proof of your work-in-progress.

WHY from sth's perspectives things HAVE TO or WOULD HAVE TO happen. In what world and WHY would I have to show anything at all? And, WHO exactly do I supposedly have to show it to?

This is like sth's belief that a person can not keep existing if they DO NOT HAVE a belief. WHY does sth believe so strongly that people HAVE TO do things?

Sth was the very one who insisted to Me something about hypothesis are a work-in-progress that COULD NEVER be commented on UNTIL the conclusion was given. BUT now I am expected to show proof of My work-in-progress. I decide what I show and when I show it. I decide. Always has been this way and always will be this way.

Tell me something, has sth done much debating at all?

And why do you believe that what you want to say will not even be close to being understood for quite a few years?

Quite simply because I have not yet formulated the language that is necessary for it to be fully understood yet.

If you are worried about your definitions and language,there are a lot of language experts who can decode what you say so there is no worry on that count.

LOL, so called "language experts" could not and would not be able decode anything if the code for what is written is never disclosed. sth statement here i find so amusing. The very fact that a person NEEDS a, so called, language expert, to decode for them what they them self have actually written sounds so beyond ridiculous i can not stop laughing here. For example if a person is using new definitions and language, then there is no other person who could know, for sure, what is being said without asking clarifying questions to the writer. And, if a writer needs someone to tell them what they themselves wrote, then how could that not be anything but illogical? Most people do not just scribble letters down in some scrambled way and then go to other people and ask them can you decode this for me, please?

Thanks sth a smile will not leave this face now.

By the way I am not worried about My definitions and language. I am just learning a way to use definitions and language in a way that can and WILL be fully understood by every person. I do not want again My definitions and language to be taken out of context, misunderstood, misconstrued, nor misinterpreted ever again. No one has offered any help and only on very, very rare occasions a question of me is asked for clarification, so I am in no particular rush and will take as much "time" as I want to take

So show me the proof and I will start work on it.

Show sth the proof of what exactly?

And, what 'work' will sth actually start on?

By the very thoughts within that head, which have shone brightly here and appear very clearly here there is no thing absolutely whatsoever in the whole Universe that could show sth proof of something that is believed not possible or not possibly true by sth.

This has already been evidenced and proven by sth already.

But you must understand that by definition, if you don't have ready proof, what you have is a belief. It is not my insistence. It is the definition of the word in the english language.

Again, why MUST I MUST understand anything at all?

I will, especially, will NOT understand that does not make logical sense nor could be soundly and validly argued.

What sth said here all depends on what dictionary is being used, from what context that word is being looked at, and from what definition is being looked at and used. So, by My count there are at least three different and separate situations that have to be taken into context and clarified before I could and would even begin to even think about that I MUST have to understand. There are so many things that could refute this belief here, I will not even bother now.

Here is another question to think about: Would sth believe something if it were not true?

I could just as easy argue that, by definition, given by any dictionary a 'belief' is totally unnecessary and also what i have found is a totally irrational thing to maintain.

One minute sth INSISTS that beliefs are soo strong that people and human bodies will literally stop existing and dying without them, then sth wanted Me to start assuming that sth believes that we do not actually need beliefs in order to stay alive, but now it appears sth wants to revert back to believing that beliefs still exist when a person does not have ready proof of something, which is so totally unreasonable to Me. The very fact I have less proof or no proof at all MEANS, by definition, that I would NOT believe (in) it.

WHY do you continually (want to) persist with the notion that I MUST believe (in) something?

If sth does not want to accept My word that I neither believe or disbelieve, then just move on and accept that I am lying and/or that I lying to Thee Self. sth can talk about what sth does do and/or does not do, but really sth is in no position at all to talk about what I do and/or do not do. If sth thinks that I am in blind self denial, then just show some evidence of this. Otherwise accept what I say about the Self and what I do do.

Unless you are implying that what you have written is way ahead of its time and humans don't have the capacity to understand. Which do you mean?

LOL if by definition 'you', are a human being, and i am a human being who wants to write write something, then it can not be ahead of its time, in any logical sense, in that human beings do not have the capacity to understand it yet. If i, a human being, wants to write something "now", which i think science will verify and prove true "one day", then that certainly DOES NOT mean human beings do not have the capacity to understand. In fact the truth is human beings are the only ones who can very easily learn, understand, and reason, what I want to write, BUT, only if they are open to it, which means that they do not have and maintain preconceived ideas, beliefs, and/or assumptions, etc., etc., etc.

Also, if and when i write something that i can understand, and i am a human being, then obviously human beings already have the capacity to understand it. If i, a very, very slow and simple person, especially, has the capacity to and can understand, then any other person can and will also.

Oh, and just for your information, the concept of the 'i' and 'I' being independent is something that was propounded by Adi Sankaracharya in his theory of Advait. It is something which every Hindu has grown up believing. That includes me.

Thanks very much for that information. It never ceases to amaze me how many times when I talk to people, they say something like, that is what such-and-such said, you should read what they have to say, or that is not new that is what was said previously by such-and-such, or that is what it says in such-and-such book. Just when i read what is written I can see where they are or where it is coming from, but I am seeing it from another perspective, which by the way appears to be a collective perspective of Every(as)One, not just from one individual personal perspective.

By the way sth I await the reply to the question in relation to debating so then I will also have more evidence of something else I want to express, which is in relation to human beings and the way they learn, and not learn, i.e., education.

[sthitapragya]

Did I or did I not say that what I want to say will not even be close to be close to being understood for quite a few years yet?

Did we or did we not both agree that what I want to write is a working progress, and that sth will wait for the "conclusion" before sth could and would make comments about this?

Absolutely. But then you would have to show proof of your work-in-progress.

WHY from sth's perspectives things HAVE TO or WOULD HAVE TO happen. In what world and WHY would I have to show anything at all? And, WHO exactly do I supposedly have to show it to?

This is like sth's belief that a person can not keep existing if they DO NOT HAVE a belief. WHY does sth believe so strongly that people HAVE TO do things?

Sth was the very one who insisted to Me something about hypothesis are a work-in-progress that COULD NEVER be commented on UNTIL the conclusion was given. BUT now I am expected to show proof of My work-in-progress. I decide what I show and when I show it. I decide. Always has been this way and always will be this way.

Tell me something, has sth done much debating at all?

And why do you believe that what you want to say will not even be close to being understood for quite a few years?

Quite simply because I have not yet formulated the language that is necessary for it to be fully understood yet.

If you are worried about your definitions and language,there are a lot of language experts who can decode what you say so there is no worry on that count.

LOL, so called "language experts" could not and would not be able decode anything if the code for what is written is never disclosed. sth statement here i find so amusing. The very fact that a person NEEDS a, so called, language expert, to decode for them what they them self have actually written sounds so beyond ridiculous i can not stop laughing here. For example if a person is using new definitions and language, then there is no other person who could know, for sure, what is being said without asking clarifying questions to the writer. And, if a writer needs someone to tell them what they themselves wrote, then how could that not be anything but illogical? Most people do not just scribble letters down in some scrambled way and then go to other people and ask them can you decode this for me, please?

Thanks sth a smile will not leave this face now.

By the way I am not worried about My definitions and language. I am just learning a way to use definitions and language in a way that can and WILL be fully understood by every person. I do not want again My definitions and language to be taken out of context, misunderstood, misconstrued, nor misinterpreted ever again. No one has offered any help and only on very, very rare occasions a question of me is asked for clarification, so I am in no particular rush and will take as much "time" as I want to take

So show me the proof and I will start work on it.

Show sth the proof of what exactly?

And, what 'work' will sth actually start on?

By the very thoughts within that head, which have shone brightly here and appear very clearly here there is no thing absolutely whatsoever in the whole Universe that could show sth proof of something that is believed not possible or not possibly true by sth.

This has already been evidenced and proven by sth already.

But you must understand that by definition, if you don't have ready proof, what you have is a belief. It is not my insistence. It is the definition of the word in the english language.

Again, why MUST I MUST understand anything at all?

I will, especially, will NOT understand that does not make logical sense nor could be soundly and validly argued.

What sth said here all depends on what dictionary is being used, from what context that word is being looked at, and from what definition is being looked at and used. So, by My count there are at least three different and separate situations that have to be taken into context and clarified before I could and would even begin to even think about that I MUST have to understand. There are so many things that could refute this belief here, I will not even bother now.

Here is another question to think about: Would sth believe something if it were not true?

I could just as easy argue that, by definition, given by any dictionary a 'belief' is totally unnecessary and also what i have found is a totally irrational thing to maintain.

One minute sth INSISTS that beliefs are soo strong that people and human bodies will literally stop existing and dying without them, then sth wanted Me to start assuming that sth believes that we do not actually need beliefs in order to stay alive, but now it appears sth wants to revert back to believing that beliefs still exist when a person does not have ready proof of something, which is so totally unreasonable to Me. The very fact I have less proof or no proof at all MEANS, by definition, that I would NOT believe (in) it.

WHY do you continually (want to) persist with the notion that I MUST believe (in) something?

If sth does not want to accept My word that I neither believe or disbelieve, then just move on and accept that I am lying and/or that I lying to Thee Self. sth can talk about what sth does do and/or does not do, but really sth is in no position at all to talk about what I do and/or do not do. If sth thinks that I am in blind self denial, then just show some evidence of this. Otherwise accept what I say about the Self and what I do do.

Unless you are implying that what you have written is way ahead of its time and humans don't have the capacity to understand. Which do you mean?

LOL if by definition 'you', are a human being, and i am a human being who wants to write write something, then it can not be ahead of its time, in any logical sense, in that human beings do not have the capacity to understand it yet. If i, a human being, wants to write something "now", which i think science will verify and prove true "one day", then that certainly DOES NOT mean human beings do not have the capacity to understand. In fact the truth is human beings are the only ones who can very easily learn, understand, and reason, what I want to write, BUT, only if they are open to it, which means that they do not have and maintain preconceived ideas, beliefs, and/or assumptions, etc., etc., etc.

Also, if and when i write something that i can understand, and i am a human being, then obviously human beings already have the capacity to understand it. If i, a very, very slow and simple person, especially, has the capacity to and can understand, then any other person can and will also.

Oh, and just for your information, the concept of the 'i' and 'I' being independent is something that was propounded by Adi Sankaracharya in his theory of Advait. It is something which every Hindu has grown up believing. That includes me.

Thanks very much for that information. It never ceases to amaze me how many times when I talk to people, they say something like, that is what such-and-such said, you should read what they have to say, or that is not new that is what was said previously by such-and-such, or that is what it says in such-and-such book. Just when i read what is written I can see where they are or where it is coming from, but I am seeing it from another perspective, which by the way appears to be a collective perspective of Every(as)One, not just from one individual personal perspective.

By the way sth I await the reply to the question in relation to debating so then I will also have more evidence of something else I want to express, which is in relation to human beings and the way they learn, and not learn, i.e., education.

Well, there is nothing left to say, is there? If you are going to reject a dictionary definition to claim you are right, then I cannot argue against that. That to me is just pure stubborn dogmatic belief.

Oh and again for your information, advait is from the perspective of Every(as)One, and not just from one individual personal perspective. You just don't know about it.

[sthitapragya]

sthit wrote:

Have you figured out yet, whether the Hebrew God is the father of Jesus or not?

If you could ever stop arguing long enough to reason with an open mind it would be obvious to you that the Hebrew personal God of the Old Testament is not the same as the Source beyond the limits of time and space within which existence takes place. Think of what "Father" means as it relates to Jesus.

Jesus told the Hebrews that their God was his father. He was very clear about it. Are you saying Jesus was lying?

[Dontaskme]

Oh, and just for your information, the concept of the 'i' and 'I' being independent is something that was propounded by Adi Sankaracharya in his theory of Advait. It is something which every Hindu has grown up believing. That includes me.

Well that's what ken means by the mind and brain being independent of each other.

The mind is (I) ..the brain is an assumption (i)

The I doesn't have to believe to be what it is.

It is the i that holds a belief.

I just is

i isn't

I is real

i is illusory

Both the I & i are independent..simply because the two can never meet, never the twain shall meet ...such a meeting is the illusion of other. To close the imaginary gap once and for all..the two rely on their mutual inclusiveness...that being they are interdependent on each other.