Crazy-ass Attention-seekers

[ken]

Hey there. Covering the low odds of another possible motive, I’ll venture to say that I don’t have the answers to explain your lack of understanding and your needs that sprout from that.

However, considering the possibility of earnest inquisitiveness about all matters concerning you, like most folks I have found that contemplation in different locations at different times of the day and night can influence comprehension. You may want to try that.

Also, when you think about what you read an interesting phenomenon occurs. You can return to the material at another time, multiple times, and you may find new insights into what you have already read. It’s not that the words change. It’s not that your capacity for understanding changes. What changes is the degree to which your attention is distracted from the material. Less distraction, greater comprehension.

Also, one sees reflections of the words in the reality of life in-between reading contemplations, so when you return to what was previously not understood, fissures in the unblemished monolith of ignorance may appear.

Anyway, enough of that. Since I’m done with the topic of you don’t understand, then if you feel commanded by a need strong enough to cause further movement of mind and body directed towards the topic, then look to that motive force to understand why, if you must.

Some of what you wrote here is good advice, which you may like to follow yourself sometime.

This was a good attempt to get out of you backing up what you assert is true, but it does not work for Me.

When a person writes something, which they believe is true, they have two options when being challenged; either back up what they say and answer clarifying questions of them, or, do not do that. If a person does not back up what they say or write, then that is because of two reasons; either they are unable to do it, or, they are unwilling to do it?

What you say is my lack of understanding is only the understanding of the belief within your head. If you do not explain that by answering inquisitive and clarifying questions that obviously only you are aware of, then how do you propose others to know what is in your head?

You say a person moves because it needs to. You can say whatever you like but if you can not or will not back it up, then do not expect others to understand you.

I would say that a person moves, for more reasons, because it wants to, not because it necessarily needs to. I already gave one example of a person changing the channels on a televion screen. The person wanted to do that. They certainly did not need to do that. They will keep living, as has been proven countless times already. Life will also continue on. There is no need anywhere here. So, moving was certainly was NOT for a need there. Just like there certainly is NOT any need to reply to you. I just reply to you because I want to, NOT because I need to.

Can you understand the distinct difference? If not, then just challenge Me or question Me. I, unlike you, will back up what I say and answer questions asked of Me.

If you continue not to explain to others what you are actually talking about, then you can not also successfully expect them to understand you.

[ken]

I love it when two Forum Crazies finally find each other.
There is another thread with Bob and Bill - priceless!

Another thread between you and I was also not that much different - they are all pricless!

[Walker]

As a hard-water drip calcifying the insight that prompted an agreeing yep, it does serve to further clarify a sub-branch of the Fast Food school of philosophy, called the Think For Me school of philosophy.

I googled “think for me.”

Not much out there, just a crappy song.

It’s a fertile field for research.



Just ask yourself: Would they be that way if they didn't need to be that way?

[Hobbes' Choice]

I love it when two Forum Crazies finally find each other.
There is another thread with Bob and Bill - priceless!

Another thread between you and I was also not that much different - they are all pricless!

Who are you?

[ken]

As a hard-water drip calcifying the insight that prompted an agreeing yep, it does serve to further clarify a sub-branch of the Fast Food school of philosophy, called the Think For Me school of philosophy.

I googled “think for me.”

Not much out there, just a crappy song.

It’s a fertile field for research.



Just ask yourself: Would they be that way if they didn't need to be that way?

I am not sure who this was directed to or what it is in relation to but I guess from your logic you "needed" to post it.

[ken]

I love it when two Forum Crazies finally find each other.
There is another thread with Bob and Bill - priceless!

Another thread between you and I was also not that much different - they are all pricless!

Who are you?

The set of thoughts, and emotions, labelled ken here in this forum.

Why did you ask that?

Who are you?

[Walker]

There are no thoughts and emotions here.
There are only postings.

A posting is a different form of a thing than a thought is of that same thing.
It is a different form of physicality.
Everyone can know a thought form of a thing and not the physical form of that thing.
For example, just think of a favorite philosopher.

A thought is a thing perceived with mind.
A posting is a thing perceived with eyes and sometimes ears.
Thoughts and emotions merely serve to shape the posting that is your existence-form under these conditions.

For example, a house thing can exist as a thought thing, a word thing, or a structure thing.
Same with the thing called you.

Here, you can only exist as the physicality of a posting.
In order to exist here under these conditions, you must exist as a posting.

This particular posting-thing was formed by first answering every question you can conceive after you read the posting, thus the posting is the answer to what you are only now beginning to formulate into question. If you do not see the answers then you are like the beggar who exists only as the need of please answer me in an impartial world.

[ken]

There are no thoughts and emotions here.
There are only postings.

A posting is a different form of a thing than a thought is of that same thing.
It is a different form of physicality.
Everyone can know a thought form of a thing and not the physical form of that thing.
For example, just think of a favorite philosopher.

A thought is a thing perceived with mind.
A posting is a thing perceived with eyes and sometimes ears.
Thoughts and emotions merely serve to shape the posting that is your existence-form under these conditions.

For example, a house thing can exist as a thought thing, a word thing, or a structure thing.
Same with the thing called you.

Here, you can only exist as the physicality of a posting.
In order to exist here under these conditions, you must exist as a posting.

This particular posting-thing was formed by first answering every question you can conceive after you read the posting, thus the posting is the answer to what you are only now beginning to formulate into question. If you do not see the answers then you are like the beggar who exists only as the need of please answer me in an impartial world.

Okay.

[Walker]

Okay.

Only worry about that kicked-away crutch of aversion if you must, but you’ll only need it if you use it. Without it the posting existence of you will naturally deepen to a depth deeper than, huh?

[ken]

Okay.

Only worry about that kicked-away crutch of aversion if you must, but you’ll only need it if you use it. Without it the posting existence of you will naturally deepen to a depth deeper than, huh?

Seriously I have no idea of what you are talking about or alluding to.

[Walker]

That's never as important as what you must do or not, certainly not cause for concern.

[ken]

That's never as important as what you must do or not, certainly not cause for concern.

Are you still on about what you perceive as people 'must do'?

But I guess you 'must' still not be able to answer what do you mean exactly by 'must do'?

Do you believe that absolutely every action, done by absolutely every thing, 'must' be done because it is 'needed' to be done?

If not, then what is it you want to express?