Göbekli Tepe

[Atla]

Yeah and it also seems quite similar to how the Egyptians wanted to join their gods in the sky (I mean literally, by flying to the sky). Maybe this whole idea started with the Göbekli Tepe culture.

Are you even capable of considering that "this whole idea" started before just 12,000 years?

The 'first humans', which, by the way, were around many years before just the relatively very short 12,000 years ago that you say, could have had similar or even far more advanced ideas than the peoples of those times.

All you are basing all your own theories and ideas off of is human made structures.

If you are not yet aware, human beings were thinking before 12,000 years ago. And, some of this thinking could have been around "this whole idea", which you speak of here.

Human beings could have been having roughly the same ideas/thoughts tens or even hundreds of thousands of years BEFORE your little theory suggests.

Contrary to your own belief and theory there is evidence and proof that human beings were thinking and sharing ideas WELL BEFORE 12,000 years ago.

So, again WHY do you say the "first humans" were only 12,000 years ago?

Also, what you call a "considerably old site" is not really that old at all, considering there are other human made sites up to 50,000 years prior to your 'considerably young site' of only 12,000 years ago.

Are you even capable of making sense of a word like 'maybe'?

[Age]

Still not even close to understanding what I wrote. Nor will you be closer with your "Universal context".

Always looking at "another" and continually trying to ridicule them is just but one more way of trying to deflecting away from the Truth of things, which is; your complete inability to clarify what you, yourself, say.

You can not or will not even clarify what context you meant. This is probably because you can NOT do it. You appear to be absolutely fearful of even trying to clarify because of what WILL be revealed.

Now you are indeed 100% clueless about what I wrote (and why I won't clarify it to you hehe).

I will repeat;
All I have done is just ask you HOW and WHY you say the "first humans" were only 12,000 years ago?

What you wrote was;
What went on in the minds of the first humans, 12000 years ago?

So, you are WRONG, in that I do know what you wrote. This is obviously true as evidenced by my very simple open clarifying question posed to you. But, you are RIGHT, in that I am 100% clueless about why you will not clarify this to me. Will you now, at least, clarify WHY you will not answer and clarify my questions?

[Age]

Still not even close to understanding what I wrote. Nor will you be closer with your "Universal context".

Always looking at "another" and continually trying to ridicule them is just but one more way of trying to deflecting away from the Truth of things, which is; your complete inability to clarify what you, yourself, say.

You can not or will not even clarify what context you meant. This is probably because you can NOT do it. You appear to be absolutely fearful of even trying to clarify because of what WILL be revealed.

Age... knows nothing.

Hence when discussing with him one must "sip coffee"....(sipping coffee)

I will let your own words (bolder) speak for themselves about how much you really know and do not know

[Atla]

Always looking at "another" and continually trying to ridicule them is just but one more way of trying to deflecting away from the Truth of things, which is; your complete inability to clarify what you, yourself, say.

You can not or will not even clarify what context you meant. This is probably because you can NOT do it. You appear to be absolutely fearful of even trying to clarify because of what WILL be revealed.

Now you are indeed 100% clueless about what I wrote (and why I won't clarify it to you hehe).

I will repeat;
All I have done is just ask you HOW and WHY you say the "first humans" were only 12,000 years ago?

What you wrote was;
What went on in the minds of the first humans, 12000 years ago?

So, you are WRONG, in that I do know what you wrote. This is obviously true as evidenced by my very simple open clarifying question posed to you. But, you are RIGHT, in that I am 100% clueless about why you will not clarify this to me. Will you now, at least, clarify WHY you will not answer and clarify my questions?

How I meant it should be fairly obvious.

[Eodnhoj7]

Always looking at "another" and continually trying to ridicule them is just but one more way of trying to deflecting away from the Truth of things, which is; your complete inability to clarify what you, yourself, say.

You can not or will not even clarify what context you meant. This is probably because you can NOT do it. You appear to be absolutely fearful of even trying to clarify because of what WILL be revealed.

Age... knows nothing.

Hence when discussing with him one must "sip coffee"....(sipping coffee)

I will let your own words (bolder) speak for themselves about how much you really know and do not know

I assume void...you claim to know the truth.

[Arising_uk]

No, this nondualism doesn't fall into any Western philosophy category. ...

How so?

Basically all of Western philosophy is dualistic thinking (even what is categorized as 'nondual' from the West). ...

I doubt you've read enough of it then as it's been a point of view in Western Philosophy for over two thousand years.

I stated this many times on this forum. Can this statement penetrate your mind? I don't think so.

Not if you can't explain why it won't as if you are a 'talking' 'nondualist' then you'll fall under one of the categories. Unless of course it's just a religious belief then it's Theology.

[Atla]

No, this nondualism doesn't fall into any Western philosophy category. ...

How so?

Basically all of Western philosophy is dualistic thinking (even what is categorized as 'nondual' from the West). ...

I doubt you've read enough of it then as it's been a point of view in Western Philosophy for over two thousand years.

I stated this many times on this forum. Can this statement penetrate your mind? I don't think so.

Not if you can't explain why it won't as if you are a 'talking' 'nondualist' then you'll fall under one of the categories. Unless of course it's just a religious belief then it's Theology.

Yep I was correct with "I don't think so".

[Age]

It is not your fault that 'you' adult human beings do not listen now, and instead assume and guess. This is ALL my fault because I created things to be exactly this way, for a very specific reason and purpose I might add. I meant for things to be exactly how they are HERE-NOW.

What is the very specific reason and purpose?

When this is written most human beings are still wondering what is right and what is wrong in Life. The very specific reason and purpose for this is because individually and collectively human beings learn best from their mistakes. A child can not just learn what is right from being told what is right. They HAVE to experience it. For example, you can tell a child that the stove or the fire is hot, but they will not "listen" to that 'what is right's advice. They, literally, have to experience it, for them selves, to accept it AND learn it. They learn by their mistakes. The more an individual experiences the more they can and will learn. The more wrong or mistakes human beings do and make collectively, then the more they can and will learn.

Also, not until later in life, and/or closer to one's own death bed, do human beings individually start to really contemplate and consider 'what is this (Life) all about?' and 'how they could have done things differently/better'. This will also happen when human beings collectively get older in age and/or are closer to their death bed. When human beings discover what it is that is Truly right and wrong in Life, then they will learn and see WHY it was so important that they had a percentage of 'free will' to be able to learn and discover for, and by, their own selves, without necessarily being told 'what is right' by "others".

The Truth is the True and Right Answers are within every one anyway, and, if left alone, and given enough time, they will find and discover these Answers by, and for, themselves.

[Arising_uk]

Now, do you have a suggestion about the purpose of Göbekli Tepe?

Sure, it was a place of cultural, social and probably religious significance for whoever built it. I'd be a bit kinder than Sculptor and say it maybe served some social and economic purpose rather than just being a scam for the 'priests' or 'rulers' to impose authority and skim the plebs as, like the Pyramids, it may have served an employment purpose in the seasonal farming down-time with the bonus for the rulers of keeping a stopper on social unrest.

[Age]

Yeah and it also seems quite similar to how the Egyptians wanted to join their gods in the sky (I mean literally, by flying to the sky). Maybe this whole idea started with the Göbekli Tepe culture.

Are you even capable of considering that "this whole idea" started before just 12,000 years?

The 'first humans', which, by the way, were around many years before just the relatively very short 12,000 years ago that you say, could have had similar or even far more advanced ideas than the peoples of those times.

All you are basing all your own theories and ideas off of is human made structures.

If you are not yet aware, human beings were thinking before 12,000 years ago. And, some of this thinking could have been around "this whole idea", which you speak of here.

Human beings could have been having roughly the same ideas/thoughts tens or even hundreds of thousands of years BEFORE your little theory suggests.

Contrary to your own belief and theory there is evidence and proof that human beings were thinking and sharing ideas WELL BEFORE 12,000 years ago.

So, again WHY do you say the "first humans" were only 12,000 years ago?

Also, what you call a "considerably old site" is not really that old at all, considering there are other human made sites up to 50,000 years prior to your 'considerably young site' of only 12,000 years ago.

Are you even capable of making sense of a word like 'maybe'?

But that word is in relation to an idea, which you have also stated was at the sane time the "first humans" appeared, around 12,000 years ago.

Did you miss the context?

[Arising_uk]

Yep I was correct with "I don't think so".

Er!? You're on a Philosophy forum so just making a statement doesn't cut the mustard. Maybe you should find a 'nondualist' site where you can get away with such stuff. Otherwise I'll just put you down as another interweeble who thinks it's fine to join a Philosophy forum, pontificate about subjects, with no idea of what Philosophy has actually said about such things.

[Atla]

Now, do you have a suggestion about the purpose of Göbekli Tepe?

Sure, it was a place of cultural, social and probably religious significance for whoever built it. I'd be a bit kinder than Sculptor and say it maybe served some social and economic purpose rather than just being a scam for the 'priests' or 'rulers' to impose authority and skim the plebs as, like the Pyramids, it may have served an employment purpose in the seasonal farming down-time with the bonus for the rulers of keeping a stopper on social unrest.

And of course you don't even know that this was before farming.

[Age]

Now you are indeed 100% clueless about what I wrote (and why I won't clarify it to you hehe).

I will repeat;
All I have done is just ask you HOW and WHY you say the "first humans" were only 12,000 years ago?

What you wrote was;
What went on in the minds of the first humans, 12000 years ago?

So, you are WRONG, in that I do know what you wrote. This is obviously true as evidenced by my very simple open clarifying question posed to you. But, you are RIGHT, in that I am 100% clueless about why you will not clarify this to me. Will you now, at least, clarify WHY you will not answer and clarify my questions?

How I meant it should be fairly obvious.

Well obviously it was NOT obvious, to me.

So when you say "the first humans were around 12,000 years ago" and that is NOT what you meant, then what did you actually mean?

It is still very far from obvious, well to me anyway.

I have also not seen anyone else explain to me what you"obviously" meant.

I am open to anyone explaing to me what you "obviously" meant.

[Atla]

Yep I was correct with "I don't think so".

Er!? You're on a Philosophy forum so just making a statement doesn't cut the mustard. Maybe you should find a 'nondualist' site where you can get away with such stuff. Otherwise I'll just put you down as another interweeble who thinks it's fine to join a Philosophy forum, pontificate about subjects, with no idea of what Philosophy has actually said about such things.

Tell me why I should waste even more time trying to explain stuff to you that I understood 20 years ago? I'm looking for people who can challenge me philosophically, insights I haven't thought of.

[Arising_uk]

Tell me why I should waste even more time trying to explain stuff to you that I understood 20 years ago? I'm looking for people who can challenge me philosophically, insights I haven't thought of.

Given you appear to not know that there's been two thousand years of discussion about your 'nondualism' I'm guessing your twenty years have not involved much critique of your thoughts?