Göbekli Tepe

[Age]

I thought this was a philosophy forum not a poor man’s attempt at anthropological research or a site dedicated to archaeology? Anthropologists and archaeologists are very careful about misreading/misinterpreting data. Blind speculation on the archaeological site is of philosophical value only if it’s framed in some hypothetical and/or though experiment.

I mean the trash that people like Hancock dribble doesn’t have to come from a bad place to be utterly perverse and intellectually destructive - but it is destructive. Read Colin Renfrew or any number of renowned and respected PROFESSIONALS in the field than the hopeful stretches of some former pothead whose depth of research is so incredibly poor it’s almost laughable once you’ve actually done some REAL reading yourself.

My mother bought me Hancock’s first book thinking it would interest me. I read it all the way through, having already read scholarly work by the likes of Eliade and Yates ... at 16 years of age it didn’t take much to see through his childish scrambling around for pieces of data to fit his blind opinion. That simply isn’t how science moves forward, it is how science is held back (by looking for data that fits your pattern of belief and unconsciously hoodwinking yourself from contradictions that blow your opinions to pieces).

These people sound convincing because they don’t know enough about what they are talking about to see they are talking shite. If the likes of Graham Hancock actually went to university to study the subject properly and get a broader understanding of the scientific processes involved then they might be taken more seriously. Bu the excuse is the convenient ‘conspiracy’ against him rather than him being an incompetent buffoon who probably lacks the mental faculties to get a degree, or is simply too cowardly to even try. Either way it is not exactly an endearing picture!

I'm curious how human thinking developed throughout the ages, and this early period is very hard to piece together.

Again, what is with this "early period", to you, in relation to 'human thinking'?

The period you are talking about, that is; only 12,000 years ago, is NOT at all the period of "first humans" nor the "early period" of human thinking.

You are out by just hundreds of thousands of years, if not then millions of years.

But that's indeed more archeology than philosophy, if the mods don't like it they can delete the thread.
Hancock is a crackpot most of the time so I avoid him, is there anything in this thread that's coming from him and is probably nonsense?
(Cool rant btw)

If you really are curious about HOW human thinking developed throughout the ages, then all you have to be aware of is 'human thinking' has just evolved, naturally.

Unless of course you have some particular "human thinking" 'you' are thinking about?

[Age]

Are you being serious?

If yes, then I would do a bit more studying if I was you.

Guess I missed something really big then. Which cultures have been around for more than 12000 years continuously?

The australian aboriginal culture, of course.

And, it is nothing really big. It is just known fact.

[Age]

What is the 'it', which you claim I would know how to explain?

You don't know?

What?

How do you know that?...

What?

I think you are lying...

About what?

you know everything...

Do i?

you said so yourself...

Did I?

Will you provide some evidence of this?

By the way, if you just answered my question, then you would not appear to be deflecting, once again.

Do you know that for sure without doubt?
[/quote]

Do I know 'what' for sure without doubt?

[Atla]

Are you being serious?

If yes, then I would do a bit more studying if I was you.

Guess I missed something really big then. Which cultures have been around for more than 12000 years continuously?

The australian aboriginal culture, of course.

And, it is nothing really big. It is just known fact.

That's not a "continuous culture" just primitive humans living in countless tribes on the same continent after each other.
Maybe with some oral traditions about some natural disasters, but they have no records about how their ancestors were thinking say 20000 years ago.

[Lacewing]

You appear to have already made assumptions about what the answers are

How convenient for you to make that assumption of me

But it is not an assumption. I just expressed what appears to me. What appears to me is not an assumption.

So when I express what appears to me, it appears to be an assumption to you. And when you express what appears to you, it appears to be an assumption to me. So what?

If you had shown a greater sign of openness earlier, then I would have answered your questions earlier.

But i WILL answer your questions now because you now appear to be curious to know them.

I wanted to hear your answers earlier too... you just didn't see it.

Just answer them, and maybe I will see something new than what appears to be the case. I'm flexible. You should know this.

How, and why, "should" I know that 'you' are flexible?

Because you say you "created things to be exactly this way". So you should know what you created, yes? And if you know what you created, then you know me. But you clearly don't know me or anyone else you're talking to, so it appears that you're claiming to know more than you actually do -- AND neither do you know anything more than anyone else.

I have not observed a great deal of flexibility from 'you'.

Your inability to see it reveals your limitations.

Your words like; "Seriously, what kind of twisted, fucked up trip are you on?"

This is ABSOLUTELY HONEST. Do you think that being absolutely honest only manifests in a certain way?

I can give very simple truth to you, but if you can understand and accept it is another matter.

And what appears to be the truth to you, may not be the absolute truth. So it is not essential that anyone understand or accept what appears as truth to you. They can simply listen to what you say, and then reconcile it with the truth that is already inside of them.

Your inability to communicate in a way that others understand could be because what you're communicating is NOT an absolute truth, rather it is what appears as truth to you, but it does not align with the truth that is inside of others.

how many people do you know who are absolutely Honest

Well, I know people who appear more absolutely honest than you are. You say things based on how they appear to you. But that does not align with the truth in others. You are not the only one who sees truth. So you are not the only one to say what truth is.

Also, I thought your questions were great and was looking forward to clarifying them in great detail, unfortunately though, you believe this would not be possible.

Another assumption you're making.

Where is the assumption?

You claimed what I believe. Is that NOT an assumption? You don't know what I believe, and you are wrong in what you said. So are you foolish or not absolutely honest? Do you understand that even if something appears a certain way to you, that is no indication that you are seeing truth?

Do you think that what you see as truth is more true than what other people see as truth?

Do you think that you are the only creator of the way things are?

You assuming and/or believing that I was on some "twisted, fucked up trip" was the only reason why I was deterred.

The assumptions you make about other people deter them from listening to you. You can claim you're not making assumptions, but your statements about what people believe or are closed to, are not inviting for people to interact with. That combined with your statements about your own awareness of truth, and how you've created things to be as they are, appears to be a trip that you are on which is oblivious to the exact same qualities within other people. How many people throughout history have claimed to know the answers that others don't? It's an absurd story. A delusion. And many people can see it for what it is. That is HONESTY.

why are you here telling them [humans] about their inability, if you're the one who created that inability?

What would you like me to tell 'you/them'?

Nothing. Because you don't know. The truth is already inside of them -- you said it yourself. So why don't you consider the absolute truth of why YOU need to tell them all that they are incapable of? As if YOU know what that is, and they don't. Yes, it is a twisted trip -- and I wonder if you will ever be able to see the absolute honesty of that?

[Atla]

By being a part of, and listening to, the peoples of the oldest continuous cultures.

We do not have a word for 'I', as we are not separete from each other. We are also a part of the environment and not apart from it. The 'environment' also being the Universe.

Oy, are you living among Australian Aboriginals? Do your beliefs have something to do with the 'Dreamtime'?

[MagsJ]

Well.. as I see it Göbekli Tepe may have existed basically prior to dualistic thinking patterns. But you kinda need dualistic thinking patterns to realize nondualism, I think that came 5000+ years later.
Ah..

Which older civilisations? Tell Qaramel comes to mind but that's basically next to Göbekli Tepe.
Göbekli Tepe seems to be the oldest temple, but Mesopotamia the oldest Civilisation to Emerge.. there's definitely a discrepancy of sorts there, between man and these structures' co-existence, in terms of mans' ability back then.

Tell Qaramel is an archeological mound, but is older than Mesopotamia.. perhaps it doesn't make the 'Civilisation' cut..

I'm curious how human thinking developed throughout the ages, and this early period is very hard to piece together. But that's indeed more archeology than philosophy
..and anthropological too. Some of those anthros really know their stuff.

[Eodnhoj7]

You don't know?

What?

How do you know that?...

What?

I think you are lying...

About what?

you know everything...

Do i?

you said so yourself...

Did I?

Will you provide some evidence of this?

By the way, if you just answered my question, then you would not appear to be deflecting, once again.

Do you know that for sure without doubt?

Do I know 'what' for sure without doubt?
[/quote]

Are you assuming doubt?

[I Like Sushu]

I thought this was a philosophy forum not a poor man’s attempt at anthropological research or a site dedicated to archaeology? Anthropologists and archaeologists are very careful about misreading/misinterpreting data. Blind speculation on the archaeological site is of philosophical value only if it’s framed in some hypothetical and/or though experiment.

I mean the trash that people like Hancock dribble doesn’t have to come from a bad place to be utterly perverse and intellectually destructive - but it is destructive. Read Colin Renfrew or any number of renowned and respected PROFESSIONALS in the field than the hopeful stretches of some former pothead whose depth of research is so incredibly poor it’s almost laughable once you’ve actually done some REAL reading yourself.

My mother bought me Hancock’s first book thinking it would interest me. I read it all the way through, having already read scholarly work by the likes of Eliade and Yates ... at 16 years of age it didn’t take much to see through his childish scrambling around for pieces of data to fit his blind opinion. That simply isn’t how science moves forward, it is how science is held back (by looking for data that fits your pattern of belief and unconsciously hoodwinking yourself from contradictions that blow your opinions to pieces).

These people sound convincing because they don’t know enough about what they are talking about to see they are talking shite. If the likes of Graham Hancock actually went to university to study the subject properly and get a broader understanding of the scientific processes involved then they might be taken more seriously. Bu the excuse is the convenient ‘conspiracy’ against him rather than him being an incompetent buffoon who probably lacks the mental faculties to get a degree, or is simply too cowardly to even try. Either way it is not exactly an endearing picture!

I'm curious how human thinking developed throughout the ages, and this early period is very hard to piece together. But that's indeed more archeology than philosophy, if the mods don't like it they can delete the thread.
Hancock is a crackpot most of the time so I avoid him, is there anything in this thread that's coming from him and is probably nonsense?
(Cool rant btw)

We can make some speculative guesses. Cognitive Archaeology is a field worth a look if you’re interested (hence the mention of Renfrew). It seems clear enough that a common language (common set of language) and conflict leads to progression. Communication allows ideas to spread faster and be tinkered with.

That singular site is only of significance because it has stood the test of time. There is evidence that large structures were made in Europe - but it is secondary evidence as the real structures have rotted away.

I imagine, for whatever reason, tribes gathered on this spot to settle disputes, compete in sports and ‘trade’ women. Population growth tied into resource distribution likely made such occurrences inevitable. The symbolism can be explored via cognitive archaeology with better accuracy. There are some common features to all human cultures (large and small). Our adaptation to living in large groups in settled areas also fascinates me.

Given our social capacity it doesn’t seem unlikely that tribes grouped together fro mutual benefit (to hung large prey - likely a tradition carried in from when there were smaller cooperative groups that became a traditional communal activity even when these groups expanded in size to be able to deal with larger scale hunts).

The oldest written myth we have is The Epic of Gilgamesh. Such mythos usually carries several elements of truth to them; but they are hard to decipher given that we’re not completely in tune with what has been created from the old stories and what the original message was - there are common threads though in regards to Man and Nature.

[Age]

You appear to have already made assumptions about what the answers are

How convenient for you to make that assumption of me

But it is not an assumption. I just expressed what appears to me. What appears to me is not an assumption.

So when I express what appears to me, it appears to be an assumption to you.

No.

Also, when did you express what APPEARS to you? You stated that I MADE an assumption of you. I was just clearing up the fact that I did not make an assumption.

And when you express what appears to you, it appears to be an assumption to me. So what?

That is WHY I cleared up the fact that I NEVER made an assumption here. And, IF when I express to you what appears to me and you say that it appears as an assumption, then I will accept that, but still reaffirm that I NEVER made an assumption. I will also point out the fact you are NOT expressing what APPEARS to you but rather expressing your ASSUMPTION alone.

You have misconstrued what I have been saying.

To answer "so what?" The 'what' IS, you are not understanding the difference between expressing 'what APPEARS' from expressing 'what IS'.

If this is still not fully understood, then let me know and I will explain it in another way.

If you had shown a greater sign of openness earlier, then I would have answered your questions earlier.

But i WILL answer your questions now because you now appear to be curious to know them.

I wanted to hear your answers earlier too... you just didn't see it.

I SAID I was going to answer your questions BUT on reading your last comment it appeared to me that you had ALREADY come to a conclusion. So, I did SEE that you were showing signs of being curious, by just asking questions, but, just like you did, human beings do have a tendency to ask questions not from a Truly OPEN perspective but from a closed and judgmental perspective, and in a way of not really caring at all what the real and true answers are.

I have already expressed what appeared to me, so saying I "just didn't see it" could not be further from the truth of things.

If you could not see from my writings that I did actually see that you wanted to hear my answers, but then, from your last response you showed signs of the opposite.

Even your responses here in this post is showing that you were really not interested in my answers to your questions. Your lack of response to my answers to your original questions SHOWS your true lack of interest.

Just answer them, and maybe I will see something new than what appears to be the case. I'm flexible. You should know this.

How, and why, "should" I know that 'you' are flexible?

Because you say you "created things to be exactly this way". So you should know what you created, yes?

Yes.

And if you know what you created, then you know me.

Yes.

But you clearly don't know me or anyone else you're talking to, so it appears that you're claiming to know more than you actually do -- AND neither do you know anything more than anyone else.

What I expressed earlier about what appears to me, you are SHOWING right now.

You appear to be as NOT as flexible as you would like to be, nor even think you are.

I have not observed a great deal of flexibility from 'you'.

Your inability to see it reveals your limitations.

Great.

Your obvious inflexibility reveals your true 'self'.

Now, just be aware that I write in a very specific and particular way, which you are yet completely unaware of. So, until you decide to remain OPEN and ask me clarifying questions to gain the perspective of where I am coming from exactly, then you will continue on the way you are now of making assumptions and jumping to conclusions, which could be the exact opposite of the actual and real Truth of things.

Your words like; "Seriously, what kind of twisted, fucked up trip are you on?"

This is ABSOLUTELY HONEST. Do you think that being absolutely honest only manifests in a certain way?

You appearing to be very inflexible, very judgmental, and very closed is also ABSOLUTE HONESTY.

The Truth IS, however, you expressing those words SHOWS what the real Truth IS.

I am only expressing what APPEARS to me. You think you expressed ABSOLUTE HONESTY, but all you did was just ask a question. This is NOT absolute honesty. Unless of course you assumed that by asking a question you are implying some thing, which is ABSOLUTELY HONEST.

Can you SEE the difference here?

I can give very simple truth to you, but if you can understand and accept it is another matter.

And what appears to be the truth to you, may not be the absolute truth.

But this is NOT truth.

I do NOT say what appears to be the truth to me. I say what appears to me.

Can you SEE the difference here?

Also, the absolute Truth is ALREADY KNOWN.

'you' will have to work out who and what the True Self IS first BEFORE you will KNOW what the absolute Truth IS.

So it is not essential that anyone understand or accept what appears as truth to you.

You have completely MISSED the mark.

I do NOT want any one to understand nor accept what appears truth to me.

I do NOT even say what appears as truth to me.

Can you SEE the difference here?

They can simply listen to what you say, and then reconcile it with the truth that is already inside of them.

But that truth you talk about here may NOT be the real Truth of things. Can you SEE and UNDERSTAND this?

Your inability to communicate in a way that others understand could be because what you're communicating is NOT an absolute truth, rather it is what appears as truth to you, but it does not align with the truth that is inside of others.

Can you NOT see that expressing some thing as ONLY being what APPEARS is expressing the actual and real Truth?

IF what APPEARS to be, however, IS the actual and real Truth of things will eventually come to light.

Can you really NOT see the difference here?

Also, name one thing, which you say is an 'absolute truth' that I have supposedly been communicating and which does NOT align with the absolute Truth in "others".

IF you do that, then we will be able to see if this is actually the case or not.

how many people do you know who are absolutely Honest

Well, I know people who appear more absolutely honest than you are.

That is fine. BUT you did NOT answer my question.

When you DO answer my question, then we can proceed.

You say things based on how they appear to you.

Yes, of course. This would be obvious when I use the 'appear' word.

But that does not align with the truth in others.

The VERY REASON I use the 'appears to me' words is SO "others" can clarify if what appears to me is right or not.

If what appears to me does NOT align with the truth in "others", then great. Just let me KNOW, then I become wiser. VERY simple and easy.

You are not the only one who sees truth.

I think you have real misunderstanding of what I say.

So you are not the only one to say what truth is.

AFTER you STOP judging and start asking clarifying questions from the Truly OPEN perspective, then you will come to learn and discover HOW you are mistaking me so WRONGLY.

Also, if I am not the only one to say 'what truth is', then WHO else can say 'what truth is'?

AND, how will that one or those ones KNOW they have the true and right Answer?

Also, I thought your questions were great and was looking forward to clarifying them in great detail, unfortunately though, you believe this would not be possible.

Another assumption you're making.

Where is the assumption?

You claimed what I believe. Is that NOT an assumption? You don't know what I believe, and you are wrong in what you said. So are you foolish or not absolutely honest? Do you understand that even if something appears a certain way to you, that is no indication that you are seeing truth?

Do you think that what you see as truth is more true than what other people see as truth?

Do you think that you are the only creator of the way things are?

I SEE you, conveniently, left out the second clarifying question, which IF you had answered HONESTLY, then you may have also noticed the unnecessary questions that you have asked here now. I asked you; Where is the assumption? AND, Do you believe that I can clarify your questions?

Now, do you believe I can clarify your questions?

When you do answer this question, then I will answer your other questions here, which by the way you are so far off track and misreading the actual words I write I think it will be somewhat fairly hard to bring this back on track now. Do you even understand that asking a clarifying question can NOT be WRONG?

If yes, then WHY did you assume what you did and write what you did?

You assuming and/or believing that I was on some "twisted, fucked up trip" was the only reason why I was deterred.

The assumptions you make about other people deter them from listening to you.

What assumptions?

You are so clearly off track and WRONG in what you write.

Who cares if I deter people from listening to me? I was ONLY explaining WHY I was deterred. I was JUST clearing up your WRONG assumption.

If the Truth be KNOWN I write in specific way so that 'you' readers, in the times of when this is written, WILL ASSUME things INSTEAD of asking clarifying questions and challenging me. I do this SO I can SHOW to readers, in later times, WHY it is so important to remain OPEN always in order to gain full and true clarity of thing so that the Truth remains at the forefront. So, we can continue living in peace and harmony forever more. If you believe that I am deterring people from listening to me, then great. I have only ever really put out the challenge to question and challenge me.

You can claim you're not making assumptions, but your statements about what people believe or are closed to, are not inviting for people to interact with.

I wrote that for a specific reason, so you would then accuse me of some thing. I would then ask you to clarify some thing. You would not do it, and would intentionally leave it out. All of which has so far taken place. Now, the ONLY assumption I can recall making about you was; You believe that I can not clarify your questions. Now, is this assumption right or wrong? Do you believe I CAN clarify your questions?

If no, then my assumption is right anyway.
If yes, then great. Go ahead and ask as many clarifying questions to me as you like.

If some other answer/s, then also great. Now what is that answer or what are they?

By the way I have only ever claimed I have not made an assumption when I have not. I have never claimed to have never made assumptions. And, I have also asked to be advised when I have made assumptions.

That combined with your statements about your own awareness of truth, and how you've created things to be as they are, appears to be a trip that you are on which is oblivious to the exact same qualities within other people.

And you MISSING the mark on just about EVERY thing I am saying and pointing out is really SHOWING now.

What 'qualities' am I oblivious to within "other" people are you talking about exactly?

How many people throughout history have claimed to know the answers that others don't?

I do not know. How many?

Also, how would you KNOW if they are right or not?

See, the Answers I talk about can not be wrong, which can also be proven to be True.

There is a big difference between just claiming some thing and claiming to be able to prove some thing.

It's an absurd story. A delusion. And many people can see it for what it is. That is HONESTY.

And yet without clarifying questions how do you KNOW what you are assuming is actually true or not.

How do you KNOW that what I am saying "is an absurd story. A delusion"? You obviously are nowhere even close to understanding what I am saying yet.

You are completely misunderstanding what I am saying. This is because you believe you already KNOW what I am saying.

I KNOW the answers because of one very specific reason. Until you gain clarity of what that is exactly, then what you are assuming is just that - an assumption, which could be completely and utterly WRONG.

I claim to KNOW thee Answers because thee Answers I KNOW can not be wrong.

Also, the only HONESTY you are expressing is the HONESTY about what you BELIEVE is true, which obviously and honestly could be completely and utterly WRONG.

You are also basing YOUR HONESTY solely upon your OWN past experiences only.

why are you here telling them [humans] about their inability, if you're the one who created that inability?

What would you like me to tell 'you/them'?

Nothing. Because you don't know.

Another prime example of you believing you ALREADY KNOW the Truth of things.

You have absolutely NO idea. If you do NOT ask clarifying questions, then all you are doing is just assuming you KNOW the answers ALREADY, which is what I pointed out in the beginning with you in this thread.

You do NOT want to hear MY answers to your questions because you have ALREADY jumped to your OWN conclusion to your questions.

The truth is already inside of them -- you said it yourself. So why don't you consider the absolute truth of why YOU need to tell them all that they are incapable of? As if YOU know what that is, and they don't. Yes, it is a twisted trip -- and I wonder if you will ever be able to see the absolute honesty of that?

I wonder if you will ever ask me clarifying questions and be OPEN enough to ALLOW me to answer them?

As I ALREADY pointed out, you BELIEVE that you ALREADY KNOW the answers to your own questions.

You also only pick and choose to respond to some of my answers/replies. You respond only to my answers/replies which clearly are the ones that you have already jumped to a conclusion to without ever considering that there could actually be another logical and reasonable side to my response/answers. You continuously jump to conclusions based solely upon assumptions, made directly from your OWN past experiences.

I can very easily and simple prove absolutely EVERY thing I am saying, and in a Truly logical, sensible, and reasonable way so that absolutely EVERY thing you now think and assume is impossible is actually possible.

Your absence of response to my clarifying answers to your original clarifying questions SHOWS what the actual and real Truth of things is HERE-NOW.

I challenge you to question me on absolutely ANY, or EVERY, thing, and to try and keep doing it until you prove me WRONG.

Let me provide you with some advice, what you assume and believe I am saying and doing is completely and utterly WRONG.

WHY do you NOT like being told of your inabilities? Do you believe that you do not have any inabilities, or you just do not like being reminded of them? Or, is there some thing else?

You alluded to the fact that I do not know what 'you', human beings, are incapable of that 'you' do not know of, so would you like to express what you are incapable of? Just so I will be able to SEE if what you KNOW is the same as me.

[Age]

By being a part of, and listening to, the peoples of the oldest continuous cultures.

We do not have a word for 'I', as we are not separete from each other. We are also a part of the environment and not apart from it. The 'environment' also being the Universe.

Oy, are you living among Australian Aboriginals?

Yes

Do your beliefs have something to do with the 'Dreamtime'?

Have you heard me say before that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing?

If no, then now you have.
If yes, then WHY would you ask such a ridiculous question to me?

[Age]

What?



What?



About what?



Do i?



Did I?

Will you provide some evidence of this?

By the way, if you just answered my question, then you would not appear to be deflecting, once again.

Do you know that for sure without doubt?

Do I know 'what' for sure without doubt?

Are you assuming doubt?
[/quote]

[Age]

What?



What?



About what?



Do i?



Did I?

Will you provide some evidence of this?

By the way, if you just answered my question, then you would not appear to be deflecting, once again.

Do you know that for sure without doubt?

Do I know 'what' for sure without doubt?

Are you assuming doubt?
[/quote]

Are you stupid? To you absolutely EVERY thing is assumed, correct?

If yes, then WHY the ridiculous question?
If no, then no.

In case you are incapable of understanding, all I did was ask you a clarifying question, from a Truly OPEN perspective.

You asked if if knew 'that' for sure without doubt, and all I did was ask what is 'that', which you are talking about.

[Atla]

By being a part of, and listening to, the peoples of the oldest continuous cultures.

We do not have a word for 'I', as we are not separete from each other. We are also a part of the environment and not apart from it. The 'environment' also being the Universe.

Oy, are you living among Australian Aboriginals?

Yes

Do your beliefs have something to do with the 'Dreamtime'?

Have you heard me say before that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing?

If no, then now you have.
If yes, then WHY would you ask such a ridiculous question to me?

An Aboriginal or at least someone living among them, fascinating!
You don't understand the word 'belief' so I'll try to rephrase,
do you 'think' that the 'Dreamtime' quite accurately explains how and why the world is here, what its purpose is?

[Age]

Oy, are you living among Australian Aboriginals?

Yes

Do your beliefs have something to do with the 'Dreamtime'?

Have you heard me say before that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing?

If no, then now you have.
If yes, then WHY would you ask such a ridiculous question to me?

An Aboriginal or at least someone living among them, fascinating!

Why is this fascinating, to you? (By the way I already KNOW the answer. I would just like to see how honest 'you' are.)

And WHY do you 'try to' separate human beings into 'them' and 'us' categories, like you are doing here?

In fact, are 'you' even capable of putting human beings into legitimate separate categories and labels?

If you are interested I have yet to find just one human being who could do it successfully.

ALL of these labels like "american", "scandinavian", "white", "black", "asian", "european", "jewish", "muslim", et cetera, et cetera, are ALL just failed attempts at 'trying to' separate 'you', human beings. Once 'separatism' is completely STOPPED, then ALL of the other 'isms' like racism, sexism, et cetera, which is the only thing keeping 'you', human beings, believing that there are actually separate groups of 'you' will be completely finished as well.

You don't understand the word 'belief' so I'll try to rephrase,

Just because you MIGHT use a different definition for the word 'belief', and thus understand that word differently, does NOT mean that I do not understand the word 'belief'.

In fact I may have an understanding of the word 'belief', which when put together with a different understanding of other words forms a crystal clear picture of ALL-THERE-IS. Whereas, your understanding of the word 'belief', and your understanding of other words, could be the very reason WHY it is 'you' who is still somewhat confused and who is still searching for answers. You will NEVER know until you decide to STOP 'believing' that what you think and say is always true and right.

Or, maybe the truth really is, just as you would like to 'believe' it is, that is; you really do understand all there is and is it me who does NOT really understand at all?

We will have to wait and see.

Also, just say what you 'mean', then you will NEVER have to rephrase.

do you 'think' that the 'Dreamtime' quite accurately explains how and why the world is here, what its purpose is?

Certainly not.

I am always amused at how quickly you human beings jump to conclusions and make up assumptions, which are inevitably wrong anyway.

I can say the most innocuous thing, which can and will so easily produce the most outlandish assumptions, beliefs, and/or conclusions to come out.

By the way I could have asked you to clarify what you mean by the use of the word 'world' here. But you would have either once again not answered me, or you would have once again told me that "you know what I mean" or "others know what I mean", or you would have once again accused me of not understanding the word 'world'. So, for this reason I just answered your question pretending that you actually KNEW what you meant when you used the word 'world' here, in relation to the 'dreamtime'.

Unless of course you would like to rephrase, or would like to explain what the words; "how and why the world is here", actually means?

Just to let you KNOW it does not matter what you would provide my answer will still be a 'certainly not'.

The reason how and why the Universe is "here", and what Its purpose IS, can and will be explained in very simple and easy to understand proven Truth.