Göbekli Tepe

[surreptitious57]

Are you at all aware that it is impossible to show some thing to some one who believes otherwise

That would depend on how strong that particular belief was rather than on the belief as such
An open mind or a neutral mind could easily accept something more than a closed mind could

[Eodnhoj7]

Do you know that for sure without doubt?

Do I know 'what' for sure without doubt?

Are you assuming doubt?

[/quote]
Are you?

[Eodnhoj7]

Do you know that for sure without doubt?

Do I know 'what' for sure without doubt?

Are you assuming doubt?

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.
[/quote]
Is the question truly open when limiting it in such a manner? Are you assuming it is clarifying?

[Age]

Do I know 'what' for sure without doubt?

Are you assuming doubt?

Are you?
[/quote]

Are you aware that you have completely incorrectly quoted the above?

[Age]

Do I know 'what' for sure without doubt?

Are you assuming doubt?

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.

Is the question truly open when limiting it in such a manner? Are you assuming it is clarifying?
[/quote]

Again, all of this is quoted incorrectly and so again you are responding to your own self here now.

[Age]

Are you at all aware that it is impossible to show some thing to some one who believes otherwise

That would depend on how strong that particular belief was rather than on the belief as such

That could be 'argued'.

Although any belief could be maintained onto more strongly than another belief is. A 'belief', of some thing, still remains the same, that is; A belief that some thing IS true and right. While any belief is being maintained, then there is NOT an openness to any thing else contrary.

An open mind or a neutral mind could easily accept something more than a closed mind could

The one and only Truly OPEN Mind only easily accepts 'that' what is True, Right, and Correct.

Contrary to popular belief there is NO such thing as a "closed mind".

The OPEN Mind is closed off by assumptions and beliefs about what is true and right.

For example, some human beings actually assume or believe that there are "human minds", of which some of "these minds" are said to be closed while some are said to be open. Now for any of these human beings, with these assumptions or beliefs, they are NOT open to the fact that there may well be only One Mind, which is always Truly OPEN, and as such is able to see and understand ALL-THERE-IS to learn and know.

[Eodnhoj7]

Are you assuming doubt?

Are you?

Are you aware that you have completely incorrectly quoted the above?
[/quote]

Is that the correct question to assume?

[Eodnhoj7]

Are you assuming doubt?

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.

Is the question truly open when limiting it in such a manner? Are you assuming it is clarifying?

Again, all of this is quoted incorrectly and so again you are responding to your own self here now.
[/quote]
Are you assuming it was quoted incorrectly? Prove it.

[Age]

You did NOT respond to any of those answers of mine.

As I explained, it is too much noise that I (and apparently other forum members) don't want to wade through. It does not need to be as convoluted as you make it.

If you think or believe that my short, straightforward, simple and honest answers to your fifteen or so questions is "too much noise" for you to "wade through", then how short would you like my answers to be?

I can only help you to understand things better if you inform me of exactly what it is that you want and seek out.

I have ALREADY explained about HOW and WHY I could be WRONG.

Then when someone tells you you're wrong, you should go back to that and refresh your memory.

Tell me HOW I could be wrong when I just inform what appears to me?

Are you at all aware that just saying what appears to me is NOT saying what any thing IS?

If I say the sky appears to be white to me, then HOW could I be wrong?

You seem to still be stuck in your own thinking and still NOT able to see and understand what it is that I have been continually saying.

What will it take for you to stop looking at this from your own perspective and going on about this, and OPEN up and just understand what I am saying? You have been hampering on about this issue for quite a while now. Surely it is not this hard to understand?

Are you able to distinguish between 'what is an assumption about some thing' and 'what only appears to be some thing'?

The former one CAN BE wrong. The latter one can NOT BE wrong. When 'I' express 'what appears to me', I am NOT assuming any thing nor am I saying what some thing is. In other words 'I' do NOT do what 'you', yourself, do. Can you now SEE the difference?

I have also ALREADY asked to be SHOWN WHERE, HOW and WHY what I say IS WRONG.

It is not up to other people to prove or teach anything to you.

I would have thought common decency would suggest that IF a person is saying "You are WRONG", like you do, then it would be up to that person who is making the accusation of WRONGNESS to have some sort of evidence or proof for their accusation and be able to provide that. Otherwise every one could just be telling each other "You are WRONG" and there would not be any need for judicial courts nor for forming logical sound and valid arguments.

If you make a claim that somehow involves them, and they say you are wrong, then instead of asking them to prove that you are wrong, it's up to you to explore views that you may not have considered or been open to.

Or, just maybe, you have misconstrued absolutely EVERY thing here now.

Consider this:
I say; To me, you appear to be a very judgmental and closed person.
You say; You are WRONG.
I say: How could I be WRONG?

What is your response?

I have ONLY expressed my view of what appears to me. I have NEVER assumed any thing NOR have I claimed that you are any thing. So, HOW could I be WRONG?

Let us SEE if you can work it out this time.

Could you have been assuming and/or believing that I am saying some thing, but really I have NOT been?

But I do understand.

You tell people all the time that they don't understand you or what you're saying, yet you claim to understand them and what they're saying.

Yep this is RIGHT.

Do you have a problem with it?

Is there an issue here that you would like to bring to light?

Does it trouble you that I say and claim this?

Is there any point that you are trying to make here now?

If, and when, they are unable to answer my clarifying questions, then no response can speak truth loudly also.

It can also mean that your questions miss the main point that was just shown by another person, and are too noisy to interact with.

Their no response could also mean that I fully understood the main point, but am just bringing other points to light through clarifying questioning.

Ah yes, you're orchestrating everything while not recognizing how YOU are being orchestrated.

I have ALREADY explained WHY I am doing what I doing and WHAT I am creating.

So what?

Well, you are trying to make the point that I am being orchestrated. So, by me expressing that I have ALREADY explained the very reason for WHAT I am doing and WHY I am doing it, that is; orchestrating 'you', human beings, the way I am, I am SHOWING that I KNOW what I am doing and KNOW what I am talking about. AND THEN, by me asking you the clarifying question; WHAT am I being orchestrated for? and you completely ignoring this question and providing absolutely NO response again, then I am SHOWING that 'you' do NOT know how you are orchestrating me. You do NOT fully know what you are doing, why you are doing what you are doing, nor what purpose you are doing here.

But, OF COURSE, 'you' could prove me WRONG, by explaining exactly HOW, WHY, and WHAT 'you' are supposedly "orchestrating" ME for. "The ball is still in your court", as some say.

Your explanation/reasons don't change what I just said.

And what did you just say again? Was it that 'I' am being orchestrated?

If yes, then would you like to now explain HOW and WHAT for?

People are doing to you what you're doing to them -- and their reasons could be similar to yours.

And what are their reasons? I have ALREADY given MINE.

Like you say; their reasons could similar to mine. But until you provide those reasons we will NEVER know.

And thee Answers I KNOW cannot be wrong.

From which 'I' is that being spoken from?

Go ahead and answer your question for yourself.

Okay. I just did it.

I also noticed once again NO actual answer provided to one of my clarifying questions. Yet EVERY clarifying question you ask me I answer.

'you' say that "I am WRONG", so there MUST BE some evidence and/or proof for this claim.

Where is YOUR proof when you claim that people are wrong about what they say?

Give me as many examples as you like or just one, and then I will provide ALL the proof needed.

I speak like that to antagonize people. I WANT people to try to challenge me. I want them to try their hardest to prove me WRONG.

It's easier just to recognize and point out that you're wrong, and challenge you to prove otherwise.

Okay, so correct me if I am wrong here. This is how it works from the human being perspective. I say, "You are WRONG", and then I now say, "I challenge you to prove otherwise", is this correct?

If yes, then this explains a huge amount of WHY 'you', human beings, are increasingly speeding up on the downward path to absolute oblivion.

Have 'you' ever considered that IF I claim that "You are WRONG", then it would be better that it is 'I' who could AND WOULD back this up with some supporting evidence and proof?

OBVIOUSLY if I am not being asked clarifying questions, then no one is really curious nor interested in what I am saying anyway.

Agreed!

Yet you asked me about fifteen clarifying questions, which I answered, and then you STOPPED asking any more clarifying questions. So, as you also agree, you really are not that curious nor interested in what I am saying.

Now I am curious as to WHY did you ask the first fifteen or so clarifying questions?

Were you thinking that you could somehow prove some thing?

Were you trying to trick me into saying some thing?

There are so many actual reasons WHY, but only 'you' are the one who Truly KNOWS why you asked me some clarifying questions but did NOT respond to my clarifying answers. You obviously still do NOT fully understand what I have been and am saying.

they FEAR that really I am RIGHT and that really they are WRONG.

I don't think most people fear that!

Okay, that is great to know.

So, WHY do you think most people do NOT keep clarifying with me about what I am saying nor keep challenging me on what I am saying?

The other reason is they actual BELIEVE that they are RIGHT.

Maybe they know the truth, and don't want to waste time showing or proving anything to you.

So WHY then be on a philosophy forum?

If 'you', human beings, 'know the truth' already, but do not want to waste time showing nor proving what you KNOW, then what is it that 'you' and 'they' are wanting to do here exactly?

What is a philosophy forum actually for, to you?

An example of this is in our interaction, which I will post in my next post.

You and I see different things. That is all the example shows.

Obviously. This was KNOWN well BEFORE that post.

[Age]

Are you?

Are you aware that you have completely incorrectly quoted the above?

Is that the correct question to assume?
[/quote]

What do you mean?

And, until you start quoting correctly, things will only get more confusing, to some.

[surreptitious57]

some human beings actually assume or believe that there are human minds of which some of these minds are said to be closed while some are said to be open . Now for any of these human beings with these assumptions or beliefs they are NOT open to the fact that there may well be only One Mind which is always Truly OPEN and as such is able to see and understand ALL THERE IS to learn and know

Do you not remember me saying that I have absolutely no problem with the concept of Mind
What you call Mind is what I call Existence although the latter is only absolute not conscious

So why do you say I am not open when I have just demonstrated the exact opposite of what you claim
And why are you using the word beliefs when I have told you many times that I do not do belief at all

Do you not remember me saying that for me human beings and human minds were the same
Do you not remember me saying that words are descriptive not prescriptive and so one is free to use them how they choose
As long as one clearly defines what a particular word means to them and it is understood by all then that is all that matters

[Age]

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.

Is the question truly open when limiting it in such a manner? Are you assuming it is clarifying?

Again, all of this is quoted incorrectly and so again you are responding to your own self here now.

Are you assuming it was quoted incorrectly?[/quote]

No. The evidence and proof is there for any one to LOOK AT and SEE. To find the evidence and proof one just needs to look back at your writings.

Prove it.

Prove 'what'?

[Age]

some human beings actually assume or believe that there are human minds of which some of these minds are said to be closed while some are said to be open . Now for any of these human beings with these assumptions or beliefs they are NOT open to the fact that there may well be only One Mind which is always Truly OPEN and as such is able to see and understand ALL THERE IS to learn and know

Do you not remember me saying that I have absolutely no problem with the concept of Mind

No.

What is 'concept of Mind' that you supposedly have absolutely no problem with?

What you call Mind is what I call Existence although the latter is only absolute not conscious

I do not understand what you are saying here.

Would you like me to change the words I use to the words that you use and accept?

When 'you' LOOK AT things from the Truly OPEN Existence, then you will SEE and UNDERSTAND the Truth of things almost instantaneously. To me, this just does not work. Or, to make it work, then there needs to be a lot of reshuffling of words and their definitions, which to me seems truly an unnecessary thing to do.

So why do you say I am not open when I have just demonstrated the exact opposite of what you claim

When did I say or claim that I am or you are not open?

And why are you using the word beliefs when I have told you many times that I do not do belief at all

Why do you think I am using the word beliefs in relation to 'you', "surreptitious57", at all?

Do you not remember me saying that for me human beings and human minds were the same

I do now. But if I remember this forever more, we will have to wait and see

I do NOT say that for me 'human beings' and 'human minds' are the same. To me, one exists and one does not. I also do not like to give the exact same thing two completely different words. Language, the way it is now, can be confusing enough already without confusing it even more.

Do you not remember me saying that words are descriptive not prescriptive and so one is free to use them how they choose

No.

But to me I have explained many times that to me EVERY one is free to do absolutely any thing that they want to.

As long as one clearly defines what a particular word means to them and it is understood by all then that is all that matters

And this is exactly what I have been continually saying I am here, in this forum, learning to do.

Are you aware of just how long it takes for one to clearly define what ALL the particular words they use mean to them, and have ALL of this fully understood by ALL?

Do you really think that just because you might, for example, say "human beings' to me means the exact same as "human minds" a couple of times, then that it is going to be agreed with, accepted, and remembered by any one, let alone ALL and EVERY one?

To me what really matters is learning how to use words in a particular so that the Truest and Biggest picture of ALL-THERE-IS can be fully understood by any and EVERY one.

[Lacewing]

…

Despite the effort, we are not connecting. I observe the way you twist and turn every little phrase -- complaining that something isn't answered in one paragraph, when the answer was clearly answered in another paragraph -- claiming that I never answer your questions, which is a lie -- and it's hard to discern whether you are mad, dishonest, or ignorant, or a combination of those. Your inability to follow a line of conversation, and REMEMBER what has been said, and CONNECT the points that have been made, is so severely deficient, that it's impossible to have an easy and reasonable conversation with you. Look at how everyone here has to dance around your word games. It's stupid and quite possibly insane. And I'm done playing with it. Good luck to you.

[surreptitious57]

When you LOOK AT things from the Truly OPEN Existence then you will SEE and UNDERSTAND the Truth of things almost instantaneously
To me this just does not work . Or to make it work then there needs to be a lot of reshuffling of words and their definitions which to
me seems truly an unnecessary thing to do

When you are looking at something from a truly open perspective you will not need any words
You will see it and understand it instantaneously as you say so there will be no time for words