Resolving Paradoxes

[Age]

Why is We do not need money to live paradoxical to you?

Because, as I stated earlier, some people still see that as being a contradiction, but on further investigation see that it actually expresses a truth. So, when there is NO people left seeing it as a contradiction to begin with, as see it as a truth, then that is when it will cease to be a paradox.

I get that some folks see a paradox in We do not need money to live, but I'm not talkin' with them, I'm talkin' with you, and you say you see We do not need money to live as a paradox. I just wanna know why you think We do not need money to live is paradoxical.

BECAUSE if "others" see 'it' as being a paradox, then 'it' remains paradoxical.

If, however, you are 'trying to' ask me another question like; What does 'paradox' mean, to me?, then just ask some thing like that. Otherwise I do NOT know what it is 'you' want 'me' to provide here. i have explained WHY 'I' think that statement is paradoxical in a couple of ways already.

[henry quirk]

I get that some folks see a paradox in We do not need money to live, but I'm not talkin' with them, I'm talkin' with you, and you say you see We do not need money to live as a paradox. I just wanna know why you think We do not need money to live is paradoxical.

BECAUSE if "others" see 'it' as being a paradox, then 'it' remains paradoxical.

Bear with me, Age: I wanna be sure I'm gettin' this.

You say We do not need money to live is paradoxical to you solely cuz others see We do not need money to live as paradoxical, yeah? It's a paradox to them, so it's a paradox to you, yeah?

[Nick_A]

Scott

To understand how a contradiction can be true, take this statement: "I am alive and dead." While this may seem non-resolvable, there is an infinite possibilities in which this is true, of which one example is: "I am alive and dead ....in the period between two years before I was born and two years after." This is just one possible interval which justifies how this can be true. Reality as a whole CAN permit this true when we find a greater domain with respect to time. Totality holds all possible truths in a kind of 'simultaneous' way. [It's hard for us to escape the words we use for time, like 'simultaneous'.] All times are contained in totality and so we are just limited LOCALLY to perceive one specific reality. So our 'finite' reality is perceived to resolve paradox BY the illusion of time.

"I am alive and dead" It doesn't make sense for dualism concerned with the moment. You've raised the question of time. The Law of the Included Middle reconciles two extremes as one from a higher perspective. Take the cycle of a person's life. What if it repeats? Then what is called "I" repeats as a bodily expression we called life. When it isn't repeating we call it death. From the perspective of a higher level of reality we are both alive and dead within the cycle of existence

I am suggesting that it is a possibility impossible to contemplate from dualism but is possible to contemplate consciously from a higher perspective, a "middle" within which the extremes are united. If the Buddha experienced cycles of life it wasn't through binary thought.

We are at the beginning of time when it will be possible for society to consciously remember the Law of the Included Middle. Whether we do or not is an open question but at least it offers the potential for people to understand why life appears as an absurdity and a complete contradiction along with opening to the means to consciously respond to it rather than just react to it through conditioning. .

But to understand WHY life appears as an absurdity and a complete contradiction just takes 'you' to explain to 'us' WHY 'you', your "self", SEE life as an absurdity and a complete contradiction. So, WHY does life appear as an absurdity and a complete contradiction, to 'you', "nick_A"?

I certainly do NOT see Life this way at all. Although i used to. But when i discovered and learned WHY i did, then I was able to STOP thy "self" from LOOKING in the absurd and completely contradictory way, which made life appeart to be n absurdity and a complete contradiction, which OBVIOUSLY It is NOT. That is; when KNOWING how to LOOK AT and SEE things CLEARLY and CORRECTLY.

Absurdism. “the belief that human beings exist in a purposeless, chaotic universe.”

Years ago I believed this was true and the only way to deal with it is through humor when we experience absurdity.

Then one day I discovered that the universe and man within it makes perfect sense but we do not comprehend it because of the fallen human condition which prevents our collective being and more specifically my being from opening to the experience of reality. Collectively our species, our being, has become abnormal through its lack of balance

You want to argue details but without at least intellectually experiencing the big picture, the Law of the Included Middle will have no value for you. Living within and defending one level of reality will be sufficient for your need for meaning.

Yet others are different and are drawn to experience reason which isn’t confined to one level of reality. If you can understand the beginning of this essay you will understand what people like me are drawn to and why it must be rejected by the secular world. Without opening to the possibility you cannot understand what I refer to.

http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/Reviews/NicolescuReview.htm

After reading Nicolescu's Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity, it is hard to imagine how any thinking person could retreat to the old, safe, comfortable conceptual framework. Taking a series of ideas that would be extremely thought-provoking even when considered one by one, the Romanian quantum physicist Basarab Nicolescu weaves them together in a stunning vision, this manifesto of the twenty-first century, so that they emerge as a shimmering, profoundly radical whole.

Nicolescu’s raison d’être is to help develop people’s consciousness by means of showing them how to approach things in terms of what he calls “transdisciplinarity.” He seeks to address head on the problem of fragmentation that plagues contemporary life. Nicolescu maintains that binary logic, the logic underlying most all of our social, economic, and political institutions, is not sufficient to encompass or address all human situations. His thinking aids in the unification of the scientific culture and the sacred, something which increasing numbers of persons, will find to be an enormous help, among them wholistic health practitioners seeking to promote the understanding of illness as something arising from the interwoven fabric—body, plus mind, plus spirit—that constitutes the whole human being, and academics frustrated by the increasing pressure to produce only so-called “value-free” material.

Transdisciplinarity “concerns that which is at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and beyond all discipline,” and its aim is the unity of knowledge together with the unity of our being: “Its goal is the understanding of the present world, of which one of the imperatives is the unity of knowledge.” (44) Nicolescu points out the danger of self-destruction caused by modernism and increased technologization and offers alternative ways of approaching them, using a transdisciplinary approach that propels us beyond the either/or thinking that gave rise to the antagonisms that produced the problems in the first place. The logic of the included middle permits “this duality [to be] transgressed by the open unity that encompasses both the universe and the human being.” (56). Thus, approaching problems in a transdisciplinary way enables one to move beyond dichotomized thinking, into the space that lies beyond.

Nicolescu calls on us to rethink everything in terms of what quantum physics has shown us about the nature of the universe. Besides offering an alternative to thinking exclusively in terms of binary logic, and showing how the idea of the logic of the included middle can afford hitherto unimagined possibilities, he also introduces us to the idea that Reality is not something that exists on only one level, but on many, and maintains that only transdisciplinarity can deal with the dynamics engendered by the action of several levels of Reality at once. It is for this reason that transdisciplinarity is radically distinct from multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, although it is often confused with both. Moreover, because of the fact that reality has more than a single level, binary logic, the logic that one uses to cross a street and avoid being hit by a truck, cannot possibly be applied to all of the levels. It simply does not work. Nicolescu explains it is only the logic of the included middle that can be adequate for complex situations, like those we must confront in the educational, political, social, religious and cultural arenas. As he writes, “The transdisciplinary viewpoint allows us to consider a multidimensional Reality, structured by multiple levels replacing the single-level, one-dimensional reality of classical thought.” (49)…………………………………………….

The world is not ready for this quality of reason because it is inconvenient and insulting. It makes us aware of our nothingness in the presence of higher consciousness. That is offensive to cultures which pride itself in fragmentation so these ideas must be rejected. The saving grace is that even though they are rejected by the conditioned majority there is a healthy minority out there whose minds are continuing to open. I support these efforts where possible regardless of rejection by the intellectuals fixated on one level of reality.

[Age]

I get that some folks see a paradox in We do not need money to live, but I'm not talkin' with them, I'm talkin' with you, and you say you see We do not need money to live as a paradox. I just wanna know why you think We do not need money to live is paradoxical.

BECAUSE if "others" see 'it' as being a paradox, then 'it' remains paradoxical.

Bear with me, Age: I wanna be sure I'm gettin' this.

Okay.

You say We do not need money to live is paradoxical to you solely cuz others see We do not need money to live as paradoxical, yeah?

Yes.

It's a paradox to them, so it's a paradox to you, yeah?

Yeah. If some thing is 'paradoxical' to some people, then what I OBSERVE is these people seeing that thing is paradoxical.

If some thing is perceived to be 'paradoxical', then I OBSERVE, thus SEE, a 'paradox', which just NEEDS to be further explained and/or in more detail.

The purpose I write this is way is because if, and WHEN, NO one is seeing that statement as paradoxical, then this will help STOP 'you', human beings, from doing most of the wrong you do, which is what WILL lead to creating World Peace much faster. So, while there are some of 'you', human beings, still see paradoxes in My writings, then I will still SEE them as paradoxical, which then helps me in my quest to communicate better. When thee Truth in them is SEEN, UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN, then the paradoxes STOP existing, 'we' can ALL move forward in the way that we are meant to be heading.

Maybe to grasp and understand this better, from my perspective, is to NEVER forget that the definitions for the words being used here CAN BE very different and some times completely opposite between the definitions that 'you' and 'I' use. For example, YOUR definition of 'paradox' is VERY DIFFERENT than the definition I am using here.

[henry quirk]

"Yeah. If some thing is 'paradoxical' to some people, then what I OBSERVE is these people seeing that thing is paradoxical. If some thing is perceived to be 'paradoxical', then I OBSERVE, thus SEE, a 'paradox', which just NEEDS to be further explained and/or in more detail."

Okay. Thanks for explaining.

#

"The purpose I write this is way is because if, and WHEN, NO one is seeing that statement as paradoxical, then this will help STOP 'you', human beings, from doing most of the wrong you do, which is what WILL lead to creating World Peace much faster."

Well, I'm not interested in world peace, but you are, so: good luck.

#

"So, while there are some of 'you', human beings, still see paradoxes in My writings, then I will still SEE them as paradoxical, which then helps me in my quest to communicate better."

I don't find your writing paradoxical, confusing mebbe, but not paradoxical.

#

"When thee Truth in them is SEEN, UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN, then the paradoxes STOP existing, 'we' can ALL move forward in the way that we are meant to be heading."

Well, as I say up-thread, paradoxes are just wordplay: they have no basis in how the world actually works. As for where we're meant to be heading: I'll avoid the Lemming's rush, thanks.

#

"Maybe to grasp and understand this better, from my perspective, is to NEVER forget that the definitions for the words being used here CAN BE very different and some times completely opposite between the definitions that 'you' and 'I' use. For example, YOUR definition of 'paradox' is VERY DIFFERENT than the definition I am using here."

Yeah, I thought it was sumthin' like that.

[Age]

Scott



"I am alive and dead" It doesn't make sense for dualism concerned with the moment. You've raised the question of time. The Law of the Included Middle reconciles two extremes as one from a higher perspective. Take the cycle of a person's life. What if it repeats? Then what is called "I" repeats as a bodily expression we called life. When it isn't repeating we call it death. From the perspective of a higher level of reality we are both alive and dead within the cycle of existence

I am suggesting that it is a possibility impossible to contemplate from dualism but is possible to contemplate consciously from a higher perspective, a "middle" within which the extremes are united. If the Buddha experienced cycles of life it wasn't through binary thought.

We are at the beginning of time when it will be possible for society to consciously remember the Law of the Included Middle. Whether we do or not is an open question but at least it offers the potential for people to understand why life appears as an absurdity and a complete contradiction along with opening to the means to consciously respond to it rather than just react to it through conditioning. .

But to understand WHY life appears as an absurdity and a complete contradiction just takes 'you' to explain to 'us' WHY 'you', your "self", SEE life as an absurdity and a complete contradiction. So, WHY does life appear as an absurdity and a complete contradiction, to 'you', "nick_A"?

I certainly do NOT see Life this way at all. Although i used to. But when i discovered and learned WHY i did, then I was able to STOP thy "self" from LOOKING in the absurd and completely contradictory way, which made life appeart to be n absurdity and a complete contradiction, which OBVIOUSLY It is NOT. That is; when KNOWING how to LOOK AT and SEE things CLEARLY and CORRECTLY.

Absurdism. “the belief that human beings exist in a purposeless, chaotic universe.”

Is there only One and ONLY definition of 'absurdism'?

If yes, then okay.

If no, then this one is just thee one 'you' use, correct?

Also, is seems, to me, to be a to specific definition and use of that word.

By the way, do you KNOW 'my' view on 'belief'?

If yes, then okay.

If no, then having a belief about just about any thing is 'absurd', itself, wildly unreasonable, and illogical.

Years ago I believed this was true and the only way to deal with it is through humor when we experience absurdity.

True? So, if you NEVER had that 'belief', then 'you' would not of had any thing to deal with, correct?

If yes, then this is ANOTHER good reason to NEVER believe any thing

Then one day I discovered that the universe and man within it makes perfect sense but we do not comprehend it

Why do 'you' say that 'you' discovered two things "make perfect sense" but then immediately after say that you do "not comprehend it"?

How can what makes "perfect sense", to 'you', also can "not be comprehended" as well, to 'you'?

because of the fallen human condition which prevents our collective being and more specifically my being from opening to the experience of reality.

If you want to be better understand and/or believed, then 'you' will HAVE TO talk about and explain what this 'fallen human condition' IS exactly.

Also, if 'you' KNOW what 'prevents' your collective being and more specifically 'your' being from OPENING to the experience of 'reality', then 'you' also MUST KNOW how to STOP what is 'preventing' 'you' from being OPEN to Reality and thee Truth of things.

So, if 'you' KNOW what to do, and more importantly HOW to do it, then WHY do you NOT just do it?

Collectively our species, our being, has become abnormal through its lack of balance

You are conflating the issue here. There is NO "our" 'being". If there was, then what would be the 'thing' BE, in relation to the 'our' word, in the term 'our being'. If the 'being' is NOT thee centralized and ultimate part, then what IS?

The word 'our', like the word 'my', infers ownership. Therefore, if there was eve such a thing as "our" 'being or "my" 'being', then that infers there is one above, beyond, or a part from, thee 'being'.

When 'you' are FULLY savvy of this, and other things, then 'you' will START to BEGIN to SEE the actual and REAL Truth of things, that is; thee BIG Picture.

And, what is the 'abnormal' word in relation to, EXACTLY?

You want to argue details but without at least intellectually experiencing the big picture, the Law of the Included Middle will have no value for you.

Please do NOT tell me that I have NOT "intellectually experienced the big picture" when it is I who has been the One explaining all along the reasons WHY 'you', human beings, have NOT been able to SEE and UNDERSTAND the 'big picture', YET.

Now, correct me if I am wrong here, but 'you' have just alleged that I have NOT yet "intellectually experienced the big picture", which very STRONGLY implies that 'you' HAVE. Therefore, if this is what 'you' are CLAIMING here, then START explaining what that "picture" IS or at least LOOKS like. Until then I suggest to NOT be so SURE of "yourself". This SIMPLE FACT IS 'you' do NOT even know who or what 'you' are YET, let alone what the Big Picture looks like yet.

Listen I do NOT care about 'your' "included middle", nor much else here. I say that I can PROVE what thee actual Truth IS, by illustrating this, through a Picture, which SHOWS the Big of WHOLE Truth of things. So, WHY NOT just question and challenge me on this CLAIM? You, after all, are alleging that I have not intellectually experienced the big picture, correct?

Living within and defending one level of reality will be sufficient for your need for meaning.

I do NOT have a NEED for meaning. So WHY do make up such ASSUMPTIONS?

Also, If you STARTED answering my clarifying questions, then you would NOT be so misguided and confused here.

I am NOT 'living within and defending one level of reality', from the perception of 'level of reality' that you are talking about, as that you BELIEVE so strongly I am living within.

How about instead of ASSUMING what I am saying in my clarifying questions posed to you, you just ANSWERED the very simple clarifying questions DIRECTLY.

If you did START doing this, then you, SHOULD, start SEEING that what I am asking you IS; How many "levels of reality" do 'you' say there IS?

Yet others are different and are drawn to experience reason which isn’t confined to one level of reality. If you can understand the beginning of this essay you will understand what people like me are drawn to and why it must be rejected by the secular world. Without opening to the possibility you cannot understand what I refer to.

LOOK, 'you' BELIEVES things correct?

If yes, then okay.

If no, then okay.

I do NOT "need" to read any thing to ALREADY KNOW HOW to PROVE the actual Truth of things, like: How the Mind and the brain work, Who and what 'you' ARE, and who and what 'I' am, the meaning of Life, the purpose of living, and 'you', human beings, WHY 'you', human beings, are still LOOKING FOR answers, How the Universe works, and HOW It exists ALWAYS, in fact I KNOW how to explain and PROVE the very reason WHY ALL-OF-THIS exists, if you want to KNOW the Truth.

Now, either challenge me on the words I use, or do NOT.

I do NOT care what 'you', human beings, say and write, unless of course it leads to thee Truth of things and helps in the Creation of a much be better "world" for ALL of 'you' to live in.

Have these writings brought about any such thing?

If no, then okay.

If yes, then are you sure? Have you seen the way 'you' human beings live in the days of when this is written?

http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/Reviews/NicolescuReview.htm

After reading Nicolescu's Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity, it is hard to imagine how any thinking person could retreat to the old, safe, comfortable conceptual framework. Taking a series of ideas that would be extremely thought-provoking even when considered one by one, the Romanian quantum physicist Basarab Nicolescu weaves them together in a stunning vision, this manifesto of the twenty-first century, so that they emerge as a shimmering, profoundly radical whole.

Nicolescu’s raison d’être is to help develop people’s consciousness by means of showing them how to approach things in terms of what he calls “transdisciplinarity.” He seeks to address head on the problem of fragmentation that plagues contemporary life. Nicolescu maintains that binary logic, the logic underlying most all of our social, economic, and political institutions, is not sufficient to encompass or address all human situations. His thinking aids in the unification of the scientific culture and the sacred, something which increasing numbers of persons, will find to be an enormous help, among them wholistic health practitioners seeking to promote the understanding of illness as something arising from the interwoven fabric—body, plus mind, plus spirit—that constitutes the whole human being, and academics frustrated by the increasing pressure to produce only so-called “value-free” material.

Transdisciplinarity “concerns that which is at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and beyond all discipline,” and its aim is the unity of knowledge together with the unity of our being: “Its goal is the understanding of the present world, of which one of the imperatives is the unity of knowledge.” (44) Nicolescu points out the danger of self-destruction caused by modernism and increased technologization and offers alternative ways of approaching them, using a transdisciplinary approach that propels us beyond the either/or thinking that gave rise to the antagonisms that produced the problems in the first place. The logic of the included middle permits “this duality [to be] transgressed by the open unity that encompasses both the universe and the human being.” (56). Thus, approaching problems in a transdisciplinary way enables one to move beyond dichotomized thinking, into the space that lies beyond.

Nicolescu calls on us to rethink everything in terms of what quantum physics has shown us about the nature of the universe. Besides offering an alternative to thinking exclusively in terms of binary logic, and showing how the idea of the logic of the included middle can afford hitherto unimagined possibilities, he also introduces us to the idea that Reality is not something that exists on only one level, but on many, and maintains that only transdisciplinarity can deal with the dynamics engendered by the action of several levels of Reality at once. It is for this reason that transdisciplinarity is radically distinct from multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, although it is often confused with both. Moreover, because of the fact that reality has more than a single level, binary logic, the logic that one uses to cross a street and avoid being hit by a truck, cannot possibly be applied to all of the levels. It simply does not work. Nicolescu explains it is only the logic of the included middle that can be adequate for complex situations, like those we must confront in the educational, political, social, religious and cultural arenas. As he writes, “The transdisciplinary viewpoint allows us to consider a multidimensional Reality, structured by multiple levels replacing the single-level, one-dimensional reality of classical thought.” (49)…………………………………………….

The world is not ready for this quality of reason because it is inconvenient and insulting.

'you', human beings, in the days of when this is written, are also OBVIOUSLY NOT ready for what I am saying here. But so what? The way 'you' have been created 'you' were purposely NOT made to be ready, in the days of when this is written, just YET.

But soon enough you WILL BE.

One day when 'you' STOP assuming and believing 'you' KNOW what is true, right, and correct, and so you remain completely OPEN, and seriously WANT to change the WRONG that 'you' do, for the better, then 'you', human beings, WILL BE READY, and WILL start SEEING thee actual REAL Truth of things.

It makes us aware of our nothingness in the presence of higher consciousness.

Is this 'higher' Consciousness that I KNOW what It is, HOW It works, and also KNOW HOW to explain ALL about It, but 'you' are completely and utterly perplexed and puzzled by?

That is offensive to cultures which pride itself in fragmentation so these ideas must be rejected. The saving grace is that even though they are rejected by the conditioned majority there is a healthy minority out there whose minds are continuing to open. I support these efforts where possible regardless of rejection by the intellectuals fixated on one level of reality.

See, the issue with 'you', "nick_a", is you keep assuming that I am one of "those", which 'you' perceive are not as advanced in insight and knowing, and so 'you' actually BELIEVE this to be true, right, and correct. 'you' BELIEVE so STRONGLY that I am one of "those" so now 'you' can not stop SEEING in my words things that are NOT actually there.

Is it at all POSSIBLE to 'you' that I actually could ALREADY KNOW all about what it is that 'you' have been introduced to, through and from the writings of "others", and what 'you', literally, just dream of discovering, learning, and understanding ALL about one day?

Or, is this just NOT possible at all, and so is a completely irrational and illogical thing to even consider, let alone to think about and muse over?

[Age]

"Yeah. If some thing is 'paradoxical' to some people, then what I OBSERVE is these people seeing that thing is paradoxical. If some thing is perceived to be 'paradoxical', then I OBSERVE, thus SEE, a 'paradox', which just NEEDS to be further explained and/or in more detail."

Okay. Thanks for explaining.

#

"The purpose I write this is way is because if, and WHEN, NO one is seeing that statement as paradoxical, then this will help STOP 'you', human beings, from doing most of the wrong you do, which is what WILL lead to creating World Peace much faster."

Well, I'm not interested in world peace, but you are, so: good luck.

#

"So, while there are some of 'you', human beings, still see paradoxes in My writings, then I will still SEE them as paradoxical, which then helps me in my quest to communicate better."

I don't find your writing paradoxical, confusing mebbe, but not paradoxical.

If you find my writing 'confusing', then why do you not ask me for clarification?

#

"When thee Truth in them is SEEN, UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN, then the paradoxes STOP existing, 'we' can ALL move forward in the way that we are meant to be heading."

Well, as I say up-thread, paradoxes are just wordplay: they have no basis in how the world actually works.

As I have said and POINTED OUT the definition of 'paradox' is VERY DIFFERENT from the definition I use. Therefore, and OBVIOUSLY, what 'you' say 'paradoxes' ARE is NOT what 'paradoxes' ARE, to me.

To me, paradoxes can actually be based on EXACTLY how the Universe, and 'you', human beings', actually work. That is; 'you', human beings, can SEE things in the Universe, which appear contradictory, but on further investigation ARE NOT, and so what can APPEAR to the human being to be NOT true, or absurd, can in fact be what thee actual REAL Truth of things IS exactly.

As for where we're meant to be heading: I'll avoid the Lemming's rush, thanks.

#

"Maybe to grasp and understand this better, from my perspective, is to NEVER forget that the definitions for the words being used here CAN BE very different and some times completely opposite between the definitions that 'you' and 'I' use. For example, YOUR definition of 'paradox' is VERY DIFFERENT than the definition I am using here."

Yeah, I thought it was sumthin' like that.

I sure HOPED you DID. I DID clearly write out the definition I use, just like you did. Putting the two definitions out here on the screen in black and white SURELY proves the very FACT that is what I have been POINTING OUT.

[henry quirk]

I did, several times, in this thread.

I have, in other threads.

[Age]

I did, several times, in this thread.

I have, in other threads.

Did I clarify things for you or are they still confusing for you?

[Nick_A]

Here is typical definition of paradox:

a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true

Saint Paul describes the ultimate paradox as it takes place within him:

Romans 7

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

This is the hypocrisy of the human condition; the ultimate paradox. Can it be resolved?

[Nick_A]

Age

See, the issue with 'you', "nick_a", is you keep assuming that I am one of "those", which 'you' perceive are not as advanced in insight and knowing, and so 'you' actually BELIEVE this to be true, right, and correct. 'you' BELIEVE so STRONGLY that I am one of "those" so now 'you' can not stop SEEING in my words things that are NOT actually there.

Is it at all POSSIBLE to 'you' that I actually could ALREADY KNOW all about what it is that 'you' have been introduced to, through and from the writings of "others", and what 'you', literally, just dream of discovering, learning, and understanding ALL about one day?

Or, is this just NOT possible at all, and so is a completely irrational and illogical thing to even consider, let alone to think about and muse over?
Top

You write of what you know but do not express the humility which would indicate you are aware of how much you don't know

[Age]

What I know: paradoxes didn't mean diddly. Clever word play and fictional musings.

Here's a challenge to you, or anyone: throw your most devious paradox my way and I'll dismantle it.

That's dismantle, not resolve.

How do you dismantle this so called "paradox"?

Zeno's Paradox says that two objects can never touch. The idea is that if one object (say a ball) is stationary and the other is set in motion approaching it that the moving ball must pass the halfway point before reaching the stationary ball. As there are an infinite number of half way points the two balls can never touch - there will always be another halfway point to cross before reaching the stationary ball. A paradox because obviously two objects can touch while Zeno has used mathematics to prove that it cannot happen.

[Age]

Here is typical definition of paradox:

a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true

Saint Paul describes the ultimate paradox as it takes place within him:

Romans 7

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

This is the hypocrisy of the human condition; the ultimate paradox. Can it be resolved?

YES. Very easily and very simply.

First off, STOP BELIEVING that that IS the 'human condition'.

Secondly, STOP ASSUMING that that IS true, right, and correct.

Thirdly, START ASKING specifically what it is that you want resolved.

I can only resolve for you when I CLEARLY KNOW what it is that 'you' WANT RESOLVED.

[Age]

Age

See, the issue with 'you', "nick_a", is you keep assuming that I am one of "those", which 'you' perceive are not as advanced in insight and knowing, and so 'you' actually BELIEVE this to be true, right, and correct. 'you' BELIEVE so STRONGLY that I am one of "those" so now 'you' can not stop SEEING in my words things that are NOT actually there.

Is it at all POSSIBLE to 'you' that I actually could ALREADY KNOW all about what it is that 'you' have been introduced to, through and from the writings of "others", and what 'you', literally, just dream of discovering, learning, and understanding ALL about one day?

Or, is this just NOT possible at all, and so is a completely irrational and illogical thing to even consider, let alone to think about and muse over?
Top

You write of what you know but do not express the humility which would indicate you are aware of how much you don't know

Just MAYBE I do NOT "not know" as MUCH as you ASSUME I DO.

Is this at all POSSIBLE?

Maybe if you STARTED answering my clarifying questions, instead of ASSUMING things, then just maybe would NOT be STUCK here and would actually MOVE ON.

I OBVIOUSLY can NOT prove any thing if you KEEP BELIEVING and INSISTING that I do "NOT KNOW THINGS".

Instead of just ASSUMING 'you' KNOW what is true, right, and correct, why do you not CHALLENGE ME, and let us SEE how much I do ACTUALLY KNOW and do NOT ACTUALLY KNOW?

Would this be a good idea so that we can discover and learn what thee actual Truth here IS.

I have previously expressly written that absolutely EVERY thing I write and say here is this forum could be completely and utterly WRONG or partly WRONG. Writing this way did NOT encourage one to challenge me nor question me in regards to what I CLAIM is true. So, if I write of what I KNOW, but do not express the humility that you WANT me to express, which would indicate to you what it is that you are ASSUMING, then so be it. Who cares?

I certainly do NOT.

Either challenge me on my CLAIMS, question me for clarity, and/or PROVE me WRONG, but until you start doing this, just what you ASSUME IS TRUE, is NOT necessarily true at all.

By the way your ASSUMPTIONS expressly SHOW that you BELIEVE that what 'you' KNOW is absolutely True, Right, and Correct. So, how much humility is SHOWN in that?

[henry quirk]

I did, several times, in this thread.

I have, in other threads.

Did I clarify things for you or are they still confusing for you?

Yeah, pretty much I don't get anything you post.