The meaning of life

[Harbal]

English and I suppose most other languages have reification built into them . And then a child learns to speak her native language and assumes the language is telling about the world as it really is. But often language skews thought because of it inbuilt metaphors.

"The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists" is a social construct. The maker of my wooden chair and I the present owner of the chair purpose something different for the chair. His purpose for the chair is for a person to sit on; my purpose for the chair is a work surface for mashing the potatoes on. There is no essence of wooden chair that identifies it. I may remove the legs and use it as a chopping board, or a round door for the rabbit hutch. At what point does it cease to be the same chair? The use of the chair precedes the essence of the chair. Name any thing and I will say the same: its existence precedes its essence.
Age insists that because there is a word then that word has an essential meaning. But he mistakes existence for essence. No word has an essential meaning, each word is nothing other than its use. Verbs tend to be truer to existentialism than nouns but if we hang around we hear the present participle used as a noun. We can't help ourselves. When I went on holiday to the seaside people asked "Are you going beaching today?" This utterance morphed into "The beaching is great at North Berwick."

Some people use a saw as a musical instrument, or a weapon, or as part of their ambient clutter.

Physiologists would be careful not to sound teleological by saying "the purpose of a heart is to pump blood". I once taught physiology to O level and I hope I'd have said "Hearts pump blood" i.e. omitting any suggestion of final purpose.

This is why it is sometimes difficult to communicate effectively, particularly with someone like Age. When participants in a conversation are playing by differering rules for how they use language, things can become very messy.

What I was trying to draw out in my response to Age, was his concept of the nature of the "purpose" he claims human beings to have. Does he mean we have been created and placed here to fulfill some predetermined function, or role? Or does he mean that it is self evident, for some reason, that it is incumbent on us (human beings) that we all strive for a particular goal. Or does he mean something else?

[Belinda]

English and I suppose most other languages have reification built into them . And then a child learns to speak her native language and assumes the language is telling about the world as it really is. But often language skews thought because of it inbuilt metaphors.

"The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists" is a social construct. The maker of my wooden chair and I the present owner of the chair purpose something different for the chair. His purpose for the chair is for a person to sit on; my purpose for the chair is a work surface for mashing the potatoes on. There is no essence of wooden chair that identifies it. I may remove the legs and use it as a chopping board, or a round door for the rabbit hutch. At what point does it cease to be the same chair? The use of the chair precedes the essence of the chair. Name any thing and I will say the same: its existence precedes its essence.
Age insists that because there is a word then that word has an essential meaning. But he mistakes existence for essence. No word has an essential meaning, each word is nothing other than its use. Verbs tend to be truer to existentialism than nouns but if we hang around we hear the present participle used as a noun. We can't help ourselves. When I went on holiday to the seaside people asked "Are you going beaching today?" This utterance morphed into "The beaching is great at North Berwick."

Some people use a saw as a musical instrument, or a weapon, or as part of their ambient clutter.

Physiologists would be careful not to sound teleological by saying "the purpose of a heart is to pump blood". I once taught physiology to O level and I hope I'd have said "Hearts pump blood" i.e. omitting any suggestion of final purpose.

This is why it is sometimes difficult to communicate effectively, particularly with someone like Age. When participants in a conversation are playing by differering rules for how they use language, things can become very messy.

What I was trying to draw out in my response to Age, was his concept of the nature of the "purpose" he claims human beings to have. Does he mean we have been created and placed here to fulfill some predetermined function, or role? Or does he mean that it is self evident, for some reason, that it is incumbent on us (human beings) that we all strive for a particular goal. Or does he mean something else?

I am a great believer in drawing out and I hope Age will be drawn out. I wonder why I hope so, but I do.

[Age]

Once 'you' LEARN WHY 'you' DO what 'you' DO, then, and ONLY THEN, 'you' CAN CHANGE, for the BETTER. And, WHEN 'you' START CHANGING, for the BETTER, then 'you' WILL ALSO SEE WHAT the purpose WAS for making 'Life' WORSE and WHY there is, NOW, NO purpose in making 'Life' WORSE. And, BECAUSE there is, NOW, NO purpose in making 'Life' WORSE, what IS ALSO SEEN and UNDERSTOOD is WHY the 'purpose' of 'Life', and of 'human beings', is to make 'Life', Itself, BETTER comes to be REALIZED, and KNOWN.

Humankind is no better than a garden slug.

And NO worse.

Absolutely EVERY 'thing' is EQUAL as and to "each other". After all 'Life', Itself, would not be how It IS if ANY 'thing' was NOT how 'it' IS. So, ALL 'things' being EQUAL is just the way 'things' NATURALLY ARE.

Mosquitos must fly around with the same sense of self-importance.

What is the 'must' word in relation to, EXACTLY?

And, do mosquitoes even have 'self-awareness' to put 'self-importance' onto "themselves" like 'you', human beings, do?

[Age]

It has not been established that every one could agree with and accept that, and, in the light of what we know about human behaviour throughout history, there seems good reason to doubt it.

BUT it has ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED. Some are just NOT YET AWARE of 'this'.

As you provide no justification for this comment, it serves no purpose.

It, supposedly, serves NO purpose to who, EXACTLY?

Also, the ACTUAL intended purpose that comment was being made for has actually ALREADY been SERVED, by and through your following response and comment here.

See, a GREAT DEAl of the intended messages, within my writings, is to SHOW and PROVE, with and through responses, that when one is NOT seeking out CLARIFICATION and/or is NOT GAINING and OBTAINiNG CLARITY, then what the ACTUAL INTENDED message IS, EXACTLY, within words and language can get completely DISTORTED and/ or become completely LOST or MISSED. As PROVED absolutely IRREFUTABLY True multiple times throughout this forum, and countless times throughout human history hitherto.

Even your Wrong CONCLUSION that my comment serves absolutely NO purpose AT ALL was obtained because of your OWN False ASSUMPTIONS, which were MADE BEFORE ANY CLARITY was even SOUGHT AFTER let alone OBTAINED.

See if your just OBTAINED ALWAYS CLARITY FIRST, then you could NEVER ARRIVE AT Wrong CONCLUSIONS.

Also, there will NOT be a LOT OF CHANGE UNTIL GREED is REMOVED from human society.

That doesn't really tell us much, does it?

Who and/or what does the 'us' word here refer to, EXACTLY?

Also, what 'things' or 'words' TELL 'you' all depends on 'you'. This is just because absolutely EVERY 'thing' is relative to the observer. Which just means if while 'you' are observing, or hearing, words and the words themselves are NOT telling you much, then that is up to 'you'. See, the EXACT SAME words might be telling 'us' a GREAT DEAL while at the EXACT SAME time not really teilling 'you' much or even absolutely NOTHING AT ALL. After all 'it' all depends on the 'observer' what they see and understand or do NOT see and understand.

[Age]

But thee One Thing CAN and DOES SEE and UNDERSTAND Its 'Self'. 'I', Consciousness, ALSO KNOW thy 'Self', AND ALL of 'you'.

Nope, a thing is seen, a thing is known, a thing is understood. A 'THING' is not the seeing, the knowing, nor the understanding.

So, what IS the seeing, the knowing, and the understanding if NOT A 'Thing' NOR 'things'?

In other words, What are SOME 'things' if NOT 'things'? That is; If 'seeing' is NOT a 'thing', 'knowing' is NOT a 'thing', and 'understanding' is NOT a 'thing', then what are THESE 'things', EXACTLY?

Consciousness is not a thing, but knows all things, sees all things, and understands all things, because the contents of consciousness is not separate from consciousness. Consciousness is empty fullness.

So, if 'Consciousness' is NOT a 'thing', and, 'Consciousness' IS 'empty fullness', as 'you', "dontaskme", CLAIM here, then this means that 'empty fullness' is NOT a 'thing' ALSO. So, now, if 'empty fullness' is NOT a 'thing', then what IS 'empty fullness', EXACTLY?

And, WHY are these 'things' NOT 'things' just like EVERY 'thing' ELSE are 'things'?

[Age]

There is no such THING as a purpose. To purpose is a verb. Purposing is something only people and other animals that have central nervous systems do, if they do it at all. Many people and other animals don't purpose they simply react.

But "purpose" is also a noun, isn't it? This is what I understand the word to mean: "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists."

A saw is designed and made with conscious intention as a tool for cutting through wood. Therefore, the purpose of a saw is to cut through wood. A saw has that purpose by virtue of being given it by its creator. A heart could be said to have the purpose of pumping blood, but hearts are not the product of conscious intention; they came about by a different process altogether. So, although -it seems to me- saws and hearts both have a purpose, there is a distinction of some sort to be made between "purpose" as applied to one, and "purpose" as applied to the other. Or maybe that distinction isn't relevant in the case of what is being discussed here. I don't know.

Of course, the aforementioned distinction would disappear if someone were to bring God, or some other intelligent designer of human beings into the matter, but then theists and none theists would have to go their seperate ways at that point.

English and I suppose most other languages have reification built into them . And then a child learns to speak her native language and assumes the language is telling about the world as it really is.

Well maybe if 'you', human beings, STOPPED ASSUMING that language is telling 'you' about 'the world' as 'it' REALLY IS, then 'you' WILL STOP making SO MANY MISTAKES and STOP being SO Wrong.

But PLEASE do NOT let MY SUGGESTION of to STOP ASSUMING 'things', if you BELIEVE ASSUMING is HELPING you in ANY way.

But often language skews thought because of it inbuilt metaphors.

What do you MEAN by 'often language skews thought'?

'Thought' consists of 'language' ALONE, correct?

Or, am I MISSING some 'thing' here?

Also, WHY do 'you', adult human beings, ADD IN 'metaphors' to YOUR language and wording?

I suggest to just, literally, SPEAK and SAY ONLY what is ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct INSTEAD. That way, AGAIN, you will ALWAYS ONLY EVER be Right.

"The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists" is a social construct. The maker of my wooden chair and I the present owner of the chair purpose something different for the chair. His purpose for the chair is for a person to sit on; my purpose for the chair is a work surface for mashing the potatoes on. There is no essence of wooden chair that identifies it.

Does 'thing' NOT suffice as the 'essence' for the 'thing' mentioned here, for NOR to you?

I may remove the legs and use it as a chopping board, or a round door for the rabbit hutch. At what point does it cease to be the same chair?

WHEN was 'it' EVER a so-called 'chair'? And, WHY did you even call 'it' 'chair'? What were you MEANING when you called 'it', 'chair'?

The use of the chair precedes the essence of the chair. Name any thing and I will say the same: its existence precedes its essence.

you are absolutely FREE to SAY, and even CLAIM whatever you like. But HOW can 'its existence' precede 'its essence' WHEN you just SAID and CLAIMED there is 'NO essence'?

How can some 'thing' PRECEDE some 'other thing', when the 'other thing' is said to NOT even exist?

Age insists that because there is a word then that word has an essential meaning.

I do NOT recall ever insisting 'this', but while we are here now, if the words that you use do NOT have 'essential meanings', then HOW is ANY one meant to KNOW or UNDERSTAND what you are ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT and MEANING?

If you say or write words but do NOT, essentially, mean some 'thing', then WHY are you SPEAKING or WRITING in the first place?

But he mistakes existence for essence.

Do I?

If yes, then what are you basing this ASSUMPTION ON, EXACTLY?

No word has an essential meaning, each word is nothing other than its use.

To me NO word has a SPECIFIC meaning that is 'SET IN STONE', as some might say. Which, literally, MEANS that there is NO meaning to ANY word that is UNCHANGEABLE.

But, AGAIN, if when 'you' SPEAK or WRITE "belinda" and you are NOT, essentially, meaning SOME 'thing' with the, individual, words that you USE, then WHY even USE, those, words?

Verbs tend to be truer to existentialism than nouns

But if there are NO essential meanings to the words 'verbs' and 'nouns' here, and 'you' are NOT GIVING ANY 'essential meaning' to those words, then absolutely NO one, including 'you', "belinda", KNOW what 'you' are TALKING ABOUT and WRITING here, correct?

Let alone even KNOWING what 'you', essentially, MEAN by the USE of the word 'existentialism' here.

but if we hang around we hear the present participle used as a noun. We can't help ourselves. When I went on holiday to the seaside people asked "Are you going beaching today?" This utterance morphed into "The beaching is great at North Berwick."

WHO are the people you 'hang around with' and WHO speak like 'that' USING those words?

I have NEVER heard ANY one speak like 'that'. Except, OF COURSE, for 'you', just here and now.

Some people use a saw as a musical instrument, or a weapon, or as part of their ambient clutter.

So what?

Any one can USE ANY 'thing' ANY WAY they like. 'you' are ALL, literally, FREE to do so. However, WHEN 'you' USE words absolutely ANY WAY 'you' like, then do NOT be to surprised if "others" have NO idea NOR clue as to what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, that 'you' are SAYING, and MEANING.

Physiologists would be careful not to sound teleological by saying "the purpose of a heart is to pump blood". I once taught physiology to O level and I hope I'd have said "Hearts pump blood" i.e. omitting any suggestion of final purpose.

WHY, what OTHER 'purpose' is there, or would there be, for 'a heart'?

Also, FINDING 'the essential', 'the fundamental', or what you might call 'the final' meaning or purpose of some 'thing' does NOT necessarily EXCLUDE other 'meanings' or 'purposes' that may or may not exist.

[Age]

Age wrote:

And IF people are BEHAVING in A True and Right way, in accordance WITH 'Life', Itself, then it could be SAID and ARGUED that those people are FULFILLING their PURPOSE in Life.

But one HAS TO BE OPEN enough FIRST to ACCEPT that JUST MAYBE there IS A PURPOSE to Existence, or to this LIVING and BEING ALIVE 'thing'.

In order to have a moral sense I don't need first to believe that there is an invisible PURPOSE that I must obey.

LOL

NO one NEEDS to FIRST BELIEVE ANY 'thing' in order to have 'moral sense'. After all 'moral sense' is ALREADY BUILT INTO the 'human being' BEFORE ANY ACTUAL BELIEFS EVER come into play or existence for that human being.

'Purpose', just like 'moral sense', just like ALL 'thoughts', and just like the 'Mind' are ALL invisible, to the human eyes, but which has NO bearing on their ACTUAL EXISTENCE or NOT.

And, WHERE IS this ABSURD PRESUMPTION that you MUST obey ANY 'purpose' coming from, EXACTLY?

Are you NOT YET AWARE that you are ABSOLUTELY FREE to CHOOSE to do WHATEVER you so please?

Also, WHY do you sometimes quote "another" and respond, but then at other times you just post and write, 'age wrote', for example, and then quote them?

It could be seen as you sometimes do NOT like or do NOT want the "other" to be notified when you have responded to 'them'.

[Age]

English and I suppose most other languages have reification built into them . And then a child learns to speak her native language and assumes the language is telling about the world as it really is. But often language skews thought because of it inbuilt metaphors.

"The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists" is a social construct. The maker of my wooden chair and I the present owner of the chair purpose something different for the chair. His purpose for the chair is for a person to sit on; my purpose for the chair is a work surface for mashing the potatoes on. There is no essence of wooden chair that identifies it. I may remove the legs and use it as a chopping board, or a round door for the rabbit hutch. At what point does it cease to be the same chair? The use of the chair precedes the essence of the chair. Name any thing and I will say the same: its existence precedes its essence.
Age insists that because there is a word then that word has an essential meaning. But he mistakes existence for essence. No word has an essential meaning, each word is nothing other than its use. Verbs tend to be truer to existentialism than nouns but if we hang around we hear the present participle used as a noun. We can't help ourselves. When I went on holiday to the seaside people asked "Are you going beaching today?" This utterance morphed into "The beaching is great at North Berwick."

Some people use a saw as a musical instrument, or a weapon, or as part of their ambient clutter.

Physiologists would be careful not to sound teleological by saying "the purpose of a heart is to pump blood". I once taught physiology to O level and I hope I'd have said "Hearts pump blood" i.e. omitting any suggestion of final purpose.

This is why it is sometimes difficult to communicate effectively, particularly with someone like Age. When participants in a conversation are playing by differering rules for how they use language, things can become very messy.

Has it STILL NEVER OCCURRED that if 'things' have become 'very messy', then to JUST SEEK CLARITY, through CLARIFICATION?

What I was trying to draw out in my response to Age, was his concept of the nature of the "purpose" he claims human beings to have.

AND, what you could have DONE BETTER was INSTEAD of 'trying to' 'draw out' in your responses, would be just a Truly VERY SIMPLE and VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD CLARIFYING QUESTION of what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, that you are, supposedly, WANTING or SEEKING.

For example, if you REALLY WANT my 'concept of the nature of the 'purpose' I claim human beings have, then I SUGGEST just asking something like; What is your concept of the nature of the 'purpose' that you claim human beings have, "age"?

Can you now SEE just how SIMPLE and STRAIGHTFORWARD doing this REALLY IS?

Does he mean we have been created and placed here to fulfill some predetermined function, or role?

I here SUGGEST that INSTEAD of talking to "belinda" or to ANY one "ELSE" and asking 'them' questions you, supposedly, WANT the answers to, FROM 'me', that you ASK 'me' these CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

Does this MAKE SENSE? Or, am I MISSING some 'thing' here?

Or does he mean that it is self evident, for some reason, that it is incumbent on us (human beings) that we all strive for a particular goal. Or does he mean something else?

I WONDER what would HAPPEN if you ASKED the ACTUAL 'one' WHO you, supposedly, WANT the ANSWER/S FROM, INSTEAD?

[Age]

English and I suppose most other languages have reification built into them . And then a child learns to speak her native language and assumes the language is telling about the world as it really is. But often language skews thought because of it inbuilt metaphors.

"The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists" is a social construct. The maker of my wooden chair and I the present owner of the chair purpose something different for the chair. His purpose for the chair is for a person to sit on; my purpose for the chair is a work surface for mashing the potatoes on. There is no essence of wooden chair that identifies it. I may remove the legs and use it as a chopping board, or a round door for the rabbit hutch. At what point does it cease to be the same chair? The use of the chair precedes the essence of the chair. Name any thing and I will say the same: its existence precedes its essence.
Age insists that because there is a word then that word has an essential meaning. But he mistakes existence for essence. No word has an essential meaning, each word is nothing other than its use. Verbs tend to be truer to existentialism than nouns but if we hang around we hear the present participle used as a noun. We can't help ourselves. When I went on holiday to the seaside people asked "Are you going beaching today?" This utterance morphed into "The beaching is great at North Berwick."

Some people use a saw as a musical instrument, or a weapon, or as part of their ambient clutter.

Physiologists would be careful not to sound teleological by saying "the purpose of a heart is to pump blood". I once taught physiology to O level and I hope I'd have said "Hearts pump blood" i.e. omitting any suggestion of final purpose.

This is why it is sometimes difficult to communicate effectively, particularly with someone like Age. When participants in a conversation are playing by differering rules for how they use language, things can become very messy.

What I was trying to draw out in my response to Age, was his concept of the nature of the "purpose" he claims human beings to have. Does he mean we have been created and placed here to fulfill some predetermined function, or role? Or does he mean that it is self evident, for some reason, that it is incumbent on us (human beings) that we all strive for a particular goal. Or does he mean something else?

I am a great believer in drawing out and I hope Age will be drawn out.

Are 'you' AWARE "belinda" that the word 'education' once, essentially, meant; to draw out?

I wonder why I hope so, but I do.

ONCE, what IS WITHIN is 'drawn out', then 'you' will 'wonder' NO MORE.

And, by the way, the BEST, simplest, easiest, and quickest way I have found to 'draw out', the 'potential' and 'Thing' from WITHIN, is just by REMAINING Truly CURIOUS and by just asking CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, from a Truly OPEN perspective.

Of which the ACTUAL PROOF OF WILL COME-TO-LIGHT IF, and WHEN, this is BEING DONE.

[Harbal]

Does he mean we have been created and placed here to fulfill some predetermined function, or role?

I here SUGGEST that INSTEAD of talking to "belinda" or to ANY one "ELSE" and asking 'them' questions you, supposedly, WANT the answers to, FROM 'me', that you ASK 'me' these CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

Does this MAKE SENSE? Or, am I MISSING some 'thing' here?

Or does he mean that it is self evident, for some reason, that it is incumbent on us (human beings) that we all strive for a particular goal. Or does he mean something else?

I WONDER what would HAPPEN if you ASKED the ACTUAL 'one' WHO you, supposedly, WANT the ANSWER/S FROM, INSTEAD?

Well let's see what would happen:

What I am trying to find out from you is what your concept of the nature of the "purpose" you claim human beings to have is. Do you mean we have been created and placed here to fulfill some predetermined function, or role? Or do you mean that it is self evident, for some reason, that it is incumbent on us (human beings) that we all strive for a particular goal. Or do you mean something else?

Are you able to answer this question, and, if you are, will you please do so?

[Dontaskme]

So, what IS the seeing, the knowing, and the understanding if NOT A 'Thing' NOR 'things'?

In other words, What are SOME 'things' if NOT 'things'? That is; If 'seeing' is NOT a 'thing', 'knowing' is NOT a 'thing', and 'understanding' is NOT a 'thing', then what are THESE 'things', EXACTLY?

Seeing is never seen as a 'thing', Age, because there is only 'Seeing'. How can 'Seeing' see the seeing seer as a''thing''?... that would be like a single eyeball being able to look at itself...or a single tooth being able to bite itself...right?

As for the what are THESE 'things' EXACTLY? ... Well let me tell you Age,these things are concepts known, as in, an idea is known, and yet that which is known as an idea, cannot know it's an idea known. . For example: A 'tree' is a known thing...but the actual object/thing known as a 'tree' doesn't know it is a 'tree'....the 'tree' cannot know what is knowing itself as the 'tree'

It's the same with the idea of a ''human'' which is just another object/thing known .. The known object/thing that is a 'human' is not the KNOWER... the human is only the KNOWN.....NO 'THING' known can know what is KNOWING without making that ''KNOWER'' into another object/THING known... OBJECTS and things, that cannot know anything.

The human man-made dictionary's definition of the concept ''thing'' is ...
''an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.'' < A.K.A another concept known >

A ''thing'' is inanimate Age...an inanimate 'object/thing..is NOT the knower/knowing.

But yes, the conceptual world as it is known, arises as both the inanimate and the animate.

This IMMEDIATE knowing/seeing/understanding.... is NOT a 'thing', and yet appears to arise as all things.

When the 'thing' is not there, then so too is 'no thing' there / here.

This is Nonduality, Age, reality is Nondual.

There's / HERE ..No One living life.

There's / HERE ..just life living itself, all alone, all ONE..INFINITELY, FOR ETERNITY.

[Age]

Does he mean we have been created and placed here to fulfill some predetermined function, or role?

I here SUGGEST that INSTEAD of talking to "belinda" or to ANY one "ELSE" and asking 'them' questions you, supposedly, WANT the answers to, FROM 'me', that you ASK 'me' these CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

Does this MAKE SENSE? Or, am I MISSING some 'thing' here?

Or does he mean that it is self evident, for some reason, that it is incumbent on us (human beings) that we all strive for a particular goal. Or does he mean something else?

I WONDER what would HAPPEN if you ASKED the ACTUAL 'one' WHO you, supposedly, WANT the ANSWER/S FROM, INSTEAD?

Well let's see what would happen:

What I am trying to find out from you is what your concept of the nature of the "purpose" you claim human beings to have is. Do you mean we have been created and placed here to fulfill some predetermined function, or role? Or do you mean that it is self evident, for some reason, that it is incumbent on us (human beings) that we all strive for a particular goal. Or do you mean something else?

Something else.

Are you able to answer this question, and, if you are, will you please do so?

Yes, and already done.

By the way I could PRESUME that when you wrote, 'Or do you mean something else?', that, besides me just answering the ACTUAL QUESTION that you posed and asked me, you ALSO want me to EXPLAIN what that 'something else' IS, EXACTLY. BUT, I do NOT like to ASSUME NOR PRESUME absolutely ANY 'thing' here.

Furthermore, EVERY 'thing', including EVERY human being, IS 'created', and thus it could be said or argued is 'placed here', and what the 'predetermined function' IS, EXACTLY, does BECOME KNOWN, but 'predetermined' does NOT mean what most of 'you', in the days when this is being written, PRESUME 'it' means. Also, 'strive' is CERTAINLY NOT the word I would USE here.

[Age]

So, what IS the seeing, the knowing, and the understanding if NOT A 'Thing' NOR 'things'?

In other words, What are SOME 'things' if NOT 'things'? That is; If 'seeing' is NOT a 'thing', 'knowing' is NOT a 'thing', and 'understanding' is NOT a 'thing', then what are THESE 'things', EXACTLY?

Seeing is never seen as a 'thing', Age, because there is only 'Seeing'.

But 'this' does NOT answer the ACTUAL QUESTION I posed and asked 'you' here, "dontaskme".

How can 'Seeing' see the seeing seer as a''thing''?...

But this just DETRACTS from the CLAIM 'you' MADE about; A 'THING' is not the seeing, the knowing, nor the understanding.

Also, I have NEVER SAID absolutely ANY 'thing' ANYWHERE about 'Seeing' being able to 'see the seeing seer as a 'thing'. So, WHY 'you' are asking 'me' this question here I have absolutely NO idea.

that would be like a single eyeball being able to look at itself...or a single tooth being able to bite itself...right?

I do NOT know. This is because 'that' was NOTHING I HAVE SAID NOR even thought about BEFORE. And, ALSO of NO interest AT ALL to me here, now.

As for the what are THESE 'things' EXACTLY? ... Well let me tell you Age,these things are concepts known, as in, an idea is known, and yet that which is known as an idea, cannot know it's an idea known.

So, to you, 'seeing' is NOT a 'thing' but IS a 'concept known', exactly the same with 'knowing' and 'understanding', right?

.

For example: A 'tree' is a known thing...

And also JUST A 'thing'. A 'tree' is ALSO NOT necessarily a 'known thing' to some.

but the actual object/thing known as a 'tree' doesn't know it is a 'tree'....the 'tree' cannot know what is knowing itself as the 'tree'

OF COURSE, ONLY 'you', human beings, can KNOW what is knowing "yourselves", AND, ONLY the REAL and True 'Self' can KNOW what IS KNOWING It 'Self', which It can THEN pass this KNOWING onto 'you', human beings, who CAN then ALSO KNOW 'this knowing' or KNOWLEDGE.

It's the same with the idea of a ''human'' which is just another object/thing known .. The known object/thing that is a 'human' is not the KNOWER... the human is only the KNOWN.....

So, are you here TELLING 'me' that 'you', human beings, are NOT ABLE TO KNOW "yourselves"?

If yes, then this HELPS in EXPLAINING WHY, hitherto to the days when this was being written, NONE of 'you' could YET answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?', properly AND correctly.

NO 'THING' known can know what is KNOWING without making that ''KNOWER'' into another object/THING known... OBJECTS and things, that cannot know anything.

Okay, if you SAY and BELIEVE SO.

The human man-made dictionary's definition of the concept ''thing'' is ...
''an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.'' < A.K.A another concept known >

A ''thing'' is inanimate Age...an inanimate 'object/thing..is NOT the knower/knowing.

WHY do you say, 'human man-made ...'?

And, is this the EXACT SAME definition in ALL of the human made dictionaries, for ALL times?

Also, what IS the 'knower/knowing', then, EXACTLY?

But yes, the conceptual world as it is known, arises as both the inanimate and the animate.

This IMMEDIATE knowing/seeing/understanding.... is NOT a 'thing', and yet appears to arise as all things.

So, there are SOME 'things', which, to you, are, in fact, NOT 'things' AT ALL, correct?

When the 'thing' is not there, then so too is 'no thing' there / here.

Would you like to give us an example here, now?

When I imagine the 'toaster' is 'not there', for example, then, to me, there are STILL 'things' there, and here.

This is Nonduality, Age, reality is Nondual.

Some people TELL me that 'reality' is a DIFFERENT 'thing', altogether.

There's / HERE ..No One living life.

EXCEPT FOR 'I', Consciousness and Life, thy 'Self - Thee Knower AND Seer of ALL.

There's / HERE ..just life living itself, all alone, all ONE..INFINITELY, FOR ETERNITY.

[Dontaskme]

So, are you here TELLING 'me' that 'you', human beings, are NOT ABLE TO KNOW "yourselves"?

If yes, then this HELPS in EXPLAINING WHY, hitherto to the days when this was being written, NONE of 'you' could YET answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?', properly AND correctly.

Yes, the days when this was being written, nothing is known. It is only upon reading back on what was written was something apparently known.

Looking back is research, and research is another form of necrophilia..in other words, thinking about dead stuff.

[Dontaskme]

EXCEPT FOR 'I', Consciousness and Life, thy 'Self - Thee Knower AND Seer of ALL.

NOPE, this is not entirely true....WHY, because, the I ..the Consciousness .. the Self ... the Knower and the Seer are all known concepts....and that which is known as a concept knows nothing. Concepts do not know, concepts are known by the only knowing there is which is this immediate unknowing known.