Ask me a question:

[Dontaskme]

And so back on topic then.

Who questions?

What is it that questions it's existence?

[Age]

No of course not that’s the whole point there is no ending there are only new beginnings.

But, it could be said and argued, that there are NO new beginnings either, and that there is just a CONTINUOUS FLOW of CHANGE.

While every ending is a new beginning, all new beginnings end. But these changes are but appearances within the timeless non-moving now.

But you just said, 'there is NO ending'.

The ALWAYS NOW is ALWAYS in constant-change.

Now, it all depends on how 'we' want to LOOK, and SEE, here.

Reality in realtime is always linear in the sense that realtime is observed to be as though time is a long endless procession(emanation) of a series of sequential frames of referrence.

But you older human beings can OBSERVE in VERY DIFFERENT WAYS.

In other words, time seems to be able to move forward and backward both, but that's not what is really happening, it's only ever this timeless non-moving now.

If that is the WAY that 'you', individually, want to LOOK, and SEE, here, then that is okay.

'Flow' implies movement and change, but that's just a concept, that in reality nothing is really moving or changing. It only appears to be.

So, the Universe, to you, does NOT CHANGE in ANY way, shape, NOR form, right?

[Age]

And so back on topic then.

Who questions?

What is it that questions it's existence?

'you', older human beings. That IS 'who'.

[Dontaskme]

But you just said, 'there is NO ending'.

Yes, but in order to know No ending, you also in the same instant have to know that endings can and do end when they are replaced with a beginning.

[Gary Childress]

But you just said, 'there is NO ending'.

Yes, but in order to know No ending, you also in the same instant have to know that endings can and do end when they are replaced with a beginning.

Why don't the two of you just agree to disagree?

[Dontaskme]

And so back on topic then.

Who questions?

What is it that questions it's existence?

'you', older human beings. That IS 'who'.

A 'human being' is a concept known. That which is known as an object of knowing, knows nothing of it's existence.
There's just simple not- knowing. This unknowing existence.

[Age]

But you just said, 'there is NO ending'.

Yes, but in order to know No ending, you also in the same instant have to know that endings can and do end when they are replaced with a beginning.

Okay, so to KNOW that there is NO ending is done by FIRST KNOWING that there ARE endings, correct?

[Age]

But you just said, 'there is NO ending'.

Yes, but in order to know No ending, you also in the same instant have to know that endings can and do end when they are replaced with a beginning.

Why don't the two of you just agree to disagree?

LOL What do you think or believe I am DISAGREEING WITH here, EXACTLY?

[Age]

And so back on topic then.

Who questions?

What is it that questions it's existence?

'you', older human beings. That IS 'who'.

A 'human being' is a concept known. That which is known as an object of knowing, knows nothing of it's existence.
There's just simple not- knowing. This unknowing existence.

So, the 'human being', which KNOWS the 'objects', human beings, supposedly, ALSO KNOWS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of its/human beings OWN existence, correct?

[Dontaskme]

'you', older human beings. That IS 'who'.

A 'human being' is a concept known. That which is known as an object of knowing, knows nothing of it's existence.
There's just simple not- knowing. This unknowing existence.

So, the 'human being', which KNOWS the 'objects', human beings, supposedly, ALSO KNOWS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of its/human beings OWN existence, correct?

Incorrect.

[Gary Childress]

Yes, but in order to know No ending, you also in the same instant have to know that endings can and do end when they are replaced with a beginning.

Why don't the two of you just agree to disagree?

LOL What do you think or believe I am DISAGREEING WITH here, EXACTLY?

Then just leave Dontaskme alone. She's not someone we all want or need to know more about.

[Gary Childress]

We need to know more about AJ (aka Alexis Jacobi) He's the one we all need to know more about.

[Gary Childress]

A 'human being' is a concept known. That which is known as an object of knowing, knows nothing of it's existence.
There's just simple not- knowing. This unknowing existence.

So, the 'human being', which KNOWS the 'objects', human beings, supposedly, ALSO KNOWS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of its/human beings OWN existence, correct?

Incorrect.

Hang in there Dontaskme. I'm flying to the rescue, or is it swimming? Wait, I can't fly or swim. Crap. I'm going to try this magic wand I found. Oh crap, where's the instruction booklet for magic wands? CRAP, OK, I'm coming over if I have to swim or fly. Or wait, I can't swim or fly can I? Crap! Where are those Columbian Jumping Spiders? Hey spiders, can you help me find AJ?

[Age]

A 'human being' is a concept known. That which is known as an object of knowing, knows nothing of it's existence.
There's just simple not- knowing. This unknowing existence.

So, the 'human being', which KNOWS the 'objects', human beings, supposedly, ALSO KNOWS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of its/human beings OWN existence, correct?

Incorrect.

Okay. But when you SAID and STATED that 'that', which is known as 'an object of knowing', is the 'object' 'human being', right?

If no, then what is 'that', which is known as 'an object of knowing', if 'that' is NOT the 'human being'?

But if yes, then we can continue, if 'that', which is known as 'an object of knowing', is the 'object', 'human being', then WHY do you SAY and CLAIM that 'that object' knows NOTHING of its existence?

SURELY, the objects known as human beings, if NOT ALL of them, KNOW of their existence.

Does the object called "dontaskme" here, also known as a 'human being' KNOW of your existence?

If no, then WHY NOT?

[Age]

Why don't the two of you just agree to disagree?

LOL What do you think or believe I am DISAGREEING WITH here, EXACTLY?

Then just leave Dontaskme alone. She's not someone we all want or need to know more about.

1. This is a PHILOSOPHY forum.

2. WHEN people come here, into this forum, and make and state CLAIMS, or SAY 'things', then of ALL the forums or places on the internet, then THIS forum is one where one could EXPECT to be QUESTIONED and/or CHALLENGED OVER their STATEMENTS and CLAIMS. Or do you DISAGREE with this?

3. HOW did you go FROM ASKING 'us' two, WHY 'we' do NOT just AGREE to DISAGREE, to THEN TELLING 'me' to leave "dontaskme" alone (whatever that ACTUALLY MEANS) and that "dontaskme" is NOT someone we all want or need to know more about, especially CONSIDERING the Fact that ALL I did here was just ASK you, What did you think I was DISAGREEING WITH, EXACTLY?

4. you have gone SO FAR ASTRAY and OFF TRACK here, ONCE AGAIN, I am NOT sure whether we will get this back on track here, either.

5. I suggest just ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION ASKED, ONLY, and FORGET ABOUT ALL of your OWN PRESUMPTIONS and ASSUMPTIONS, COMPLETELY. It is those PRE/ASSUMPTIONS that ARE leading you SO FAR AFIELD here.