Reincarnation

[seeds]

_______

This...



...is mythological nonsense that offers absolutely no hint as to what the end goal and ultimate purpose for our existing might be.

Again, I ask, if you had to undergo the process of reincarnation (samsara) a billion times before reaching a stage in your spiritual development where reincarnation was no longer required (moksha),...

...then what?
_______

[seeds]

Just my own experience of living in the world, and my observations of what the laws of nature allow, and what they don't. Some things can and do happen, and some things never happen. We are born, we hang around for a while, and then we die.

This is NOT EXACTLY True.

How so?

If the word 'we' here refers to 'human beings', then 'human beings' are made up human bodies, thoughts, and feelings/emotions, which to me, by the way, the 'human' word refers to the visible 'body part', and the 'thoughts' word refers to the invisible 'being part'.

Now, AFTER the 'human body part' has stopped breathing and pumping blood, the 'thoughts' FROM within, are still 'living' or 'existing on' 'through' "other human bodies", as well as what those 'human bodies parts' HAD created are also still 'living or existing on', in this One and ONLY 'world' or 'Universe'.

Just like 'your' mother and/or father are STILL, in a sense, 'living on WITHIN 'you' and 'that body', and WILL doing as long as there is 'someone' STILL 'remembering' 'them', in some way....

So then, in this rare instance where Age actually makes an effort to explain his metaphysics, he shows us that his understanding of reality runs no deeper than that which can be seen in the lyrics of the song "My Heart Will Go On" from the movie "Titanic"...

https://youtu.be/Ekrb1-u4cio
_______

[Belinda]

_______

This...



...is mythological nonsense that offers absolutely no hint as to what the end goal and ultimate purpose for our existing might be.

Again, I ask, if you had to undergo the process of reincarnation (samsara) a billion times before reaching a stage in your spiritual development where reincarnation was no longer required (moksha),...

...then what?
_______

I think of Nirvana as experience itself, i.e. absolute experience instead of relatively your experience or relatively my experience. Nirvana then, does not contain souls/egos.

[Age]

This is NOT EXACTLY True.

How so?

If the word 'we' here refers to 'human beings', then 'human beings' are made up human bodies, thoughts, and feelings/emotions, which to me, by the way, the 'human' word refers to the visible 'body part', and the 'thoughts' word refers to the invisible 'being part'.

Now, AFTER the 'human body part' has stopped breathing and pumping blood, the 'thoughts' FROM within, are still 'living' or 'existing on' 'through' "other human bodies", as well as what those 'human bodies parts' HAD created are also still 'living or existing on', in this One and ONLY 'world' or 'Universe'.

Just like 'your' mother and/or father are STILL, in a sense, 'living on WITHIN 'you' and 'that body', and WILL doing as long as there is 'someone' STILL 'remembering' 'them', in some way....

So then, in this rare instance where Age actually makes an effort to explain his metaphysics, he shows us that his understanding of reality runs no deeper than that which can be seen in the lyrics of the song "My Heart Will Go On" from the movie "Titanic"...

https://youtu.be/Ekrb1-u4cio
_______

1. One can NOT get ANY 'deeper' than the very 'heart', or the very 'center', of ANY 'thing', AT ALL.

2. Once one GETS to 'that level', then there is NO use and NO reason to even 'try to' complicate what has ALWAYS BEEN and IS, ESSENTIALLY and FUNDAMENTALLY, JUST PURE SIMPLISTIC.

3. From thee Truly OPEN Mind this IRREFUTABLE Fact can be CLEARLY SEEN, as well as INSTINCTIVELY KNOWN. As 'it' RESONATES, VERY SIMPLY, WITH ABSOLUTELY EVERY one.

4. I made 'an effort', 'to explain', 'this time', BECAUSE SOME one HAD BECOME 'curios' AND had made 'an effort' to ASK me a CLARIFYING QUESTION.

[Age]

_______

This...



...is mythological nonsense that offers absolutely no hint as to what the end goal and ultimate purpose for our existing might be.

'That' may well NOT.

But I have ALREADY partly EXPLAINED what the end goal and the ultimate purpose for thee One 'Thing' existing, and for 'Its' 'human being parts' IS, EXACTLY.

Again, I ask, if you had to undergo the process of reincarnation (samsara) a billion times before reaching a stage in your spiritual development where reincarnation was no longer required (moksha),...

...then what?
_______

Again, I WILL ANSWER, THEN 'you' would HAVE, ALSO, ARRIVED AT the 'end goal' and AT the 'ultimate purpose', WITH the REST of 'us'. That IS; 'then what'.

Oh, and by the way, 'reincarnation', contrary to popular BELIEF, in the days when this is being written, has NEVER been about 'you', personally NOR individually.

[Wizard22]

So, what is 'your' INTENT, "wizard22"?

Your ideal of "One True Self" sounds mystical to me, based on mysticism.

Well the 'ism' in 'your' 'mysticism' means HOLDING a VERY PARTICULAR VIEW, so that if and when you are LOOKING AT or HEARING my IDEA of thee 'One True Self', based on 'mysticism' ALONE, then 'that IDEA' WILL OF COURSE 'sound' MYSTICAL, to 'you'.

This is typical of the liberal-left and their all-inclusive mentality.

And what you are SAYING here is typical of ones who MAKE ASSUMPTIONS, JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS, and who do NOT OBTAIN FULL CLARIFICATION, FIRST, based on OPENNESS.

"We are all One!" No We are not. You are not me. I am not you.

That is VERY CERTAIN. The word 'I' CERTAINLY DOES NOT PERTAIN TO 'you'. Which MEANS that 'you' are CERTAINLY NOT 'I'.

So, 'I' am VERY GLAD that 'you' AND 'I' BOTH AGREE ON and ACCEPT 'this Fact.

There is very little you and I have in common at all.

WELL CONSIDERING the Fact that 'you' have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE as to WHO and WHAT 'I' AM, EXACTLY, then what 'you' SAY and ALLEGE here STANDS TO REASON.

When it comes to self, as I mentioned, it mostly revolves around selective-bias.

Which IS EXACTLY what 'you', adult human beings, DID, in the days when this was being written. That is; BE VERY SELECTIVE and VERY BIASED in regards to 'your' OWN personal views on 'things'.

Most of these are sub-conscious. People subconsciously identify with things it values and deems as Good, misidentifies with things it does not value and deems as Bad/Evil.

Yes, 'that' IS EXACTLY what 'you', and 'you' "OTHER" adult human beings, DO, in the days when this was being written.

As 'you' ARE CLEARLY SHOWING and PROVING True here, for 'us', "wizard22".

This is how people identify with groups. Or taken to the absolute limit, as with autistic minds (Age), the need and compulsion to identify with EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE, they mystical, magical, God, "One". Hence why you brought in the term, "One True Self".

Okay. If 'you' SAY SO, then 'it' MUST BE SO, correct?

My intent? My intention is philosophical, to investigate and inquire into all matters of existence, especially the politically incorrect, and all other human deficiencies/blindspots/weaknesses.

Which 'you', "wizard22", ARE, REMARKABLY, ABLE TO OVERCOME, and so HAVE ABSOLUTELY NONE OF, right?

Why are there individuals?

'individual' to WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY?

And, IN ACTUALITY, or just IN CONCEPT ONLY?

Also, and as "attofishpi" writes; WITH-in (I) divide/u/all, FOR VERY SPECIFIC and PARTICULAR REASONS.

I guess, that Life has vanity installed into it by genetics.

OF WHICH 'you' ARE SHOWING 'us' here, "wizard22", WHEN 'you' MAKE CLAIMS like; 'your' INTENTION IS to INVESTIGATE and INQUIRE in ALL matter of existence, BUT ESPECIALLY SO to the POLITICALLY INCORRECT views that ONLY "others" HAVE, (when those views are of the OPPOSITE "side" or 'position' OF "YOURS', and INTO ALL of the OTHER human deficiencies, which 'you' VERY VAINLY CLAIM 'you' have ABSOLUTELY NONE OF.

Dawkins called it the "Selfish Gene", correct?

'What' IS 'it' here, EXACTLY, which some human being may or may not have called the 'selfish gene'?

'What' 'you' ARE SHOWING and PROVING here?

Also, WHY ask 'me'?

AND, genes are ONLY SELFISH in REGARDS to A species and NOT IN REGARDS TO just ONE INDIVIDUAL OF A species, OBVIOUSLY.

Also, genes are ONLY SELFISH in REGARDS TO ACTUAL 'NEEDS', and NEVER in REGARDS TO 'WANTS'. For example, like the countless, completely UNNECESSARY 'WANTS' that 'you', adult human beings, have 'grown up' WANTING, in the days when this is being written.

There is a need organisms have to Divide, and thus Individuate.

Okay, So 'this' MEANS that ANY talk OF 'unity' is just ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, and therefore just MYSTICAL ONLY, right?

This is required in biology, obvious among mammals, as infants and children cannot remain dependent upon their mother for long.

Have 'you' ACTUALLY LOOKED AT and OBSERVED for HOW LONG some of 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, ACTUALLY WANT to LIVE WITH, LIVE FROM, and/or LIVE ON 'their' "mothers" FOR, EXACTLY?

They must be weaned-off the breast milk, and fast, before they are caught and eaten by Apex Predators.

WHO and/or WHAT are these so-called "apex predators", EXACTLY, that, SUPPOSEDLY, PREY on human babies who have NOT YET been QUICKLY weaned-off breast milk, in the days when this is being written?

The same instincts are true in Hominids. Thus there is a need to individuate (from the birth mother, to gain independence).

Were 'you' UNDER some sort of ILLUSION that the named and known 'thing' as a 'birth mother' was somehow the EXACT SAME 'thing' as the 'thing' that 'it' gave birth to?

If 'you' WERE NOT, then WHY SAY such a 'things' as 'this' here?

ABSOLUTELY NO one that I KNOW OF anyway EVER even thought such a 'thing' as 'this'. Let alone has SAID 'it' NOR WRITTEN about 'it' ANYWHERE I KNOW OF.

This should be common-sense. Are you really claiming that you don't know this, Age? Are you faking as though this is unknown to you?

Here we HAVE ANOTHER ONE who completely and utterly TWISTS and DISTORTS 'the words' it READS, and/or JUST SEES, AROUND, AND THEN PROCEEDS to go ON FROM 'its' OWN MADE UP ASSUMPTIONS and/or CONCLUSIONS.

ONCE AGAIN, I WILL suggest ACTUAL and FULL CLARITY IS SORT, BEFORE ANY ACTUAL ASSUMPTION OR CONCLUSION IS EVER DREAMED UP, LET ALONE thought NOR BELIEVED to be true.

If you JUST DID 'this' INSTEAD, then 'you' will NOT BE SO WRONG, SO OFTEN, and 'you' WILL ALSO STAY ON TRACK of what the "other" IS ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING.

You aren't really arguing against my points about Individuality and Individuation though, Age. Those were the main points. Since you cannot refute them, then we can move on?

[Age]

Your ideal of "One True Self" sounds mystical to me, based on mysticism.

Well the 'ism' in 'your' 'mysticism' means HOLDING a VERY PARTICULAR VIEW, so that if and when you are LOOKING AT or HEARING my IDEA of thee 'One True Self', based on 'mysticism' ALONE, then 'that IDEA' WILL OF COURSE 'sound' MYSTICAL, to 'you'.

This is typical of the liberal-left and their all-inclusive mentality.

And what you are SAYING here is typical of ones who MAKE ASSUMPTIONS, JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS, and who do NOT OBTAIN FULL CLARIFICATION, FIRST, based on OPENNESS.

"We are all One!" No We are not. You are not me. I am not you.

That is VERY CERTAIN. The word 'I' CERTAINLY DOES NOT PERTAIN TO 'you'. Which MEANS that 'you' are CERTAINLY NOT 'I'.

So, 'I' am VERY GLAD that 'you' AND 'I' BOTH AGREE ON and ACCEPT 'this Fact.

There is very little you and I have in common at all.

WELL CONSIDERING the Fact that 'you' have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE as to WHO and WHAT 'I' AM, EXACTLY, then what 'you' SAY and ALLEGE here STANDS TO REASON.

When it comes to self, as I mentioned, it mostly revolves around selective-bias.

Which IS EXACTLY what 'you', adult human beings, DID, in the days when this was being written. That is; BE VERY SELECTIVE and VERY BIASED in regards to 'your' OWN personal views on 'things'.

Most of these are sub-conscious. People subconsciously identify with things it values and deems as Good, misidentifies with things it does not value and deems as Bad/Evil.

Yes, 'that' IS EXACTLY what 'you', and 'you' "OTHER" adult human beings, DO, in the days when this was being written.

As 'you' ARE CLEARLY SHOWING and PROVING True here, for 'us', "wizard22".

This is how people identify with groups. Or taken to the absolute limit, as with autistic minds (Age), the need and compulsion to identify with EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE, they mystical, magical, God, "One". Hence why you brought in the term, "One True Self".

Okay. If 'you' SAY SO, then 'it' MUST BE SO, correct?

My intent? My intention is philosophical, to investigate and inquire into all matters of existence, especially the politically incorrect, and all other human deficiencies/blindspots/weaknesses.

Which 'you', "wizard22", ARE, REMARKABLY, ABLE TO OVERCOME, and so HAVE ABSOLUTELY NONE OF, right?

Why are there individuals?

'individual' to WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY?

And, IN ACTUALITY, or just IN CONCEPT ONLY?

Also, and as "attofishpi" writes; WITH-in (I) divide/u/all, FOR VERY SPECIFIC and PARTICULAR REASONS.

I guess, that Life has vanity installed into it by genetics.

OF WHICH 'you' ARE SHOWING 'us' here, "wizard22", WHEN 'you' MAKE CLAIMS like; 'your' INTENTION IS to INVESTIGATE and INQUIRE in ALL matter of existence, BUT ESPECIALLY SO to the POLITICALLY INCORRECT views that ONLY "others" HAVE, (when those views are of the OPPOSITE "side" or 'position' OF "YOURS', and INTO ALL of the OTHER human deficiencies, which 'you' VERY VAINLY CLAIM 'you' have ABSOLUTELY NONE OF.

Dawkins called it the "Selfish Gene", correct?

'What' IS 'it' here, EXACTLY, which some human being may or may not have called the 'selfish gene'?

'What' 'you' ARE SHOWING and PROVING here?

Also, WHY ask 'me'?

AND, genes are ONLY SELFISH in REGARDS to A species and NOT IN REGARDS TO just ONE INDIVIDUAL OF A species, OBVIOUSLY.

Also, genes are ONLY SELFISH in REGARDS TO ACTUAL 'NEEDS', and NEVER in REGARDS TO 'WANTS'. For example, like the countless, completely UNNECESSARY 'WANTS' that 'you', adult human beings, have 'grown up' WANTING, in the days when this is being written.

There is a need organisms have to Divide, and thus Individuate.

Okay, So 'this' MEANS that ANY talk OF 'unity' is just ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, and therefore just MYSTICAL ONLY, right?

This is required in biology, obvious among mammals, as infants and children cannot remain dependent upon their mother for long.

Have 'you' ACTUALLY LOOKED AT and OBSERVED for HOW LONG some of 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, ACTUALLY WANT to LIVE WITH, LIVE FROM, and/or LIVE ON 'their' "mothers" FOR, EXACTLY?

They must be weaned-off the breast milk, and fast, before they are caught and eaten by Apex Predators.

WHO and/or WHAT are these so-called "apex predators", EXACTLY, that, SUPPOSEDLY, PREY on human babies who have NOT YET been QUICKLY weaned-off breast milk, in the days when this is being written?

The same instincts are true in Hominids. Thus there is a need to individuate (from the birth mother, to gain independence).

Were 'you' UNDER some sort of ILLUSION that the named and known 'thing' as a 'birth mother' was somehow the EXACT SAME 'thing' as the 'thing' that 'it' gave birth to?

If 'you' WERE NOT, then WHY SAY such a 'things' as 'this' here?

ABSOLUTELY NO one that I KNOW OF anyway EVER even thought such a 'thing' as 'this'. Let alone has SAID 'it' NOR WRITTEN about 'it' ANYWHERE I KNOW OF.

This should be common-sense. Are you really claiming that you don't know this, Age? Are you faking as though this is unknown to you?

Here we HAVE ANOTHER ONE who completely and utterly TWISTS and DISTORTS 'the words' it READS, and/or JUST SEES, AROUND, AND THEN PROCEEDS to go ON FROM 'its' OWN MADE UP ASSUMPTIONS and/or CONCLUSIONS.

ONCE AGAIN, I WILL suggest ACTUAL and FULL CLARITY IS SORT, BEFORE ANY ACTUAL ASSUMPTION OR CONCLUSION IS EVER DREAMED UP, LET ALONE thought NOR BELIEVED to be true.

If you JUST DID 'this' INSTEAD, then 'you' will NOT BE SO WRONG, SO OFTEN, and 'you' WILL ALSO STAY ON TRACK of what the "other" IS ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING.

You aren't really arguing against my points about Individuality and Individuation though, Age.

LOL IF for some reason I WAS MEANT TO, then I WAS and AM STILL COMPLETELY UNAWARE.

Those were the main points. Since you cannot refute them, then we can move on?

YES.

So what was 'it', AGAIN, which 'you' WERE 'trying to' REFUTE, regarding thee One True Self, EXACTLY?

[Wizard22]

YES.

So what was 'it', AGAIN, which 'you' WERE 'trying to' REFUTE, regarding thee One True Self, EXACTLY?

I already refuted your mystical notion of a "One True Self" by demonstrating to you, and proving to all, that animals and organisms are individuals.

Therefore there is no "One True Self".

[Agent Smith]

I feel like everyone else I suppose. The question then is, what does everyone else feel? We'll start there, it looks like a good place to do so. Pay attention, I would love that, to the question. The essence of a Zen koan is to, well, send ya down lagomrphian holes ... after ... lagomorphs have gone extinct.

[Age]

YES.

So what was 'it', AGAIN, which 'you' WERE 'trying to' REFUTE, regarding thee One True Self, EXACTLY?

I already refuted your mystical notion of a "One True Self" by demonstrating to you, and proving to all, that animals and organisms are individuals.

LOL
LOL
LOL

If 'this' is what 'you' BELIEVE 'you' have ALREADY done here "wizard22", then 'your job' here IS DONE, right?

Therefore there is no "One True Self".

I ALSO refute your mystical notion of an 'individual animal', or 'one true animal', by demonstrating to you, and providing to all, that arms and hearts are individuals.

Therefore, there is no 'one true animal' EITHER.

By the way, a definition for the word 'organism' is: a system consisting of interdependent parts, compared to a living being.

Which is, more or less, what I was just talking ABOUT and referring TO here, EXACTLY.

That is; 'the system' being thee 'One True Self' Being, which, OBVIOUSLY, consists of 'interdependent parts', 'animals and organisms' to name but just two, of MANY', compared to the Living Being.

[Wizard22]

Aha, and this is your retort? That the "One Animal Self" is in the "arm or heart"? Why did you not suppose that it is in the brain, in the mind? Because that is the nature of (mystical) belief.

Yes animals and humans both have bodies. But only humans have 'beliefs', based on evolved systems of language, imagination, and postulation of alternate realities.

Only the human has belief in this "One True Self" which is distinct from the body. That doesn't make it real.

[seeds]

How so?

If the word 'we' here refers to 'human beings', then 'human beings' are made up human bodies, thoughts, and feelings/emotions, which to me, by the way, the 'human' word refers to the visible 'body part', and the 'thoughts' word refers to the invisible 'being part'.

Now, AFTER the 'human body part' has stopped breathing and pumping blood, the 'thoughts' FROM within, are still 'living' or 'existing on' 'through' "other human bodies", as well as what those 'human bodies parts' HAD created are also still 'living or existing on', in this One and ONLY 'world' or 'Universe'.

Just like 'your' mother and/or father are STILL, in a sense, 'living on WITHIN 'you' and 'that body', and WILL doing as long as there is 'someone' STILL 'remembering' 'them', in some way....

So then, in this rare instance where Age actually makes an effort to explain his metaphysics, he shows us that his understanding of reality runs no deeper than that which can be seen in the lyrics of the song "My Heart Will Go On" from the movie "Titanic"...

https://youtu.be/Ekrb1-u4cio
_______

1. One can NOT get ANY 'deeper' than the very 'heart', or the very 'center', of ANY 'thing', AT ALL.

Well, when one (such as yourself) is afflicted with a form of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in which one is simply not conscious enough to realize that they are not conscious enough to realize that their understanding of reality is naïve and child-like,...

...then, naturally, one will mistakenly assume that they've gotten to the very "heart and center" of something when, in fact, they aren't even close.

Unfortunately, your "D-K E" affliction will continue to render you oblivious of your problem, and you will no doubt regale me with a barrage of your famous "LOLs" and substanceless retorts.

2. Once one GETS to 'that level', then there is NO use and NO reason to even 'try to' complicate what has ALWAYS BEEN and IS, ESSENTIALLY and FUNDAMENTALLY, JUST PURE SIMPLISTIC.

Again, the only thing that is "pure and simplistic" around here is your child-like understanding of reality, which, in turn (and here is where I myself become child-like), causes you to place entire threads at the bottom of your custom-made thunder pot...



...and then smother them beneath a merciless evacuation of your mental bowels.

I'm sorry, Age, but most of us simply have neither the time nor the patience to mother you...

(as in, yes, Age, the fire engine is red, and yes, Age, the cow goes moo)

...into the higher realms of metaphysics and philosophy.

Again, until you do something to ascend above your "D-K E" affliction, you are simply not ready to sit at the adult table of philosophical discourse.
_______

[Harbal]

If the word 'we' here refers to 'human beings', then 'human beings' are made up human bodies, thoughts, and feelings/emotions, which to me, by the way, the 'human' word refers to the visible 'body part', and the 'thoughts' word refers to the invisible 'being part'.

Now, AFTER the 'human body part' has stopped breathing and pumping blood, the 'thoughts' FROM within, are still 'living' or 'existing on' 'through' "other human bodies", as well as what those 'human bodies parts' HAD created are also still 'living or existing on', in this One and ONLY 'world' or 'Universe'.

Just like 'your' mother and/or father are STILL, in a sense, 'living on WITHIN 'you' and 'that body', and WILL doing as long as there is 'someone' STILL 'remembering' 'them', in some way.

My thoughts and actions might have an influence after my death, but the thoughts and actions themselves no longer actually exist. Anyone to whom I have communicated my thoughts will incorporate them into their own thoughts, but they will only be copies of my thoughts, and not even exact copies. I would like to think someone will remember me after I'm gone, but a memory of me isn't me, or even a part of me.

Let's change it to: "There has never been a known exception to that process."

'Known', by 'you', right?

Also, could 'things' ABOUT 'processes' be continually 'coming-to-light', and thus be-coming 'known', continually, and 'known' to 'some' BEFORE "others"?

Yes, things do sometimes come to light that force us to change our minds about that of which we once felt certainty.

'Suffering', itself, is NOT some 'thing' that ANY one HAS TO 'endure', AT ALL nor EVER.

In the absense of an explanation of what you mean by that, my only response can be that I strongly disagree.

SEE here we have a GREAT example of the 'default position' of the 'adult human being', in the days when this is being written.

That is;
I do NOT CARE one iota even IF you HAVE IRREFUTABLE PROOF FOR 'your CLAIM', I BELIEVE otherwise, so I am just going to STICK with what I ALREADY BELIEVE is true'.

That is uncharacteristically unfair of you, Age. You made a comment about suffering that happens to conflict with my opinion, but you provided no explanation to justify the comment, so you didn't even give me an opportunity to consider any irrefutable proof you might have to support your claim.

[Atla]

Wow looks like after years of trial and error, someone finally found the magic formula, it's "How so?"?

the 'thoughts' word refers to the invisible 'being part'.

How so?

[Age]

So then, in this rare instance where Age actually makes an effort to explain his metaphysics, he shows us that his understanding of reality runs no deeper than that which can be seen in the lyrics of the song "My Heart Will Go On" from the movie "Titanic"...

https://youtu.be/Ekrb1-u4cio
_______

1. One can NOT get ANY 'deeper' than the very 'heart', or the very 'center', of ANY 'thing', AT ALL.

Well, when one (such as yourself) is afflicted with a form of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in which one is simply not conscious enough to realize that they are not conscious enough to realize that their understanding of reality is naïve and child-like,...

...then, naturally, one will mistakenly assume that they've gotten to the very "heart and center" of something when, in fact, they aren't even close.

Unfortunately, your "D-K E" affliction will continue to render you oblivious of your problem, and you will no doubt regale me with a barrage of your famous "LOLs" and substanceless retorts.

2. Once one GETS to 'that level', then there is NO use and NO reason to even 'try to' complicate what has ALWAYS BEEN and IS, ESSENTIALLY and FUNDAMENTALLY, JUST PURE SIMPLISTIC.

Again, the only thing that is "pure and simplistic" around here is your child-like understanding of reality,

'I' AM EXTREMELY HAPPY and PLEASE 'you' POINT 'this' OUT here.

By the way, 'child-like' LOGIC will ALWAYS OVER RIDE 'adult human beliefs'. For example,
Adult, 'God created everything'.

Child, 'Then who created God?'.

That kind of 'childhood-like' LOGIC will ALWAYS 'TREAD ALL OVER' 'adulthood' UNSUBSTANTIATED BELIEFS and CLAIMS.

which, in turn (and here is where I myself become child-like), causes you to place entire threads at the bottom of your custom-made thunder pot...



...and then smother them beneath a merciless evacuation of your mental bowels.

I'm sorry, Age, but most of us simply have neither the time nor the patience to mother you...

(as in, yes, Age, the fire engine is red, and yes, Age, the cow goes moo)

...into the higher realms of metaphysics and philosophy.

Again, until you do something to ascend above your "D-K E" affliction, you are simply not ready to sit at the adult table of philosophical discourse.
_______

LOL "seeds". The 'IM/MATURE' SHOWN here speaks for itself.

'What' 'you' ADULTS DO AT 'YOUR' 'philosophical table' here IS just prefer to CONCENTRATE on the "other", and 'TRY TO' RIDICULE and HUMILIATE 'them', WHILE REFUSING TO just PRODUCE PROOF for 'your' OWN CLAIMS ABOUT "the other", while ALSO very rarely FOCUSING ON the ACTUAL words being SAID and STATED, INSTEAD.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED IRREFUTABLY True here by 'you', "SEEDS".