Age has finally shared something about himself

[Gary Childress]

WHO CARES?

1. I found 'theories' to be generally a GREAT WASTE.

2. There IS and can ONLY BE One Truth regarding the Universe, Itself.



The 'connection' is ONLY 'hidden' to 'those' who ARE DEAF, and BLIND. AND, it is ONLY 'those' who have BELIEFS, and ASSUME, 'who' ARE DEAF, and BLIND.


'you' here are just TELLING 'us' what 'you', people, THINK and/or DO. Which has been COMMON KNOWLEDGE FOR MILLENNIA 'now'.


What the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT to these human MADE UP 'theories' and 'stories', and there MISCONCEPTIONS, MISUNDERSTANDINGS, and MISINTERPRETATIONS.


What IS 'my world view', EXACTLY?

And, the 'reference', by the way, is IN 'the writing', as some might say.

Given that you've written over 10,000 posts, it occurred to me you might have written a book about philosophy topics.

I was in the process of writing a book but did not want ANY 'thing' in it to be Inaccurate, I was also finding just how simply and easily relatively 'new messages or ideas' can be all to quickly misinterpreted and/or misunderstood, so so I decided to come to a philosophy forum, first, to have my views gauged, and critiqued. See, I thought 'philosophy' and "philosophers" were about continually looking for, finding, and coming to answers, and solutions, which could NOT be refuted, through logically reasoned Truly OPEN and Honest discussions. Although, to me, 'this' STILL IS what 'philosophy' IS and what True "philosophers" DO, I quickly FOUND that what my view is here IS VERY, VERY DIFFERENT from "others" views about 'philosophy', and what "philosophers" do.

I very quickly discovered if one can CHANGE 'the views' of a so-called "philosopher", then that one can CHANGE 'the views' of absolutely ANY one "else". So, I WAIT TO SEE if 'the view' of one in this forum CAN be CHANGED, and if so, then I WILL USE 'that process' in the book that I am yet to start writing again.

Or, that there are books or articles that describe your philosophical beliefs.

I have only One belief. The term or phrase 'philosophical belief/s' is an oxymoron to me.

There are, however, countless books and articles, which all contain 'ideas', 'views', and 'conclusions' in them that describe directly 'my views', from what I come, to observe.

But getting people to LOOK and SEE PAST their OWN 'perspectives' of those same 'things', so that 'they' CAN LOOK and SEE WHERE, EXACTLY, I AM, literally, COMING FROM is actually talking longer than I had first expected.

Thus, ANOTHER example of WHY it is ALWAYS BETTER TO NEVER ASSUME ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', FIRST.

Now, if ANY one is Truly INTERESTED and CURIOS as to coming to learn and understand, EXACTLY, HOW and WHAT IN books and articles FIT IN PERFECTLY with 'my views', and WHY some of 'my views' ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM 'the views' "others" HAVE on the EXACT SAME 'wording' in books and articles, then I am MORE than WILLING TO SHARE.

If one is WAITING FOR me to START 'this' here, then let us look AT the first words in the bible, 'In the beginning'. Now, to a great number of people, these words are IMPLIED to mean or refer to, some beginning or start of the WHOLE Universe, Itself, and this view, or belief, had become so strong among that even so-called "scientists" then "themselves" started 'theorizing' and 'assuming' that the Universe, Itself, ALSO had a start or beginning, and so 'these people', then started MAKING UP 'stories' ABOUT HOW the Universe ACTUALLY BEGUN. To which the 'stories' became SO STRONG that some started BELIEVING that the Universe MUST OF BEGUN, and then following on from these STRONGLY HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS these "scientists" started 'seeing' 'evidence' IN some of the 'observations' they were making.

Just like how some people started ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING that the earth is flat, and/or the earth is at the center of the Universe. FROM those ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS they then STARTED 'seeing' what they WERE ASSUMING and BELIEVING. They would ALSO CLAIM that they HAD 'evidence' FROM the 'observations' that they were making, and taking.

The words, 'In the beginning', to me anyway, have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with some so-called 'start' NOR 'beginning' of the WHOLE Universe FROM SOME 'thing' OTHER NOR OUTSIDE OF the Universe, Itself.

The words, 'In the beginning', just refers to 'what IS HAPPENING NOW' IS ALWAYS creating or causing what APPEARS to OCCUR 'next', but what IS, ESSENTIALLY, just the CONTINUAL 'NOW'.

And 'now', if ANY one would like to learn, understand, and KNOW what OTHER words MEAN, or REFER TO, to me, which, by the way, APPEARS TO FIT INTO One Truly CRYSTAL CLEAR Picture of ALL-THERE-IS, but which I have YET TO get VERIFIED, then by all means let 'us' PROCEED.

But if ANY one wants to TELL me their views', and wants to EXPRESS 'those views' as being True, Right, or Correct, then I will just ASK, FIRST, 'Can you guarantee that 'those views' are ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, or Correct?

And, if NOT, then WHY even HOLD ONTO 'them' and BOTHER WITH 'them'?

viewtopic.php?p=664494#p664494

[Atla]

The "continual now" is a major improvement over an actual beginning, but it's still asymmetric so it still doesn't make much sense. Nice try though.

Why use words from the Bible anyway?

[Gary Childress]

The "continual now" is a major improvement over an actual beginning, but it's still asymmetric so it still doesn't make much sense. Nice try though.

Why use words from the Bible anyway?

Because the Bible was also written by human beings. Those human beings lived a very precarious existence in their day and therefore knew the worst of what suffering and pain can become. The ones who did something right and ended up being old enough to write with a perspective of experience, likely are the authors of the Bible.

[Atla]

The "continual now" is a major improvement over an actual beginning, but it's still asymmetric so it still doesn't make much sense. Nice try though.

Why use words from the Bible anyway?

Because the Bible was also written by human beings. Those human beings lived a very precarious existence in their day and therefore knew the worst of what suffering and pain can become. The ones who did something right and ended up being old enough to write with a perspective of experience, likely are the authors of the Bible.

And what makes you think that that makes them any good at solving the mistery of time?

[Gary Childress]

The "continual now" is a major improvement over an actual beginning, but it's still asymmetric so it still doesn't make much sense. Nice try though.

Why use words from the Bible anyway?

Because the Bible was also written by human beings. Those human beings lived a very precarious existence in their day and therefore knew the worst of what suffering and pain can become. The ones who did something right and ended up being old enough to write with a perspective of experience, likely are the authors of the Bible.

And what makes you think that that makes them any good at solving the mistery of time?

I don't know if they could solve all the issues we now have. Obviously, they are not here to do so, therefore I can't really say one way or the other, but having allowed the Israelites to survive the test of time, seems to me like a good reason to think there are ideas in the book that are worthy of inspection and consideration. The same goes for Buddhism, Hinduism, and how evermany other religions as far as I'm concerned.

[Atla]

Because the Bible was also written by human beings. Those human beings lived a very precarious existence in their day and therefore knew the worst of what suffering and pain can become. The ones who did something right and ended up being old enough to write with a perspective of experience, likely are the authors of the Bible.

And what makes you think that that makes them any good at solving the mistery of time?

I don't know if they could solve all the issues we now have. Obviously, they are not here to do so, therefore I can't really say one way or the other, but having allowed the Israelites to survive the test of time, seems to me like a good reason to think there are ideas in the book that are worthy of inspection and consideration. The same goes for Buddhism, Hinduism, and how evermany other religions as far as I'm concerned.

On many issues I'd say you would be right, but I think every major philosophy and religion got time wrong. Not one of them could come up with a logical picture of time.

[Gary Childress]

And what makes you think that that makes them any good at solving the mistery of time?

I don't know if they could solve all the issues we now have. Obviously, they are not here to do so, therefore I can't really say one way or the other, but having allowed the Israelites to survive the test of time, seems to me like a good reason to think there are ideas in the book that are worthy of inspection and consideration. The same goes for Buddhism, Hinduism, and how evermany other religions as far as I'm concerned.

On many issues I'd say you would be right, but I think every major philosophy and religion got time wrong. Not one of them could come up with a logical picture of time.

Perhaps. But they understood the importance of the need to manipulate time in order to save their people and tribes back in the days when the Bible was written (to borrow a trope from Age).

[Atla]

I don't know if they could solve all the issues we now have. Obviously, they are not here to do so, therefore I can't really say one way or the other, but having allowed the Israelites to survive the test of time, seems to me like a good reason to think there are ideas in the book that are worthy of inspection and consideration. The same goes for Buddhism, Hinduism, and how evermany other religions as far as I'm concerned.

On many issues I'd say you would be right, but I think every major philosophy and religion got time wrong. Not one of them could come up with a logical picture of time.

Perhaps. But they understood the importance of the need to manipulate time in order to save their people and tribes back in the days when the Bible was written (to borrow a trope from Age).

What do you mean by manipulating time?

[Gary Childress]

On many issues I'd say you would be right, but I think every major philosophy and religion got time wrong. Not one of them could come up with a logical picture of time.

Perhaps. But they understood the importance of the need to manipulate time in order to save their people and tribes back in the days when the Bible was written (to borrow a trope from Age).

What do you mean by manipulating time?

I mean insisting that there is being after death for those who die. Or they could simply mean that society (their children) afterward will reap the words and deeds of those who preceded them. (A clear example I can think of is that some of us are now paying for the actions of ancestors who participated in the North Atlantic slave trade.)

[Immanuel Can]

I was in the process of writing a book...

I don't believe him.

Colouring one, maybe. Writing, no.

[Gary Childress]

I was in the process of writing a book...

I don't believe him.

Colouring one, maybe. Writing, no.

I'm sure we'll all instantly change our minds as soon as he tells us what "thee truth" is. If it's anything like Cogito ergo sum, then I won't be surprised.

[Lacewing]

I was in the process of writing a book...

I don't believe him.

Colouring one, maybe. Writing, no.

LOL
LOL
LOL

[Immanuel Can]

I don't believe him.

Colouring one, maybe. Writing, no.

I'm sure we'll all instantly change our minds as soon as he tells us what "thee truth" is. If it's anything like Cogito ergo sum, then I won't be surprised.

Well, he's well past the point where I expect to hear anything sensible from him. I just ignore him. His puerile ranting are so bad they're not even worth engaging anymore. I gave him the chance to 'grow up'...he declined. Maybe he just couldn't do it.

[Gary Childress]

I don't believe him.

Colouring one, maybe. Writing, no.

I'm sure we'll all instantly change our minds as soon as he tells us what "thee truth" is. If it's anything like Cogito ergo sum, then I won't be surprised.

Well, he's well past the point where I expect to hear anything sensible from him. I just ignore him. His puerile ranting are so bad they're not even worth engaging anymore. I gave him the chance to 'grow up'...he declined. Maybe he just couldn't do it.

He might be a child or he might be an adult who thinks he is a child. I still haven't figured that part out. Do you think perhaps he is all things that he wants to be and no things that he doesn't want to be? That would be my guess.

[Immanuel Can]

He might be a child or he might be an adult who thinks he is a child. I still haven't figured that part out. Do you think perhaps he is all things that he wants to be and no things that he doesn't want to be? That would be my guess.

Well, what he "wants to be" seems to be 15.