The Fundamental Model of Reality

[Fairy]

If there is, then please inform me where that palace is, exactly.

Buckingham Palace is all that comes to mind right now.

So, to this "fairy" the place to go to where I can expect to be questioned and challenged over my views and claims is some place called 'buckingham palace?

I was hoping one would name some place on the internet instead.

But you asked for where a palace might be, and so I gave you one.

Buckingham palace is on the internet btw. I know that for absolute certain.

[Flannel Jesus]

I know I can prove what I claim I can here. I wonder if others know that they can prove their claims here, also?

But until you present your truth claim proof to another how are they expected to know what your truth claim proof is?

How would they ever know it was the same or different to their own?

Age is an enigma. He likes to talk abstractly about things, but rarely actually gets to talking about the things themselves. So he'll go on and on about how he can prove this or that, but he'll rarely just present his proof of this or that.

Fyi you should not expect any clarity from him, he's explicitly stated his goal here is NOT clear communication with the people on this forum. If you feel like you're talking to him, that's a mistake - he's not talking to you, he's using you to talk to his audience from the future. He thinks people from the future are going to read this forum to get his wisdom, or some silly shit like that.

Apologies if you knew all that already.

[Fairy]

But you adult human beings do not have to have any beliefs, so you also do not have to have different beliefs. Therefore, different beliefs are not an 'inevitable consequence' of human relational nature at all.

Age wrote:

But I only have one belief, and it is nothing like what you are alluding to here.

Do you need to have that one belief?

And do you know what that belief alludes to, and would you be willing to disclose it to other people?

[Fairy]

I know I can prove what I claim I can here. I wonder if others know that they can prove their claims here, also?

But until you present your truth claim proof to another how are they expected to know what your truth claim proof is?

How would they ever know it was the same or different to their own?

Age is an enigma. He likes to talk abstractly about things, but rarely actually gets to talking about the things themselves. So he'll go on and on about how he can prove this or that, but he'll rarely just present his proof of this or that.

Fyi you should not expect any clarity from him, he's explicitly stated his goal here is NOT clear communication with the people on this forum. If you feel like you're talking to him, that's a mistake - he's not talking to you, he's using you to talk to his audience from the future. He thinks people from the future are going to read this forum to get his wisdom, or some silly shit like that.

Apologies if you knew all that already.

Thanks.

I wonder if Age realises that the past and future are only ever now. And that if he does believe there is a future in which people will be able to read his wisdom. Then he first would have to remember his past younger stupid self. Or else how would he know for sure here in the present that he is wise?

[Age]

But, if a 'philosophy forum' is not the palace to go to share what one thinks or knows is true, and not the place to go to be expected to be questioned and/or challenged over their views and/ir claims, then could you anyone else inform of where is the best place to go to, where I can expect to be questioned and challenged over my views and claims?

This description of the process one experiences with you is misleading though not technically false.

But I never said absolutely any thing about 'any process one experiences with me'. So, how could 'my description' here, which had absolutely nothing at all about what 'another' experiences with me, be allegedly and supposedly 'misleading'.

I more or less just said, and asked, if a philosophy forum is not the place to go to get one's ideas/views questioned or challenged, then where is?

I never ever mentioned absolutely any thing about how 'one experiences things with me'.

Why did you even bring up 'how one experiences things with me here'. What has this got to do with, 'If a philosophy forum is not the place to go to to be challenged, then where is the place to go to where one can be challenged?

Once again, you appear to be absolutely obsessed 'with me', and about how 'you' 'experience me'.

Are you able to just talk 'about the words I use', instead of talking 'about me', like you are 'obsessed with me' and/or are 'infatuated with me'?

Generally, in philosophy forums, if one wants to share what one thinks or knows is true and to be questioned and challenged about that, then one does (what you have done in some cases) and opens a thread on the topic, shares one's views there and responds to the challenges.

Once again, you are missing what I am asking. And, what I am asking for is to be challenged.

Obviously, not that much actual 'challenging' happens and occurs here. For example, I say and claim there is only One Mind, and a lot of the responses are similar to, 'you are not a good mind' reader', 'I believe otherwise, so you are wrong', 'you are insane', 'you need help', and/or 'I believe that I have a mind' or I believe there are many minds, and that is all I need', and other things.

There is no actual continual challenging and questioning until actual irrefutable proof is found and uncovered. Which, to me, is what the word 'philosophy' literally means and refers to. That is; continual 'arguing' until the actual Truth is obtained and gained. To me, having 'philosophy' while 'philosophizing' just means and refers to the behavior of 'logical reasoning' until irrefutable Truths at uncovered, and revealed.

Which I found can happen almost instantaneous, once one has found or learned the 'how-to' of how to find all answers, in Life.

Yes, you have done this, but if we look at the actual interaction...
Someone responds to part of all of your assertions and you request they define all their terms and justify all their assertions.

Well, obviously, if someone 'asserts' some thing, especially in a 'philosophy forum', then if they do not already, then it would be better for them if they 'expected' to get challenged, and/or questioned. So, if absolutely any one 'asserts' some thing to me, then 'expect' to challenged and/or questioned until you 'justify all of your assertions'. I do what I 'expect' others to do me.

Now, if one does not 'expect' or does not want to 'justify any or all of their assertions', the, obviously, do not make absolutely any 'assertion' in any of 'your response', to me. How much more obvious could this get?

Also, if one cannot or does not want to define any 'term' that they use, then why are using terms that they cannot or do not want to define?

The discussion moves towards them justifying their positions,

Again, I do to others what I 'expect' of others to do, to me.

And again, I will suggest that one does not present 'your positions' if you cannot or do not want to 'justify' them. After all this is a 'philosophy forum' where 'positions' are best expected to be 'justifiable' and 'justified'.

defining their terms and away from you justifying your position and defining your terms.

Well, again obviously, if while one is responding to, questioning, and/or challenging me in regards to absolutely any thing and they do not expect to, cannot do, or do not want to 'define their terms' and/or 'justifying their position', then, once again, do not make about any 'position' and do not express any terms.

Of course any discussion probably should include both processes, but yours, if you get your way, ends up with anyone who interacts with you getting the onus to define and justify.

This is because what I claim I 'know', is irrefutable, and that I have 'the proof' that 'justifies' it. And, by showing that another one's position, assertion, or claim, which opposes mine cannot actually be 'justified', then 'my position, assertion, and claim will be proved True in and by itself.

Once again, it is an absolute impossibility to 'justify', or 'prove' an assertion, position, or claim to one while they are believing the opposite is true. So, I can never ever 'justify' my position to one with this type of belief. But, by exposing that 'their belief/position' just cannot actually 'stand up' and cannot be 'justified', then by default they will have to 'let go' of 'their belief and position, and then, and only then, I can 'justify' 'my position', to them.

And, conversely, if they are able to back up and support 'their position', with proof, and thus do 'justify' 'their position', then I will have to reevaluate 'my position', if it is conflict in any way, whatsoever.

If they do not do this, then they get judgments aimed at them or aimed at all the people of this time.

Again, some 'judgments' are perfectly fine and all right. While, obviously, others are not.

I am not saying that all conflict will disappear if you focus on justifying and explaining your position and terms.

Hopefully you are, now, at least, a little bit closer to, better, understanding why I am doing what I am here.

Again, I will 'justify', and explain, 'my position and terms' once I can find those who are Truly curios and Truly interested. And, 'these ones' are the ones without beliefs and disbelief. I have to first prepare you people to be able to 'see', clearly, what I have to express and share here.

Philosophy forums, just like forums in general, have tendencies towards disagreement and position-taking - though this tendency includes you also.

But I have no tendency at all towards disagreement. So, why did you begin to assume, and then concluded, and believe otherwise?

Also, by attempting to get others to 'justify' 'their position' is a sign that I am not 'position-taking', in the sense that I cannot back up and support 'my position' with proof, nor cannot 'justify' 'my position'. The words and phrase 'position-taking' can bring with a connotation of just wanting to 'pick a side/position', just for the sake of it.

But, would you consider the one who was just trying to get 'their position' across that, actually, it is the earth that revolves around the sun, and not the other way around, 'position-taking', as well?

But if you actually look at your interactions in general here you will see that there is constant conflict.

This, I thought, was blatantly obvious.

But, as I have mentioned previously, I am not going to 'bend' to your adult human being's wishes and desires, especially considering the way you have been interacting with each other, in so-called 'philosophical discussions', for the last few thousand years, hitherto when this is being written.

I am going to 'stand by' what I 'know' is True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, in Life. And, if this takes longer than 'bending to your ways', then so be it. 'I', literally, have 'absolutely all the time in the world', as some might say here.

You can blame that on the other people, and if the results of blaming that on other people works for you, well, great. It seems like, in the post I am quoting, you are not experiencing this as working for you.

What is the word 'this' here referring to, exactly?

Because, obviously if that refers to the 'blaming of other people', for what they actually do, does, actually, work for me, perfectly.

But, obviously, you might have been talking about and referring to something else.

I understand that you see the process of confirmation as one of dialogue. One could even say that it shares some elements with the Socratic method. We don't just simple present proofs, we arrive at the truth in a collaborative dialogue with assertions, questions, challenges, explanations, shorter justifications and finally the truth is the only thing remaining, the only thing that withstood the process. In the abstract I'm on the same page.

Great, then let 'us' do 'this'. By the way, I just refer to 'this process' as 'arguing', or just 'logical reasoning', itself.

I do not do 'debate' because 'I do not take a side/position', and then 'fight for it'.

I just like to 'logical reason' absolutely every thing here. So, what this means is, if while one is responding to me they make an 'assertion', or takes up 'a position', then I just want to hear all they have for 'that assertion/position', because they might have more, or new/er, things that I have not yet heard, seen, nor even considered.

In practice, here, what I see is that either someone goes along with your process, which means they end up having to justify any points they make

But, to me, they do not 'have to' justify 'any' point at all. I, however, will want to see them 'justify' any point that they present as a truth, or when they believe that 'their point' is true. For example if one just said something like; In my view things are 'this way', then they do not have to 'justify' absolutely any thing nor point here. If, however, if one was to say, 'Things are this way', then because they have presented this as a truth, and presented it as though they believe it as true, then I expect them to be able to 'justify' that position or point. Just like I expect of 'me' to be able to do, and to, eventually, do, one day. And, by 'one day' I mean, hopefully, through 'argue', 'logical reasoning', with another.

and define any terms they use

Again, if one cannot define 'the terms' that they use, then why use 'those terms'?

If one cannot define the terms that they use, then this means that they, literally, do not know what they are talking about, and saying.

and make sure they never in any way paraphrase your position,

If one 'paraphrases' Accurately then there would be absolutely nothing to Correct. But, if one Accurately paraphrases, exactly, then all well and good. However, why not just repeat the exact same words, in the way that I have presented them, instead. That way they could not get what I have said and written Wrong, at all.

and their justifications and definitions lead to more questions and the discussion becomes you questioning them and you, it seems, will not move forward with justifying and defining your position and terms, until their position is utterly clear.

I have explained why I do what I do above here. Hopefully you are understanding more as 'we' move along here.

Also, questioning, and 'logical reasoning' until, finally, the Truth, Itself, is revealed to all, or as some might say, 'a "Socratic" process', I found can be very successful, and very rewarding as well.

Again, 'my positions and terms' will be, fully, 'defined', 'justified', and 'verified', eventually. I am, certainly, in absolutely no rush at all here.

Also, as soon as 'another's position' is 'utterly clear', to me, then I can much better ascertain what 'it' is, actually needed to 'justify' my position/claim, to them. See, all people are different in 'the views, positions, and beliefs' that they have already obtained. So, 'me' being far more clear about those views, beliefs, et cetera, then I am in a much better position to 'know', exactly, what is actually needed for me to 'justify my position' to that one person. Which, in turn, will help 'me' in learning how to proceed with the 'next person'. After all each and every person is a uniquely different one, who learns, looks at, and sees things, differently.

I remember Harbal responding to you with great patience for page after page until he finally couldn't take it any more and during those pages your point of view, what you want to share, was not justified more nor your terms defined.

Okay. So, nothing at all really different here in regards to how adult human beings 'philosophical discussions' have turned out, over the past few thousand years or so, up to when this is being written.

Again, I am certainly no rush at all here.

As a part of the process, if someone says something about what you have said that you consider not exactly what you said, you say you never said that - or use other similar descriptions.

Are you here suggesting that there is something wrong, or not good, in me expressing an actual Truth?

If someone says something about what I have said, and I 'know' it is not what I said, and meant, then I am allowed to inform them of this and/or Correct them, right?

Or, do you not consider this the 'right thing' to do here?

If I am talking to someone and they say 'But you don't like your job', for example. I might say. I never said that. But I would immediately add 'What I said was, that I felt my boss did not share the responsibilities fairly.'

Okay, thank you for sharing with 'us' what 'you' do.

Why I say, 'I never said that', and just leave it, at that, is to show, and reveal, to others, just how much 'curiosity' and 'interest', in others, in the adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, had reduced so much that there was just about none at all. And, that there was absolutely none at all in regards to some things.

The lack of curiosity and interest in each other, and one another, in adult human beings had reached to being just about non-existent.

You tend not to do such things.

Yes, very True. As I have explained previously, and have also already explained why I do so, previously as well.

So the other person has to go back through what may be hundreds of posts looking for the moment they got the impression you don't like your job.

Or, they just ask you 'on the spot', to just clarify what you actually did say.

you really do keep forgetting about just asking clarifying questions and about just seeking clarity, directly, and firstly. I found that when each is being totally open and honest, then just through seeking out and obtaining is the quickest, simplest, and easiest way to learn, and to understand another, much better.

And sometimes, from my perspective, the differences are not significant.

What does this do? it adds to the work of the other person.

Only if you do things in 'the, only, way' you are presenting here.

If one does not seek out clarity, from me, like by just asking, 'What did you actually say, then?', indicates that 'the other' has no real interest in what I said anyway, so expressing what I did actually say could then just be a 'complete waste of time'.

You certainly allow yourself to read into what people say. You draw conclusions about the implications about them or their ideas that are not exact quotes.

Here is another example of when you make accusations, assertions, and claims 'about me', with absolutely any 'real examples'. For all 'we' know I may have never actually 'drawn conclusions about the implications about them, or their ideas, which were not exact quotes', at all.

you have a tendency to 'imply some thing/s' 'about me', but if you do not provide specifics in what you believe I did, or you do not provide specific examples, then I have no way of refuting your claim, which then could leave the reader that what you are claiming is true and/or right. If I am not able to 'defend' against what you claim, which is still very unclear and vague, then I cannot prove that I am not doing, if I am not, in regards to what you see and claim I am doing.

To make a claim 'that another' is 'doing things', within 'the head', only, or to claim 'that another' is 'thinking things' or is 'drawing conclusions' is just about an impossible thing to prove otherwise.

What you are doing is another form of deception and of misleading others to 'see' and/or 'believe' things that may not actually be there, and/or not be true, at all.

But when others do this they are met with a simple denial.

Well until you present any actual example here, then 'we', literally, have nothing to 'look at', nor 'discuss'.

Just maybe they are met 'with denial', because what they are claiming is just not true at all.

There is absolutely nothing Wrong at all with 'denial', itself, nor'in denying' some thing, if the thing being claimed never actually occurred or is not true at all.

There are other examples where the process moves the onus of work to other people.

Are you aware that the amount of 'time' you have spent talking 'about me', and what 'I, supposedly, do', here, in this forum, had been spent 'arguing', or 'logical reasoning', 'with me', in a Truly open, honest, and curios way, then 'we' could have probably answered and solved just about all of the 'age old' or 'meaningful' questions, in Life.

And, if absolutely any one would like to see if this could be true, then just write down any or all Truly 'meaningful', or what some call 'philosophical' questions, you like, and then let 'us' 'discuss', in the way I just described.

Posting things with the phrase 'not necessarily' often just mystify.

Once again, if absolutely any thing at all 'mystifies' you, then I will again suggest that you just seek out clarification, first, before you do absolutely anything else, including before you make absolutely any assumptions at all.

Just so you are aware, absolutely every time I have previously used the words 'not necessarily' I can explain, fully, why I did, and how it works, perfectly, in relation to what I was saying, and meaning. And, every time I use those words, from now on, the exact same applies, that is; I can explain, fully, why I did.

You could say, I am not writing this with you as my target audiience.

There are, probably, a few other ways I could have written just about every thing that I have here, as well.

But, just like a lot of things that I have done, and not done, in life, I could have done 'differently'. But, I am certainly not going to dwell over any of my previous past life.

Also, and by the way, you could have used the word 'not necessarily', and explained that you were meaning in reference to 'target audience' in the exact same sentence, so that one did not have to wait, as long, to relate 'those words' with what you were actually 'thinking about' and 'referring to', as well.

But, 'we' all do things, which 'we' could have done better.

Furthermore, if I did say, 'I am not writing this with you as my target audience', then I would only be lying, and thus not saying and telling the actual Truth here. Is this what you, really, want, from me?

For all I know 'you', personally, or 'you', posters, here might even end up as my target audience, after all.

So, the actual Truth here is that 'you', posters, here are not necessarily my target audience. However, you might end up being my target audience, and if you do, then that is all well, and good.

Or you could write I am writing this with you as my target audience. But instead we get 'I am not necessarily writing this with you as my target audience.'

Well both of your examples are NOT TRUE. Whereas what I said and wrote IS TRUE.

So, thank you anyway but I will keep what I have actually said and wrote here.

With the same or even less words, you could actually move the discussion closer to understanding, but instead the poster gets a non-committed, near non-statement.

Has it never ever crossed 'that thinking' to just ask for clarification?

And, has it never occurred to 'you', posters, here are neither my target audience nor not my target audience, but if you end up being the ones that I am targeting, then all well and good.

My target audience is a specific lot.

And, for those with curiosity, and who want to know things, here, then you will learn what you need to find out who they are, exactly?

Now such a statement could be used to point out the assumptions another might be making. Great. But in context, if the goal is to have the kind of collaborative search for truth indicated in what I quoted above, actually letting people know you are writing with the people here as an intended audience is not only polite but necessary.

But, this is not necessary at all, especially who my my target audience is, exactly.

Do you really think that all of your assuming, concluding, and believing here is really helping you here?

And there are a number of things you say and do that hint at, imply, if not outright indicate that you don't really respect most people here.

Again, this is another prime example of making assumptions and assuming things get in the way of 'seeing' things absolutely clearly.

So much can get completely lost, missed, misinterpreted, and/or misunderstand when people 'look through and from' presumptions and beliefs.

And yet you seems surprised when you are met with disagreement and to a degree, I hope you'll notice, that is even more so than other posters experience.

Well, for example, when one disagrees that I actually do have respect for all people, of all times, always, then this is surprising. For the sole fact that they have absolutely nothing at all to go off, or go on, other than their own views, opinions, presumptions, and beliefs, alone. Which, obviously, will openly admit could all be completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, anyway.

If we add in that the way you communicate at the very least seems condescending and seems to place yourself outside of the fallible humans the patterns you see others engaging in, the process of interacting with you is unpleasant.

Well I will, again, suggest that if one feels that it is 'unpleasant' interacting 'with me' here, then they just refrain "themselves" from doing so. Also, if my communication style seems 'condescending', at the 'very least', in absolutely anyway at all to someone, then 'their perception' is completely and utterly Wrong. But, if one does not want to accept 'this', and they want to find out, for sure, if my communications style is or not, then just ask some challenging questions to me. However, if one wants to believe that my communication style is, undoubtedly, 'condescending', to say the 'very least', then there is absolutely nothing at all that I could do, to change 'their belief'. Except, of course, other than 'bandy' to 'their wants and desires' and change 'the way' I communicate here, for them. Which, just so all are aware, is not going to happen.

If I change my communication style for one or more of you, then it would be disrespectful of me to not change my communication style for any other who wanted me to change my communication style, just because it 'seemed like' I was behaving in a particular way or not.

Also, and by the way, I find your communication style just about on the verge on absolute condescension, some times. But, I certainly do not want you to change 'your communication style' at all here.

In fact I encourage you keep carrying on, exactly, as you have been.

If anyone does not engage in the process the way you think it should be carried out, they can expect to either be judged as being like other human beings in a negative way and/or somehow proving something.

Again, what you perceive as 'a negative way' at all, and maybe just your imagination only and/or just the result of some pre-exiting belief or presumption, which is interfering with your ability to 'look at' and 'see' things absolutely clearly here.

IOW you allow yourself to draw conclusions very quickly about what you think is logically necessitated by their behavior - apart from this being, often, an unjustified conclusion (other options are available) it comes off as 'you do this my way or I will point out negative things about you'

Again, the whole purpose of saying and using the words 'it comes off' is to reiterate that what is saying and claiming could be absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

Which obviously what you are 'seeing' here could well be.

I have also tried to show problems with how you communicate by responding using your own formulations, so that perhaps you can see how they do not in any way more the dialogue forward and have other unpleasant effects.

Okay. I have also 'tried to' show the issues, troubles, and faults with how your communicate by responding 'the way' that you do.

But, to absolutely no avail, right?

If you want to see this as simply ridiculing you or attacking you, well, so be it. I have tried before to explain why people, including myself, react to your approach the way we do.

But, 'the way' you, posters, here 'react' is, exactly, what I want and desire here.

Were you under some sort of disillusion that I wanted any of you to 'react' differently, from 'the way' that you do?

You have indicated that you are not condescending and don't have these negative attitudes and all that I am saying is baseless.

Yes I have. But, this will not stop you from 're-repeating, over and over, again and again, the exact same things that you are again here, correct?

Perhaps you don't have these attitudes, but your communication with great regularity then does not match whatever is going on inside of you.

Are you also aware of how you come across here and what you say and claim here does not match whatever is going on inside of that body, as well?

How many times are you going to keep 'rehashing' over the exact same things here?

Would you ever like to have, one day, a Truly 'logically reasoned' discussion, with me, about any of the so-called 'age old questions', instead of just talking 'about me'?

What one indicates to others is not just the exact words one uses.

In face to face communication there is implicit communication in voice tone, body language, timing, facial expressions, what one talks about when, the wider context and patterns in the interaction, not just the exact words.

Obviously. And, already known, and before you told me the exact same thing here the last time that you did.

How many more times are you going to tell 'us' this here?

One can, and many do, assert that the implicit communication tells us more about the attitudes and relationship than the explicit communication - the words.

Who cares?

Most come here to discuss other issues. For example, some come here to only discuss what are called 'philosophical issues', only.

Much of this implicit side of things is reduced here.

Again, who cares?

What you are talking about here, again, does not really have much bearing on what most come here to discuss about.

For example, to find the answer to the question, 'What is the meaning of 'life'?' through a 'logically reasoned' discussion, only words themselves are all that is really needed. Actually all Truly 'logically reasoned' discussions only need words alone. All other things, it could be said, are just destractions.

Yes, we just have words on a screen. However we still have what is focused on, what is accepted and not excepted, how we are responded to or not, what is stated clearly and what is avoided, what is expected before judgment, what is acknowledged or reacted to with silence. The beyond-verbal patterns and what they indicate. These affect the reactions you get and no amount of quoting you back to you can show you this, though I have tried through a variety of methods to show you by quoting and other methods.

But, what is the, exact, reason why you do this, as well as why you want to do this?

What is 'it', exactly, that you want and desire here?

I have seen your judgments of me and they no longer bother me.

Finally.

But, some might say you bring 'this' up, again, is some sort of sign that, actually, 'this still does bother you, in one way or another. Otherwise, why mention it?

If you want to dismiss this with your usual judgments, so be it, as you would say.

you are coming across here as though you are wanting to say just about absolutely any thing, in the hope that you will get 'a bite' back.

I have respect for the Socratic method,

Great, so ask me some questions, for clarification reasons. And, by the way if you stick with questions in regards to the 'age old questions' and/or in regards to one's actual views or claims here, instead of asking clarifying questions about if another is getting help, outside of this forum, for the way the communicate, or not, out, as these sort of questions are only distractions here, then "socrates" might well be very proud of you.

but right now, in relation to what I have just asserted, if it has any interest for you at all, if among your reactions, especially defensive ones, you have any curiosity about whether I might be correct about some or all of this, my suggestion is that you look back on previous dialogues you have had, probably best not ones with me, and see if any strikes you as supporting what I said.

But, it is 'you', alone here, who wants 'me' to change 'my communication style' so that 'you' and others react 'differently. 'I', on the other hand, could not care less, how 'you', nor others', react here 'to me' nor even how 'you' react towards 'each other' here.

To me it is, only, the words themselves, on the screen, that are Truly important. And, how one thinks or feels 'about another' here I do not want any of you to change at all, here.

In fact, and once again, I want you, people, here to react and express the exact same way that you have been, so that I have what is needed to help
in the creating of what 'it' is that I am.

I would also suggest that you look at communicative patterns you have with people in face to face life.

Could you get anymore 'condescending' here.

Also, and by the way, and according to others here, 'I' am just a 'blithering mess', who gets hit or got hit, because as it says and claims, 'I' cannot communicate with 'human'.

Which makes some wonder if this is, actually, true or not, which in turn instill a 'perception' of and about me, like if 'this one' is actually able to communicate with others any good, or even at all, outside of this forum.

But, for now, why does it appear so desperately important that I seek out and obtain 'communication lessons' from others and from people like you?

What is it with 'you' and 'me' that it is so important 'for you' that 'I' communicate 'the way' that 'you' do?

What happens when you try to share what you consider true with them - the things you want to share with us here.

If you are asking 'me' a question here, then there is no question mark at the end. But, then again, you might just be trying to convey some sort of message here, only.

Also, why do you consistently ask clarifying questions about 'me' and how 'I' communicate with 'others' outside of this forum, yet you very, very rarely, if ever, ask clarifying questions in regards to what are called 'philosophical issues' or 'philosophical views, ideas, and assertions'?

How do they react?

Of what actual reason you 'knowing' this would 'this answer' have a bearing on any actual thing to do with 'philosophical discussions' here?

Look, if I said absolutely no one agrees with me, then you would think some thing like, 'I knew it'. But, if I said just about absolutely every one can see and understand what I am getting at and agrees with me, then you would think some thing like, 'He is lying'. So, what would it matter whatever I informed you of?

Also, if you believe that you would not have thought what I just said you, then are you absolutely 100% sure?

Even better ask them about it and see if any of the patterns I am mentioning here are one's they can recognize in face to face communication. And then there's mulling on your own.

Why do you BELIEVE that I want to change 'the way I communicate with you posters here'?

Or, do you not believe this, and you just want me to change, because you want me to change, for you and/or others?

Please explain to me and to the readers here why you are so focused 'on me' and appear so utterly obsessed 'with me' here?

Why do you want others to react 'to me' differently? Are you concerned for or about me, are you worried for me, do you feel sorry for me, do you think I am being hurt or harmed in some way? What is it 'with you' wanting 'me' to change my communication style here in this forum?

It would be lovely if everything could be handled in a question answer approach, but we learn, also through experience.

Human beings are able to learn always through experience, and each and every experience was, once, provided learning for all of you.

And, absolutely not every thing could be handled in a question answer approach, so why you would even think it could is beyond some.

This is a 'philosophy forum', the quickest, simplest, and easiest way to arrive at answers and solutions, for all of life's meaningful or philosophical questions are found through 'logical reasoning', which when being done properly and Correctly is through an expressing of views or ideas, first, and then a questioning/answering and challenging process, through words alone.

We often need time when what we are trying to learn might be very challenging for us.

Will you provide any examples?

And, do any of those examples involve finding answers/solutions through 'logically reasoned' discussions? Or, do they all involve completely different things?

Questions and requests for justiifcation can also be avoidance patterns. Some things have to settle in.

Again, will you provide any examples.

And, the pages and pages and pages here of 'you' talking 'about me' could also be 'avoidance patterns', as well.

If you are not curious or interested, well, then obviously you won't engage my suggested processes.

But, once again, I do not, and I will repeat DO NOT, want to change 'my communication style' so that you, posters, 'react differently'.

Will you please and confirm that you have read this, heard this, and comprehend and understand this?

If you can only interpret what I just did here in negative and/or signs of my limitations ways, that's also not of interest to me. You will have misread what I wrote and my intent. I saw what might have been a tiny or larger opening in what you wrote to someone else above and responded this way, person to person. That there might be some vulnerability that you are conscious of in you and a real wondering why this is not working out like you hoped/hope so far.

LOL But absolutely every thing, in the exact way absolutely every thing is here, is working out for me perfectly. And, if you are interested, working out for me far better, and even far quicker, than I had previously imagined or envisioned

(when I have in the past suggested you might be feeling such things, this was met by complete denial on your part.

Again, you speak as though 'denial', itself, is some sort of bad or negative thing, itself.

Fine. Just know I do not mean anything in the least negative about you possibly feeling such things.

I never even began to think that you meant any thing, in the least, negative about my, possible, feel such things.

Why did you even begin to think that I might have?

If anything quite the opposite)

I'm going to take a break from our interaction.

Take care.

Okay, this sounds great.

There is, certainly, no need to 'rush back'.

[Age]

I know I can prove what I claim I can here. I wonder if others know that they can prove their claims here, also?

But until you present your truth claim proof to another how are they expected to know what your truth claim proof is?

Were you also not yet aware that I am waiting for someone who is interested in what you call 'my truth claim proof'?

Obviously, if any one is Truly interested in 'my' so-called 'truth claim proof', then they will seek it out.

How would they ever know it was the same or different to their own?

Obviously, if they want to know if it is different or not, then they will ask to see and/or hear it.

[Age]

Buckingham Palace is all that comes to mind right now.

So, to this "fairy" the place to go to where I can expect to be questioned and challenged over my views and claims is some place called 'buckingham palace?

I was hoping one would name some place on the internet instead.

But you asked for where a palace might be, and so I gave you one.

But I never asked what you just said and claimed I did here.

Obviously, you have missed what I actually asked for, so I will repeat it, for you.

I asked,

where is the best place to go to, where I can expect to be questioned and challenged over my views and claims?

This is what I was talking about, exactly.

Buckingham palace is on the internet btw. I know that for absolute certain.

Is that;

"buckingham palace" the actual building, itself?

A site called "buckingham palace" or a site created to be in relation to "buckingham palace", itself?

The words "buckingham palace", themselves. Or,

Something else that you are meaning here?

[Age]

I know I can prove what I claim I can here. I wonder if others know that they can prove their claims here, also?

But until you present your truth claim proof to another how are they expected to know what your truth claim proof is?

How would they ever know it was the same or different to their own?

Age is an enigma. He likes to talk abstractly about things, but rarely actually gets to talking about the things themselves. So he'll go on and on about how he can prove this or that, but he'll rarely just present his proof of this or that.

Was any one of you here under some sort of illusion that I was going to, necessarily, present any proof I have here, in this forum?

I have specifically stated that I am here to learn how to communicate better, with you human beings. I have also some times added that I want to do this so that one day, somewhere, I am far better able to present what 'it' is that I want to, and will do.

Fyi you should not expect any clarity from him, he's explicitly stated his goal here is NOT clear communication with the people on this forum.

Is 'this' is what I have, actually, 'explicitly' stated?

Or, is this a paraphrased version, which has come from one's own memory, presumption, and/or belief, instead?

If it is the latter, then we all 'know' how faulty, Wrong, and Incorrect those things can be, right?

If you feel like you're talking to him, that's a mistake - he's not talking to you, he's using you to talk to his audience from the future. He thinks people from the future are going to read this forum to get his wisdom, or some silly shit like that.

Again, works like;
'Some silly shit like that', is more or less absolute proof that 'that one' does not, actually, know what it is that they are saying, and talking about.

Apologies if you knew all that already.

[Age]

But you adult human beings do not have to have any beliefs, so you also do not have to have different beliefs. Therefore, different beliefs are not an 'inevitable consequence' of human relational nature at all.

Age wrote:

But I only have one belief, and it is nothing like what you are alluding to here.

Do you need to have that one belief?

Not at all.

And do you know what that belief alludes to, and would you be willing to disclose it to other people?

I am not sure what you mean by 'alludes to', in your question here. But, I do know that belief is in actual reference to.

And, yes I am willing to disclose 'this belief' to other people. I have done so here, in this forum, on a few occasions, already.

[Age]

But until you present your truth claim proof to another how are they expected to know what your truth claim proof is?

How would they ever know it was the same or different to their own?

Age is an enigma. He likes to talk abstractly about things, but rarely actually gets to talking about the things themselves. So he'll go on and on about how he can prove this or that, but he'll rarely just present his proof of this or that.

Fyi you should not expect any clarity from him, he's explicitly stated his goal here is NOT clear communication with the people on this forum. If you feel like you're talking to him, that's a mistake - he's not talking to you, he's using you to talk to his audience from the future. He thinks people from the future are going to read this forum to get his wisdom, or some silly shit like that.

Apologies if you knew all that already.

Thanks.

I wonder if Age realises that the past and future are only ever now.

Why do you ask another, 'I wonder if "age" realizes ...?'

Why not just ask me, instead?

If you actually had ask me, then I would, 'now', be informing you that, 'Yes, I already know that there is, actually only HERE-NOW. I could also inform you that the words in the bible, 'In the beginning', keep continually get misinterpreted and mistaken as, 'At some time, or at some period, in the past'. Which is just another thing that is actually False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, in Life.

Those words were always meant in reference to what is happening and occurring HERE, NOW, is 'In the beginning' of all that will happen and occur, from 'now', on.

And, because the Universe, Itself, is, irrefutably, always-existing, HERE-NOW, then that there is ONLY an eternal NOW, all fits in, together, perfectly, and 'fits in' with absolutely Everything, as One, perfectly, also.

And that if he does believe there is a future in which people will be able to read his wisdom.

Why are you talking 'with another' 'about' what I may or may not do, or may or may not see, or believe.

Also, that there is a future is certainly not the one and only belief that I have.

Then he first would have to remember his past younger stupid self.

Which would be 'different' to the 'present stupid self', how, exactly?

Also, you are not picking up and noting your own 'dualistic' language with words like, 'his'. This word implies 'ownership'. And, obviously, one can only own something 'else'.

Or else how would he know for sure here in the present that he is wise?

What did you say and write this for, exactly?

[Fairy]

I asked,

where is the best place to go to, where I can expect to be questioned and challenged over my views and claims?

You also said where is the best 'palace'

Is that;

"buckingham palace" the actual building, itself?

A site called "buckingham palace" or a site created to be in relation to "buckingham palace", itself?

The words "buckingham palace", themselves. Or,

Something else that you are meaning here?

If you are Truly interested in 'my' so-called 'truth claim proof', then you will seek it out.

It's in the internet ready for your perusal. Seek and you will find. The truth is within you, if you are willing enough to seek it out. The truth is always within you, in the ( inner-net) else where other place are you going to seek it. In fact, you'll always find what you are seeking, else the seeking would be a complete waste of time and energy. Pointless.

Now, every claimed 'truth claim' comes from the exact same place. So where is that place exactly? that's for you to discover, not someone else, because all the 'someone else's' have drawn their 'truth claims' from the exact same place also.

[Flannel Jesus]

But until you present your truth claim proof to another how are they expected to know what your truth claim proof is?

How would they ever know it was the same or different to their own?

Age is an enigma. He likes to talk abstractly about things, but rarely actually gets to talking about the things themselves. So he'll go on and on about how he can prove this or that, but he'll rarely just present his proof of this or that.

Was any one of you here under some sort of illusion that I was going to, necessarily, present any proof I have here, in this forum?

Why would you, in the days when this was written, assume I was under some sort of illusion? Why wouldn't they, in the days when this was written, just ask if I was under an illusion?

[Age]

I asked,

where is the best place to go to, where I can expect to be questioned and challenged over my views and claims?

You also said where is the best 'palace'

Yes, and on purpose I will add.

I wrote the word 'palace' accidentally instead of 'place', noticed my mistake and was about to change it, then I decided that I would not because the word 'palace' fitted in with what I am looking for here. That is a 'place' where my views and assertions' will be question and challenged, fully and completely. Which, to me, if I found a 'place' like this, then that would be my kind of 'palace'.

So, I left this word in there, intentionally.

Now, as for I said where is the best 'palace', once again, this was only in regards to where I would be questioned and challenged continuously.

I did not ask where is the best 'palace', question mark

Is that;

"buckingham palace" the actual building, itself?

A site called "buckingham palace" or a site created to be in relation to "buckingham palace", itself?

The words "buckingham palace", themselves. Or,

Something else that you are meaning here?

If you are Truly interested in 'my' so-called 'truth claim proof', then you will seek it out.

you saying and writing, you also said 'palace', and then you repeating this here of mine, shows that you have completely and utterly misunderstood what I was actually asking for above.

It's in the internet ready for your perusal.

'What' is, supposedly, 'in the internet', supposedly, 'ready for my perusal'?

Seek and you will find. The truth is within you, if you are willing enough to seek it out. The truth is always within you, in the ( inner-net) else where other place are you going to seek it. In fact, you'll always find what you are seeking, else the seeking would be a complete waste of time and energy. Pointless.

Of course the actual Truth of things is within 'you'. All Truth is found when one 'digs deep enough within, and 'looks deep enough within'.

Also, let 'us' not forget that even deeper within 'you' is where 'I', the one and only One, is. Waiting for those who seek 'the Truth', properly and Correctly.

And, it is from 'I', the True Self One, where all answers and all Truth, lies.

Now, every claimed 'truth claim' comes from the exact same place.

But, all sorts of different 'truth claims' come from all sorts of different human beings. That is different 'you's. And, there is not one 'truth claim' that has to be even close to being True, and Right, anyway.

However, what is actually True and Right, come from the One place, only. And, as I am continually informing you people is 'known' to be True and Right, when 'you' 'know' that absolutely every one could agree upon 'It', and accept 'It', as well.

So where is that place exactly? that's for you to discover, not someone else, because all the 'someone else's' have drawn their 'truth claims' from the exact same place also.

Where 'this place' is, exactly, is already 'known'.

[Fairy]

So where is that place exactly? that's for you to discover, not someone else, because all the 'someone else's' have drawn their 'truth claims' from the exact same place also.

Where 'this place' is, exactly, is already 'known'.

Yes, it's right HERE already known. Everyone including you can know it's right here, I mean, where else would it be?

I know I can prove what I claim I can here.

[Age]

So where is that place exactly? that's for you to discover, not someone else, because all the 'someone else's' have drawn their 'truth claims' from the exact same place also.

Where 'this place' is, exactly, is already 'known'.

Yes, it's right HERE already known. Everyone including you can know it's right here, I mean, where else would it be?

Why did you say and write here, 'Everyone including you can know it's right here', when it was 'I' who just told and informed you; 'Where 'this place' is, exactly, is already 'known'.

In case you were not yet aware, what I said and informed you about means that it is 'I' who already 'knew' where 'this place' is, exactly.

I know I can prove what I claim I can here.