The Fundamental Model of Reality

[Fairy]

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 am very aware of the ‘I’ already knows where “this place”is, exactly.

So “I” is in agreement. No compromise needed.

Notice that every other person you are talking to on this forum, also know themself as the “I” when they too make the claim (I know) that’s what’s meant by “truth claim proofs” come from the same place, namely, the “I”

[Age]

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 am very aware of the ‘I’ already knows where “this place”is, exactly.

So “I” is in agreement. No compromise needed.

Notice that every other person you are talking to on this forum, also know themself as the “I” when they too make the claim (I know) that’s what’s meant by “truth claim proofs” come from the same place, namely, the “I”

But, have you forgotten that your usage of words is different than mine?

The 'I' is not 'you' persons at all.And, the 'i' that 'you: are referring to and that 'yyou' persons know "yourselves" as is just what 'you' call and claim is the illusory "separated self".

Which are 'you' human beings or human selfs who only 'think' 'you' 'know' what is true and right, in Life. Whereas only 'I' actually 'know' what is actually True and Right, in Life, which again is by and through agreement of, and the acceptance of, the One True Self, which is within all things, including all of 'you' imagined 'selves', or in 'your', "fairy", words the 'illusory separated selves'.

[Fairy]

The 'I' is not 'you' persons at all.And, the 'i' that 'you: are referring to and that 'yyou' persons know "yourselves" as is just what 'you' call and claim is the illusory "separated self".

Which are 'you' human beings or human selfs who only 'think' 'you' 'know' what is true and right, in Life. Whereas only 'I' actually 'know' what is actually True and Right, in Life, which again is by and through agreement of, and the acceptance of, the One True Self, which is within all things, including all of 'you' imagined 'selves', or in 'your', "fairy", words the 'illusory separated selves'.

So it seems you are saying it is the 'I' that knows the little 'i' known to itself as the illusory separate self? And it's not the little 'i' or the human being that knows.


The true self is the 'I' who speaks as and through the body of the little 'i' who then mistakenly believes, or thinks it is the little 'i' who is knowing, and speaking....is that correct?

[Fairy]

But, have you forgotten that your usage of words is different than mine?

I have always been aware Age that word usage can be a limitation, when it comes to the metaphysical discussion as to defining the True Self.

And yes, I am also aware our usage of words are different; that's obvious. But surely once the penny has dropped, whereby the little 'i' comes to realise this 'i' is a false illusory self, which then dissolves and merges back into the True 'I' of real Self.

And do you agree with me Age, that it is the true absolute 'I' Self who knowingly limits itself as and through the relative illusory self of little 'i' so as to experience what it's like to appear as multitudes of different forms of it's one same Self? In so far as the ONE TRUE SELF is capable of being the many of the ONE without a second? and that this ONE is always being ONE with itself, and never two, except appearing as two in the illusory sense?

Are we on the same page yet Age? are we in agreement yet?

[Age]

The 'I' is not 'you' persons at all.And, the 'i' that 'you: are referring to and that 'yyou' persons know "yourselves" as is just what 'you' call and claim is the illusory "separated self".

Which are 'you' human beings or human selfs who only 'think' 'you' 'know' what is true and right, in Life. Whereas only 'I' actually 'know' what is actually True and Right, in Life, which again is by and through agreement of, and the acceptance of, the One True Self, which is within all things, including all of 'you' imagined 'selves', or in 'your', "fairy", words the 'illusory separated selves'.

So it seems you are saying it is the 'I' that knows the little 'i' known to itself as the illusory separate self? And it's not the little 'i' or the human being that knows.


The true self is the 'I' who speaks as and through the body of the little 'i' who then mistakenly believes, or thinks it is the little 'i' who is knowing, and speaking....is that correct?

Not exactly Correct, but,

Yes, it is more or less correct enough, for 'now'.

[Fairy]

The 'I' is not 'you' persons at all.And, the 'i' that 'you: are referring to and that 'yyou' persons know "yourselves" as is just what 'you' call and claim is the illusory "separated self".

Which are 'you' human beings or human selfs who only 'think' 'you' 'know' what is true and right, in Life. Whereas only 'I' actually 'know' what is actually True and Right, in Life, which again is by and through agreement of, and the acceptance of, the One True Self, which is within all things, including all of 'you' imagined 'selves', or in 'your', "fairy", words the 'illusory separated selves'.

So it seems you are saying it is the 'I' that knows the little 'i' known to itself as the illusory separate self? And it's not the little 'i' or the human being that knows.


The true self is the 'I' who speaks as and through the body of the little 'i' who then mistakenly believes, or thinks it is the little 'i' who is knowing, and speaking....is that correct?

Not exactly Correct, but,

Yes, it is more or less correct enough, for 'now'.

Do you happen to know when it’s going to be exactly correct by any chance?

[Age]

But, have you forgotten that your usage of words is different than mine?

I have always been aware Age that word usage can be a limitation, when it comes to the metaphysical discussion as to defining the True Self.

Okay, but when one has obtained the irrefutable usage of words, which is when all words, and all of their definitions, back up and support each and all others in a way that presents, draws, and illustrates the One and only True and crystal clear big and full picture of all-there-is, as the One, and only One, that exists, only, then this proves that word usage is only limited by the number of words themselves, and not a limitation of their ability of and for them to explain all things here, absolutely, and perfectly..

And yes, I am also aware our usage of words are different; that's obvious. But surely once the penny has dropped, whereby the little 'i' comes to realise this 'i' is a false illusory self, which then dissolves and merges back into the True 'I' of real Self.

But, because the little 'i', itself, is not exactly an illusion l, itself, 'you' will continue to get you human beings to believe that each and every one of you is nothing but just an illusion.

What I found, instead, is if and when one has obtained the True, Right, Accurate, and Correct words and definitions, which fit perfectly together, then the Truth of things can be expressed, explained, and understood, like for example, the actual and irrefutable Truth about who and what 'you', human beings really are, and who and what "I' really am.

And do you agree with me Age, that it is the true absolute 'I' Self who knowingly limits itself as and through the relative illusory self of little 'i' so as to experience what it's like to appear as multitudes of different forms of it's one same Self?

Not, to me.

To me, the 'I' never limits thy 'Self' as, through, ro, nor for, any thing at all. The, One and only, 'Self' also already experiences what it is like to appear as multitudes of different forms.The 'Self' does not have to do any thing, including limiting any thing, to be able to 'know' and experience every thing. After all, all of the 'only perceived concepts', of apparent separated different things, are just 'parts' of the One and Only 'Self/Thing' anyway.

In so far as the ONE TRUE SELF is capable of being the many of the ONE without a second? and that this ONE is always being ONE with itself, and never two, except appearing as two in the illusory sense?

Are we on the same page yet Age? are we in agreement yet?

'We' are getting closer.

[Age]

So it seems you are saying it is the 'I' that knows the little 'i' known to itself as the illusory separate self? And it's not the little 'i' or the human being that knows.


The true self is the 'I' who speaks as and through the body of the little 'i' who then mistakenly believes, or thinks it is the little 'i' who is knowing, and speaking....is that correct?

Not exactly Correct, but,

Yes, it is more or less correct enough, for 'now'.

Do you happen to know when it’s going to be exactly correct by any chance?

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

And, when any thing is 'exactly Correct' is when, and only when, absolutely every one can be in agreement and accepting of 'the thing:.

[Fairy]

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

If you are asking me what the word 'it' is referring to, does that mean you do not know what 'it' means? Surely, we all refer to the same 'it' here, unless you think there is another 'it' that has never been referred to before, by us human beings..

But in answer to your question, I am personally referring to the 'it' as in something that is easily identifable, as opposed to the 'it' in ('it' is raining, claim) which is a more abstract form of 'it' and not so identifable.

And, when any thing is 'exactly Correct' is when, and only when, absolutely every one can be in agreement and accepting of 'the thing:.

Well can we at least cross two of those 'every one's' off the long long list of 'every one's'. Namely, the one's that go by the name of Age and Fairy?
Or, are you not up for the action of crossing those 2 - 1's off yet?

[Fairy]

'We' are getting closer.

By getting closer, do you think there is a possibility, that this 'getting closer' will mean there potentially could be a merging that happens, where two things meet up, closing any gap that was once previously there, but is no longer there anymore?
If yes is your answer, would that mean the once two, (you there and me here, or me here and you there ) will change positions, and be neither here nor there, but simply just nowhere, as we merge into one thing, rendering two things obsolete and no more, floating around somewhere in the nowhere of everywhere?

[Fairy]

To me, the 'I' never limits thy 'Self'

I see.


So then, is it the 'me' who is claiming here now, the 'I' never limits thy Self - OR, is it the 'I' who never limits thy Self, claiming 'I' never limit thy Self to the 'me' ? OR, is the 'I' who never limits thy Self, talking or writing to thy Self only?

Which one is it..is it, the 'me' or the 'I' making the claim that it is the 'I' who never limits thy Self?

If it's the 'me', then it can't be the 'I'
But if it's the 'I' then it can't be the 'me' - right?

[Age]

To me, the 'I' never limits thy 'Self'

I see.


So then, is it the 'me' who is claiming here now, the 'I' never limits thy Self - OR, is it the 'I' who never limits thy Self, claiming 'I' never limit thy Self to the 'me' ? OR, is the 'I' who never limits thy Self, talking or writing to thy Self only?

Why would 'I' limit thy 'Self'?

What possible purpose would there be for doing this?

Which one is it..is it, the 'me' or the 'I' making the claim that it is the 'I' who never limits thy Self?

'I'.

If it's the 'me', then it can't be the 'I'
But if it's the 'I' then it can't be the 'me' - right?

Did 'you' know that 'I' can speak, and write, through 'you', "fairy", and through 'you', human beings?

Did 'you' also know that 'you', "fairy" and 'you', human beings, can, and do, align with 'I'?

So, sometimes when 'you' express "yourself", "fairy", and 'you', human beings, express "yourselves" aligns with 'I'.

So, sometimes, not that 'you', nor 'me', am, actually, 'I', but 'we' can, and do, align in what 'we' express.

[Flannel Jesus]

Did 'you' know that 'I' can speak, and write, through 'you', "fairy", and through 'you', human beings?

So funny that age would write this, in the days when this was written.

[Fairy]

Why would 'I' limit thy 'Self'?

What possible purpose would there be for doing this?

No purpose at all, why would 'I' even ponder the idea that there maybe or may not be a purpose of why 'I' would limit thy Self, when 'I' already know 'I' can speak, and write, through 'you', "fairy", and through ''age' and 'you', human beings limitlessly forever, infinitely, for eternity?

So 'I' already know 'I' am limitless, so what purpose would 'I' have to speak and write through differently named characters like 'fairy' or 'age' or 'human beings' ?

If its only 'I' speaking and writing, then "fairy", and ''age' and 'you', human beings could only be thy Self, unlimited 'I' anyway.

What purpose would there be for the 'I' to speak and write as and through so many other names, like 'fairy' and 'age' and 'human beings? Why wouldn't 'I' just stick to one name only, namely 'I' ?

[Fairy]

So, sometimes, not that 'you', nor 'me', am, actually, 'I', but 'we' can, and do, align in what 'we' express.

So the 'I' that speaks and writes as and through these 'labels', are not those 'labels' 'I' is expressing speaking and writing as and through what 'I' is not?
Oh,kaaay!!

Does that mean the 'I' is expressing itself as and through imaginary named character's .. does that mean 'I' is actually talking and writing to thy Self in all actuality? I mean, why would 'I' need to speak and write through imaginary characters, why not just speak and write directly to thy Self?

Isn't it more correct to say that 'I' is aligning with imaginary characters, namely, the 'I' who speaks and writes as and through these other named characters that are not actually 'I' at all, but are all just imagined characters in 'I' but not really 'I' ?

Oh,kaaay!

What purpose would 'I' have for speaking and writing as and through imagined characters, that are not even 'I' ? Why doesn't 'I' just speak and write to thy Self and quit making up these other imagined characters, that 'I' thinks and believes 'I' is speaking and writing as and through, when these characters are not even 'I' ?