Teach Your Children Well

[Age]

That's not how I remember it.

This is because you are only thinking of what was 'consciously known', in 'thought' alone.

What is 'unconsciously, or instinctively known', is where the good, True, and Right knowledge is. And, not just 'in the past' this still exact 'same instinctual knowledge', still, exists, and 'known' but with some of it still only 'unconsciously known'. But, all of 'the knowledge' is, ever so slowly and gradually, coming to the forefront, or in other words gradually coming to be 'consciously known'. Exactly like absolutely all previous 'knowledge' was never consciously but all of it has evolved into coming to be 'consciously known'.

I have no idea what that means, but it sounds like something you have just dreamed up.

Okay.

And, if you had any real curiosity left, and any real interest, here, then you would have just asked something as Truly simple and easy like;

'What do you actually mean?'

Which, then I would have just responded and answered with something Truly simple and easy like;

When every new born baby is born they, obviously, do not 'consciously know' any thing. However, within those bodies, and at some level, the sub-atomic level, or even smaller, there is a 'knowing' what it, or what 'i', from its perspective, 'need'.

So, the body will do what is 'needed' in order to obtain what is 'needed'. This, 'instinctual way to behave' comes from an 'unconscious knowing'.

Do 'you', still, have absolutely no idea what 'that' here means "harbal"?

If yes, do you even want to 'know' what 'that' means?

However, if you are 'starting' to 'understand' what 'that' means, no matter how small, would you like to explain more, to you? Or, are you happy and content just continuing to 'see' my words as just being something that I have 'just dreamed up', instead?

Either way is perfectly okay and fine, with me.

[Flannel Jesus]

This is because you are only thinking of what was 'consciously known', in 'thought' alone.

What is 'unconsciously, or instinctively known', is where the good, True, and Right knowledge is. And, not just 'in the past' this still exact 'same instinctual knowledge', still, exists, and 'known' but with some of it still only 'unconsciously known'. But, all of 'the knowledge' is, ever so slowly and gradually, coming to the forefront, or in other words gradually coming to be 'consciously known'. Exactly like absolutely all previous 'knowledge' was never consciously but all of it has evolved into coming to be 'consciously known'.

I have no idea what that means, but it sounds like something you have just dreamed up.

Okay.

And, if you had any real curiosity left, and any real interest, here, then you would have just asked something as Truly simple and easy like;

'What do you actually mean?'

Which, then I would have just responded and answered with something Truly simple and easy like;

When every new born baby is born they, obviously, do not 'consciously know' any thing. However, within those bodies, and at some level, the sub-atomic level, or even smaller, there is a 'knowing' what it, or what 'i', from its perspective, 'need'.

So, the body will do what is 'needed' in order to obtain what is 'needed'. This, 'instinctual way to behave' comes from an 'unconscious knowing'.

Do 'you', still, have absolutely no idea what 'that' here means "harbal"?

If yes, do you even want to 'know' what 'that' means?

However, if you are 'starting' to 'understand' what 'that' means, no matter how small, would you like to explain more, to you? Or, are you happy and content just continuing to 'see' my words as just being something that I have 'just dreamed up', instead?

Either way is perfectly okay and fine, with me.

Lol, hilarious that you wrote this, in the days when this was written

[Walker]

This is because you are only thinking of what was 'consciously known', in 'thought' alone.

What is 'unconsciously, or instinctively known', is where the good, True, and Right knowledge is. And, not just 'in the past' this still exact 'same instinctual knowledge', still, exists, and 'known' but with some of it still only 'unconsciously known'. But, all of 'the knowledge' is, ever so slowly and gradually, coming to the forefront, or in other words gradually coming to be 'consciously known'. Exactly like absolutely all previous 'knowledge' was never consciously but all of it has evolved into coming to be 'consciously known'.

Some say that without bad there can be no good, because good is defined as a contrast to evil.
I say that’s wrong, because,
If only evil is required to activate good, then the good that activates good is not good … and that’s not true.

*

Switching the view to scientific, objective e-prime transmission, unveils a philosophical question in invitation for you to answer:

This means that if inherent goodness should “ever so slowly and gradually come [SIC] to the forefront,”
then a secondary condition of duality must have activated the inherent condition of goodness that only exists as a potentiality until activated,
and because more than just evil can activate goodness,
then what condition available to all and just as available as evil,
but other than evil,
activates goodness?

[Age]

This is because you are only thinking of what was 'consciously known', in 'thought' alone.

What is 'unconsciously, or instinctively known', is where the good, True, and Right knowledge is. And, not just 'in the past' this still exact 'same instinctual knowledge', still, exists, and 'known' but with some of it still only 'unconsciously known'. But, all of 'the knowledge' is, ever so slowly and gradually, coming to the forefront, or in other words gradually coming to be 'consciously known'. Exactly like absolutely all previous 'knowledge' was never consciously but all of it has evolved into coming to be 'consciously known'.

Some say that without bad there can be no good, because good is defined as a contrast to evil.
I say that’s wrong, because,
If only evil is required to activate good, then the good that activates good is not good … and that’s not true.

I am not sure anyone says that 'evil' is 'required' 'to activate' 'good'. But, I am pretty sure that what is being meant by saying, 'without bad there can be no good', is that there is 'no concept' of one, without the other. And, not that 'evil', nor bad things, 'have to be done' in order 'to activate' good, at all.

Obviously, doing good things can beget good things, and so forth, continuously, without absolutely any bad things being done at all.

Saying, there cannot be good, without bad, is in reference to 'concepts', or 'conceptual thought', only.

*

Switching the view to scientific, objective e-prime transmission, unveils a philosophical question in invitation for you to answer:

This means that if inherent goodness should “ever so slowly and gradually come [SIC] to the forefront,”

Firstly, if you find absolutely any thing in what I say and write here odd or erroneous, then just say so, and then point out and explain 'why', exactly, to you?

The animal species only ever did what was 'inherent' to it. This was, until, a species that had an 'internal knowing', or just the 'natural instinct' of 'knowing' what was 'Wrong' and what was 'Right' in Life, decided to 'choose' to 'do Wrong', and thus go against their own 'instinct'.

Inherently, 'goodness, and, wrongness' was always 'unconsciously known', these animals just did, what they did, without 'conscious thought'.

What gradually evolves and comes to 'conscious knowing/knowledge' is just what was 'unconsciously known'. That is; the 'knowledge' that is 'instinctively known' within the 'dna', if one likes, of the human being species, itself.

It could be said and argued that 'inherent goodness, and wrongness' has, always, been at 'the forefront', but just not, yet, 'known', 'consciously, by most of you here, in the days when this is being written,

then a secondary condition of duality must have activated the inherent condition of goodness that only exists as a potentiality until activated,

you have 'missed the mark' here, completely and absolutely.

and because more than just evil can activate goodness,
then what condition available to all and just as available as evil,
but other than evil,
activates goodness?

And, the very reason why you have completely 'missed the mark' here, might well be because of these kinds of views or beliefs that you have here.

'Evil' does not necessarily active goodness, and conversely, 'goodness does not necessarily activate 'evil', at all.

[Flannel Jesus]

So hilarious XD

[Walker]

Firstly, if you find absolutely any thing in what I say and write here odd or erroneous, then just say so, and then point out and explain 'why', exactly, to you?

The firstly issue that prevents your acceptance of the invitation to answer the philosophical question is not a misunderstanding of your transmission.

In regards to dialogue, the question takes precedence over your misunderstanding of the question.

My interest is not your misunderstanding of the question, but rather, your answer to the question.

Your answer to the question, and not refusal to answer the question, is the basis for discussion.

[Harbal]

'Evil' does not necessarily active goodness, and conversely, 'goodness does not necessarily activate 'evil', at all.

Why do you human beings persist with this useless concept you call "evil", in the time when this was being written, and long before it was being written? Good and bad (forget about evil) are just relative terms that refer to how we desire something to be, or not to be. When the situation is to our satisfaction, we think of that as good, and when it isn't, we consider it bad. This applies whether we are talking about ethics and morality, or about how the mashed potatoes turned out; there's nothing mystical or supernatural about it. This is irrefutably true, right and correct, btw, so that's that.

[Walker]

What is 'unconsciously, or instinctively known', is where the good, True, and Right knowledge is.

'Evil' does not necessarily active goodness, and conversely, 'goodness does not necessarily activate 'evil', at all.

Anything that happens, happens because of necessity.
When good happens, it had to happen because of causes.
When evil happens, it had to happen because of causes.

The first quote states that knowledge of goodness is inherent.
The second quote states what does not cause good or evil actions.

The question is, what does cause inherent good to transform from inherency, into action?

In other words, what activates this inherent goodness from the internal to the external for all to see, marvel, and admire? (Don't get too hung up on the side-rail of saying that marveling, admiring, and witnessing do not exist because such things are just relative.)

[Walker]

.

[Harbal]

What is 'unconsciously, or instinctively known', is where the good, True, and Right knowledge is.

'Evil' does not necessarily active goodness, and conversely, 'goodness does not necessarily activate 'evil', at all.

Anything that happens, happens because of necessity.
When good happens, it had to happen because of causes.
When evil happens, it had to happen because of causes.

The first quote states that knowledge of goodness is inherent.
The second quote states what does not cause good or evil actions.

The question is, what does cause inherent good to transform from inherency, into action?

The transformation of inherent good into action can be understood through several interconnected factors that motivate and facilitate the transition from potential to actuality.

Individuals need to recognize their inherent good, values, and potential. This self-awareness often arises through introspection, education, and personal growth.

Understanding the needs, suffering, and perspectives of others can prompt the desire to act on inherent goodness.

Actions often stem from internal desires, such as the need for fulfillment, meaning, or the satisfaction of helping others.
Goals and Aspirations: Having clear goals or a sense of purpose can direct inherent good towards specific actions.

Seeing others act on their inherent good can inspire and motivate individuals to do the same.
Cultural and Societal Values: Societal norms and cultural values can either encourage or discourage the expression of inherent goodness.

Access to necessary resources, such as time, money, and tools, can enable individuals to act on their good intentions.
Support Systems: Having a supportive network, such as family, friends, or community, can provide the encouragement and assistance needed to transform good intentions into actions.

Life events, crises, or significant experiences can act as catalysts, prompting individuals to act on their inherent goodness.
Challenges and Needs: Encountering situations that require help or intervention can motivate people to act.


Strong ethical and moral beliefs can drive individuals to align their actions with their inherent good.
Conscience: An internal sense of right and wrong often compels individuals to take action when they perceive an opportunity to do good.


Learning new skills and gaining knowledge can empower individuals to take action.
Personal Experience: Life experiences, including successes and failures, can shape one’s ability to act on inherent goodness.


Emotional connections and empathy towards others’ suffering can motivate action.

A strong passion for a cause or belief can drive individuals to transform their inherent good into tangible actions.
In essence, the transformation of inherent good into action is a dynamic process influenced by internal motivations, external conditions, opportunities, and personal development. It often requires a combination of awareness, motivation, resources, support, and sometimes a triggering event to move from potential to action.

That's all I can think of.

[accelafine]

.

That's the most intelligent comment you've ever made

[Walker]

.

That's the most intelligent comment you've ever made

I think you're reading into it.

[Walker]

Good stuff.

[Age]

Firstly, if you find absolutely any thing in what I say and write here odd or erroneous, then just say so, and then point out and explain 'why', exactly, to you?

The firstly issue that prevents your acceptance of the invitation to answer the philosophical question is not a misunderstanding of your transmission.

In regards to dialogue, the question takes precedence over your misunderstanding of the question.

My interest is not your misunderstanding of the question, but rather, your answer to the question.

Your answer to the question, and not refusal to answer the question, is the basis for discussion.

Just so you become absolutely clear, I have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what 'it' is, exactly, that you are talking about or referring to here.

[Age]

'Evil' does not necessarily active goodness, and conversely, 'goodness does not necessarily activate 'evil', at all.

Why do you human beings persist with this useless concept you call "evil", in the time when this was being written, and long before it was being written?

Great question "harbal".

I 'persisted' with 'that word' to be able to respond to what "walker" wrote, so that my response resembled what "walker" was saying and claiming.

I could have just as simply and as easily responded by say and claim The 'wrong' that you adult human beings do does not necessarily activate the good that you adult human beings do, and vice versa, the good that you adult human beings do not necessarily activate that wrong that you adult human beings do, at all, either.

Good and bad (forget about evil) are just relative terms that refer to how we desire something to be, or not to be.

I agree.

When the situation is to our satisfaction, we think of that as good, and when it isn't, we consider it bad.

Obviously. After all 'good' and 'bad', like 'right' and 'wrong', are all relative.

This applies whether we are talking about ethics and morality, or about how the mashed potatoes turned out; there's nothing mystical or supernatural about it.

Has any one suggested that there was something 'mystical' or 'supernatural' here?

If yes, then 'who' was that, exactly, and what did 'they' suggest, exactly?

This is irrefutably true, right and correct, btw, so that's that.

And, one could also, This is irrefutably false, wrong, and incorrect, as well. And, 'so that is that', also.

But, then again, no one else would really know, for sure, what the 'this' word is even referring to, exactly, anyway, too.

Also, and obviously the 'this' that you say and claim is 'irrefutably true, right, and correct, would be irrefutably true, right, and correct, to you.

This is how 'relative truth' works.