Triune or Nondual God 🤔

[Self-Lightening]

The only thing any of us knows for sure is that the perceiving (or guessing, or concocting) instrument exists. The least far-fetched supposition, then—if "we" suppose there's anything beyond "ourselves" at all—, is that only such mutable beings exist. What we filter, or embellish, or dress up, then, is only our fellow mutable beings.

Can you explain further on what you mean by what I bolded? I don’t understand

If I am a perceiving instrument, and any and all other existing things are also such perceiving instruments, then what I filter, embellish, or dress up is only my fellow perceiving instruments. This is precisely what Nietzsche says in that external post I linked to (at the beginning of part 2):

"[…]
4) questions, what things 'in-themselves' may be like, apart from our sense receptivity and the activity of our understanding, must be rebutted with the question: how could we know that things exist? 'Thingness' was first created by us. The question is whether there could not be many other way[s] of creating such an apparent world—and whether this creating, logicizing, adapting, falsifying is not itself the best-guaranteed reality; in short, whether that which 'posits things' is not the sole reality; and whether the 'effect of the external world upon us' is not also only the result of such active subjects…
[…]
the other 'entities' act upon us; our adapted apparent world is an adaptation and overpowering of their actions; a kind of defensive measure.
The subject alone is demonstrable: hypothesis that only subjects exist—that 'object' is only a kind of effect produced by a subject upon a subject… a modus of the subject" (Trans. mostly Kauffman's, of Will to Power nr. 569.)
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=419493#p419493

[Age]

I already, know and understand, fully, why you human beings have and make False perspectives and interpretations, so there is absolutely nothing to 'deal with' here.

Also, already, knowing how to distinguish and differentiate between the False interpretations and perspectives from the True ones means not having any thing to 'deal with', anyway.

I asked you how you deal with it when you meet a perspective or interpretation you consider false.

And I informed you that I have nothing to 'deal with'.

The first sentences above tells me that you know why people make false interpretations and perspectives.

Yes. And, from 'knowing' comes with it nothing to 'deal with'. See, when one 'knows' the Truth, there is nothing to 'deal with'.

The second sentence says you, it seems, in those situations have nothing to deal with. OK.

In both of the sentences there is absolutely nothing at all for me to 'deal with'.

What do you do when someone posts something, that you respond to here, or in response to you, that you consider false?

What ever I please.

There is absolutely no 'one thing' that I do on each and every occasions I come across some thing that I consider to be false.

Are you able to inform the readers here of what you do when someone posts some thing, that you respond to here, or in response to you, that you consider false?

If yes, then what do you do?

Do you point out that it is false?

Some times.

Do you ever ask clarifying questions about the false interpretation/perspective and if so, is there a goal in doing this?

Some times.

To obtain clarity.

Obviously, I might have 'missed' some thing and/or 'misunderstood' some thing, in what was written and expressed. So, there is no use going on about 'it' if I have not even comprehended and understood what the 'it' is, exactly, first.

Do you ever present reasons why you label it false?

Some times.

Do you ever ask questions because the answers might help the other person see that there persective is false?

Some times.

Do you ever ask them to justify the perspective/interpretation and if so, do you have a goal when doing this?

Some times.

Yes, again, to obtain clarification, and/or clarity.

See, I learn more, and/or better, when I obtain actual clarification, and thus actual clarity.

[Age]

Also, what is even meant by 'metaphysical reality', exactly?

A world of impulse or imperative that operates distinctly, contrarily often, to those “natural laws” we all perceive and agree on.

But, there is only 'one world', right?

If no, then how many 'worlds' are there? And, how do you differentiate or distinguish between the different ones. exactly?

In man’s world, what is metaphysical is really what determines man. I do not think we fully grasp this.

And with 'this explanation' I certainly am not grasping absolutely any thing here.

What is a so-called 'man's world', exactly?

And, how are you even defining the word 'metaphysical' here, exactly?

So, if you are implying here that the 'act of interpretation' does not determine what is true, then what, exactly, does determine what is true, exactly?

Truth exists — has existed — and is independent of man’s manifestation.

Once again, I just ask a very simple and easy clarifying question, but in return I get a response that does not address the actual question at all.

I again 'Truth' exists. So, 'we' agree on this.

But, if, to you, if 'Truth' is absolutely independent of "man's" manifestation, then;

1. Why only "men"? Why not "women" and children, as well?

2. If, to you, 'Truth' exists 'currently' and 'previously', independent of "men", then, again, what, exactly, determines what is true, exactly?

And as you see I use the term imperative.

So, what, exactly, did you mean by using the 'imperative' term, above here?

1.
a. A rule, principle, or need that requires or compels certain action.

So, what is 'it' that you are trying to say and claim here, now?

Additional questions, Age, cost $199.00 each. I accept all major cards and PayPal.

Once more, here 'we' have more proof of just how 'monetary orientated' these adult human beings were, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

These people back then even wanted to be paid 'money' for just sharing 'the thoughts' that arose. This, really, was how greedy they had become.

[Age]

When 'you' here say and write, 'any of us', are you meaning that there is more than 'one', for sure and absolutely, or just that 'the One' is perceiving, (guessing, or concocting), that there is more than just 'this One'?

The latter, yes.

Okay. So, the word 'us' is absolutely completely redundant, correct?

In my first and last sentences, I didn't use scare quotes, but in my central sentence I did, to make precisely this point.

1. What you call scare quotes, others do not.

2. Why not just remove the redundant words, and just say, exactly, what you mean instead?

When 'you' put an 's' at the of 'ourselve' was this intended to be plural because there is definitely more than 'one'? Or, did 'you' just use 'that word' out of habit?

Neither. "Ourselve" is not a word (nor is "ourself", for that matter).

Okay.

But, and obviously, the word 'ourselves' means more than one, right?

Or, is the word 'ourselves' meaning and/or referring to just the One?

The word was already in scare quotes,

1. What does a word in so-called 'scare quotes' actually mean, to you?

2. Is the way you perceive and use so-called scare quotes the exact same for absolutely every one?

3. What do you even mean when you use the words 'scare quotes'?

and moreover, the very conditional clause in which I used it already strongly implied that there need not be anything beyond "ourselves".

So, again, if the word 'ourselves' implies more than one, is 'this' what you are implying, or meaning, when you write and use the word 'ourselves'?

In other words, is the word 'ourselves' here referring to just 'the One' or to 'more than one'?

Also, was an 's' put at the end of 'being' because there is, irrefutably, more than 'one'? Or, again, was this just done 'out of habit', for one reason anyway?


So, if the, absolutely, only thing that can be 'known', for sure, is that only 'the one', perceiving, (guessing, or concocting) instrument exists, then any perception of 'others' could just be a False and/or Wrong perception, (guess, or concoction), obviously.

So, if the 'only thing' that can be 'known', for sure, is that 'I', a perceiving, guessing, or concocting 'instrument' exists, then the actual irrefutable Truth is that absolutely any claim at all of or about 'others' could all well be just a/nother made up concoction and guess, which is providing a False and Wrong perception, to the One and only One, 'I'.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. And in fact, I don't even think the "instrument" needs to exist, but only the perceptions, guesses, or concoctions.

Thank you for clarifying.

So, when you said 'instrument', you did not mean 'an instrument', but rather just 'a perception', maybe just 'an awareness', or even just 'consciousness', exists, correct?

If yes, then 'I' agree with this, up to a certain point. In that for 'Consciousness' or 'Awareness', (or even 'perception'), to be existing, there would have to be some sort of 'instrument' for this to be happening, and/or occurring.

But, then again, this might just be the 'I's', or 'this One's', 'perception', (guess, or concoction), only.

However, what the actual irrefutable Truth is, exactly, will be coming-to-light, soon enough.

[Self-Lightening]

When 'you' here say and write, 'any of us', are you meaning that there is more than 'one', for sure and absolutely, or just that 'the One' is perceiving, (guessing, or concocting), that there is more than just 'this One'?

The latter, yes.

Okay. So, the word 'us' is absolutely completely redundant, correct?

No. Maybe I should have already have put it in (scare) quotes there, but I'm not going to do so all the time, anyway. A stylistic choice, I suppose.

In my first and last sentences, I didn't use scare quotes, but in my central sentence I did, to make precisely this point.

1. What you call scare quotes, others do not.

Well, whatever. "I" think "it" is pretty ghastly to put all pronouns within quotes.

2. Why not just remove the redundant words, and just say, exactly, what you mean instead?

Well, in this case, the first instance may have been an oversight, and regardless, I have stylistic reasons, and lastly, it doesn't matter, because I aspire to be an exoteric writer, anyway.

When 'you' put an 's' at the of 'ourselve' was this intended to be plural because there is definitely more than 'one'? Or, did 'you' just use 'that word' out of habit?

Neither. "Ourselve" is not a word (nor is "ourself", for that matter).

Okay.

But, and obviously, the word 'ourselves' means more than one, right?

Or, is the word 'ourselves' meaning and/or referring to just the One?

It means more than one, yes, and was meant to be referring to more than one in case there is more than one. Methinks you're focusing too much on form and not enough on content, though, if you didn't get that from what I said.

The word was already in scare quotes,

1. What does a word in so-called 'scare quotes' actually mean, to you?

2. Is the way you perceive and use so-called scare quotes the exact same for absolutely every one?

3. What do you even mean when you use the words 'scare quotes'?

Are you always so pedantic? And aren't you because you want to put the onus for not understanding the other on the other? Because that's what it seems like, to me. Here's another example:

https://forum.philosophynow.org/posting.php?mode=quote&p=728152

and moreover, the very conditional clause in which I used it already strongly implied that there need not be anything beyond "ourselves".

So, again, if the word 'ourselves' implies more than one, is 'this' what you are implying, or meaning, when you write and use the word 'ourselves'?

In other words, is the word 'ourselves' here referring to just 'the One' or to 'more than one'?

Dude... It's referring to more than one if there be more than one. The (scare) quotes serve to confirm that I don't think there necessarily is more than one—confirm, for that's what that very conditional clause says.

Also, was an 's' put at the end of 'being' because there is, irrefutably, more than 'one'? Or, again, was this just done 'out of habit', for one reason anyway?


So, if the, absolutely, only thing that can be 'known', for sure, is that only 'the one', perceiving, (guessing, or concocting) instrument exists, then any perception of 'others' could just be a False and/or Wrong perception, (guess, or concoction), obviously.

So, if the 'only thing' that can be 'known', for sure, is that 'I', a perceiving, guessing, or concocting 'instrument' exists, then the actual irrefutable Truth is that absolutely any claim at all of or about 'others' could all well be just a/nother made up concoction and guess, which is providing a False and Wrong perception, to the One and only One, 'I'.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. And in fact, I don't even think the "instrument" needs to exist, but only the perceptions, guesses, or concoctions.

Thank you for clarifying.

So, when you said 'instrument', you did not mean 'an instrument', but rather just 'a perception', maybe just 'an awareness', or even just 'consciousness', exists, correct?

Well, the word "instrument" was not mine, but Alexis Jacobi's. I simply did him the courtesy of responding on his own terms.

If yes, then 'I' agree with this, up to a certain point. In that for 'Consciousness' or 'Awareness', (or even 'perception'), to be existing, there would have to be some sort of 'instrument' for this to be happening, and/or occurring.

I disagree. Where did you get this "would have to"? Isn't that itself a perception (or guess, or concoction), that it would have to?

But, then again, this might just be the 'I's', or 'this One's', 'perception', (guess, or concoction), only.

However, what the actual irrefutable Truth is, exactly, will be coming-to-light, soon enough.

It will? Sounds quite apocalyptic, especially with all the capitals you place at the beginning of words like "one" and "truth"...

[Age]

The latter, yes.

Okay. So, the word 'us' is absolutely completely redundant, correct?

No. Maybe I should have already have put it in (scare) quotes there, but I'm not going to do so all the time, anyway. A stylistic choice, I suppose.

In my first and last sentences, I didn't use scare quotes, but in my central sentence I did, to make precisely this point.

1. What you call scare quotes, others do not.

Well, whatever. "I" think "it" is pretty ghastly to put all pronouns within quotes.

Okay, but just sometimes there are some very reasonable reasons why quote marks are used.

2. Why not just remove the redundant words, and just say, exactly, what you mean instead?

Well, in this case, the first instance may have been an oversight, and regardless, I have stylistic reasons, and lastly, it doesn't matter, because I aspire to be an exoteric writer, anyway.

Neither. "Ourselve" is not a word (nor is "ourself", for that matter).

Okay.

But, and obviously, the word 'ourselves' means more than one, right?

Or, is the word 'ourselves' meaning and/or referring to just the One?

It means more than one, yes, and was meant to be referring to more than one in case there is more than one. Methinks you're focusing too much on form and not enough on content, though, if you didn't get that from what I said.

So, like previously when you said and wrote 'any of us' and what you actually meant was there is only just 'One', also when you say and write 'ourselves' what you actually mean is that there is only 'One', right?

The word was already in scare quotes,

1. What does a word in so-called 'scare quotes' actually mean, to you?

2. Is the way you perceive and use so-called scare quotes the exact same for absolutely every one?

3. What do you even mean when you use the words 'scare quotes'?

Are you always so pedantic?

Do you mean here, in a 'philosophy forum', where absolute accuracy in order to obtain absolute clarity and understanding is needed, only, or in other places as well?

Also, notice how 'these people', back then, rarely, if ever, actually answer and clarify the clarifying questions that I ask/ed them.

What I will also be showing and exposing is the very actual reason why these people would not 'just clarify'.

And aren't you because you want to put the onus for not understanding the other on the other?

1. 'Aren't I' what, exactly?

2. Why do some of you posters here presume or believe that I am putting some sort of 'onus' for 'not understanding' onto 'the other'?

3. I am just asking clarifying questions so that I can gain a better understanding, only. Why would me doing this, be mistaken, or seen, as me ' putting 'an onus' for not understanding 'the other', 'on the other' '?

How else, or what better way, could one obtain a better understanding of another if not through just asking Truly open clarifying questions, without any 'judgmental view' at all being had nor made?

Because that's what it seems like, to me. Here's another example:

https://forum.philosophynow.org/posting.php?mode=quote&p=728152

you adding this link here seems like, to me, you just trying to deflect, not intentionally but because you are completely missing and misunderstanding what I am actually doing here.

and moreover, the very conditional clause in which I used it already strongly implied that there need not be anything beyond "ourselves".

So, again, if the word 'ourselves' implies more than one, is 'this' what you are implying, or meaning, when you write and use the word 'ourselves'?

In other words, is the word 'ourselves' here referring to just 'the One' or to 'more than one'?

Dude... It's referring to more than one if there be more than one.

Were you not yet aware that 'this' absolutely contradicts your previous claim above here?

Also, is there 'just One', or 'more than one', to 'you'?

The (scare) quotes serve to confirm that I don't think there necessarily is more than one—confirm, for that's what that very conditional clause says.

Okay, but 'you', still, want to persist with words and terms like, 'ourselves', which actually mean 'more than one', right?

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. And in fact, I don't even think the "instrument" needs to exist, but only the perceptions, guesses, or concoctions.

Thank you for clarifying.

So, when you said 'instrument', you did not mean 'an instrument', but rather just 'a perception', maybe just 'an awareness', or even just 'consciousness', exists, correct?

Well, the word "instrument" was not mine, but Alexis Jacobi's. I simply did him the courtesy of responding on his own terms.

But, responding on, and with, 'a term', which you do not even think needs to exist.

If yes, then 'I' agree with this, up to a certain point. In that for 'Consciousness' or 'Awareness', (or even 'perception'), to be existing, there would have to be some sort of 'instrument' for this to be happening, and/or occurring.

I disagree. Where did you get this "would have to"?

From the very Fact that some thing would have to exist for 'consciousness', or 'perception' itself, to exist.

Isn't that itself a perception (or guess, or concoction), that it would have to?

I already answered, and thus clarified, this below.

But, then again, this might just be the 'I's', or 'this One's', 'perception', (guess, or concoction), only.

However, what the actual irrefutable Truth is, exactly, will be coming-to-light, soon enough.

It will?

For those of you who have not yet 'seen' 'It', yes.

Sounds quite apocalyptic, especially with all the capitals you place at the beginning of words like "one" and "truth"...

Okay.

[Iwannaplato]

Are you able to inform the readers here of what you do when someone posts some thing, that you respond to here, or in response to you, that you consider false?

I do a range of things. Ignore it. Point out why I think it is false. Write that it is false. Ask questions to see if I understand. Point out the implications of what they said to see if they are comfortable with those. If I have seen posts by this person before, I might point to things they have said that do not fit with what I consider false. Sometimes I give a counterexample. I might ask how they drew the conclusion, if they haven't show that. Or I might ask how they drew a conclusion that is part of their justification for what they've written I consider false. I might ask how it plays out in their lives that they believe this. I might present a counter view and see what they do with that. That's some of the things that come to mind directly. I am sure there are others reactions and approaches.

You know, not unlike what you said in answer to my questions about some of the things you do. Thank you for those answers.

[Age]

Are you able to inform the readers here of what you do when someone posts some thing, that you respond to here, or in response to you, that you consider false?

I do a range of things. Ignore it. Point out why I think it is false. Write that it is false. Ask questions to see if I understand. Point out the implications of what they said to see if they are comfortable with those. If I have seen posts by this person before, I might point to things they have said that do not fit with what I consider false. Sometimes I give a counterexample. I might ask how they drew the conclusion, if they haven't show that. Or I might ask how they drew a conclusion that is part of their justification for what they've written I consider false. I might ask how it plays out in their lives that they believe this. I might present a counter view and see what they do with that. That's some of the things that come to mind directly. I am sure there are others reactions and approaches.

Great. So, 'you' and 'I' do more or less the exact same things, some times.

You know, not unlike what you said in answer to my questions about some of the things you do. Thank you for those answers.

Now that 'you' have 'this' answered, and clarified, did 'this clarification' help 'you' in any way here?

If yes, then how was that, exactly?

[Iwannaplato]

Now that 'you' have 'this' answered, and clarified, did 'this clarification' help 'you' in any way here?

If yes, then how was that, exactly?

Oh, it confirmed that what seemed to you, early in this specific interaction, wasn't really the case, even from your perspective, once one goes into the details, rather than staying with the generalized reaction/potential judgment.

[Self-Lightening]

Okay.

But, and obviously, the word 'ourselves' means more than one, right?

Or, is the word 'ourselves' meaning and/or referring to just the One?

It means more than one, yes, and was meant to be referring to more than one in case there is more than one. Methinks you're focusing too much on form and not enough on content, though, if you didn't get that from what I said.

So, like previously when you said and wrote 'any of us' and what you actually meant was there is only just 'One', also when you say and write 'ourselves' what you actually mean is that there is only 'One', right?

No, not necessarily. Here's what I wrote there:

'The least far-fetched supposition, then—if "we" suppose there's anything beyond "ourselves" at all—, is that only such mutable beings exist.'

If "we" suppose there's nothing beyond "ourselves", then '"ourselves"'—and '"we"', for that matter—means only one: namely, the concoction (instrument) "me". But if "we" suppose there is something beyond "ourselves", then '"ourselves"' means more than one: namely the perception instrument "me" and all other such mutable beings.

1. What does a word in so-called 'scare quotes' actually mean, to you?

2. Is the way you perceive and use so-called scare quotes the exact same for absolutely every one?

3. What do you even mean when you use the words 'scare quotes'?

Are you always so pedantic?

Do you mean here, in a 'philosophy forum', where absolute accuracy in order to obtain absolute clarity and understanding is needed, only, or in other places as well?

Also, notice how 'these people', back then, rarely, if ever, actually answer and clarify the clarifying questions that I ask/ed them.

What I will also be showing and exposing is the very actual reason why these people would not 'just clarify'.

And aren't you because you want to put the onus for not understanding the other on the other?

1. 'Aren't I' what, exactly?

So pedantic. And yeah, I meant here in the Philosophy Now Forum.

There's no such thing as absolute accuracy in language; and as for clarity and understanding,

"By a Magus is this writing made known through the mind of a Magister. The one uttereth clearly, and the other understandeth; yet the Word is falsehood, and the Understanding darkness. And this saying is Of All Truth." (Aleister Crowley, "The Book of the Magus".)

2. Why do some of you posters here presume or believe that I am putting some sort of 'onus' for 'not understanding' onto 'the other'?

3. I am just asking clarifying questions so that I can gain a better understanding, only. Why would me doing this, be mistaken, or seen, as me ' putting 'an onus' for not understanding 'the other', 'on the other' '?

How else, or what better way, could one obtain a better understanding of another if not through just asking Truly open clarifying questions, without any 'judgmental view' at all being had nor made?

Somehow, you very much do seem to have a judgmental view to me and, so it also seems to me, to others as well...

Because that's what it seems like, to me. Here's another example:

https://forum.philosophynow.org/posting.php?mode=quote&p=728152

you adding this link here seems like, to me, you just trying to deflect, not intentionally but because you are completely missing and misunderstanding what I am actually doing here.

So, again, if the word 'ourselves' implies more than one, is 'this' what you are implying, or meaning, when you write and use the word 'ourselves'?

In other words, is the word 'ourselves' here referring to just 'the One' or to 'more than one'?

Dude... It's referring to more than one if there be more than one.

Were you not yet aware that 'this' absolutely contradicts your previous claim above here?

No, nor am I now. Please quote both supposedly contradictory claims below.

Also, is there 'just One', or 'more than one', to 'you'?

The (scare) quotes serve to confirm that I don't think there necessarily is more than one—confirm, for that's what that very conditional clause says.

Okay, but 'you', still, want to persist with words and terms like, 'ourselves', which actually mean 'more than one', right?

Right.

Thank you for clarifying.

So, when you said 'instrument', you did not mean 'an instrument', but rather just 'a perception', maybe just 'an awareness', or even just 'consciousness', exists, correct?

Well, the word "instrument" was not mine, but Alexis Jacobi's. I simply did him the courtesy of responding on his own terms.

But, responding on, and with, 'a term', which you do not even think needs to exist.

I think what that term refers to need not exist—but may, and therefore the term does need to exist.

If yes, then 'I' agree with this, up to a certain point. In that for 'Consciousness' or 'Awareness', (or even 'perception'), to be existing, there would have to be some sort of 'instrument' for this to be happening, and/or occurring.

I disagree. Where did you get this "would have to"?

From the very Fact that some thing would have to exist for 'consciousness', or 'perception' itself, to exist.

That's just a rephrasing, not an explanation. Why would anything but "consciousness" or "perception" have to exist for "consciousness" or "perception" to exist?

Isn't that itself a perception (or guess, or concoction), that it would have to?

I already answered, and thus clarified, this below.

But, then again, this might just be the 'I's', or 'this One's', 'perception', (guess, or concoction), only.

However, what the actual irrefutable Truth is, exactly, will be coming-to-light, soon enough.

It will?

For those of you who have not yet 'seen' 'It', yes.

If you say so.

In any case, I suppose we do agree that the some sort of "instrument" there would have to be for the existence of "consciousness" or "awareness" or "perception" to happen and/or occur, might itself just be the "perception", guess, or concoction of the "I" or "this one" (in quotes because the "I" or "this one" is then itself a "perception", guess, or concoction).

[Iwannaplato]

Somehow, you very much do seem to have a judgmental view to me and, so it also seems to me, to others as well...

Yup.

[Atla]

It means more than one, yes, and was meant to be referring to more than one in case there is more than one. Methinks you're focusing too much on form and not enough on content, though, if you didn't get that from what I said.

So, like previously when you said and wrote 'any of us' and what you actually meant was there is only just 'One', also when you say and write 'ourselves' what you actually mean is that there is only 'One', right?

No, not necessarily. Here's what I wrote there:

'The least far-fetched supposition, then—if "we" suppose there's anything beyond "ourselves" at all—, is that only such mutable beings exist.'

If "we" suppose there's nothing beyond "ourselves", then '"ourselves"'—and '"we"', for that matter—means only one: namely, the concoction (instrument) "me". But if "we" suppose there is something beyond "ourselves", then '"ourselves"' means more than one: namely the perception instrument "me" and all other such mutable beings.

Are you always so pedantic?

Do you mean here, in a 'philosophy forum', where absolute accuracy in order to obtain absolute clarity and understanding is needed, only, or in other places as well?

Also, notice how 'these people', back then, rarely, if ever, actually answer and clarify the clarifying questions that I ask/ed them.

What I will also be showing and exposing is the very actual reason why these people would not 'just clarify'.

And aren't you because you want to put the onus for not understanding the other on the other?

1. 'Aren't I' what, exactly?

So pedantic. And yeah, I meant here in the Philosophy Now Forum.

There's no such thing as absolute accuracy in language; and as for clarity and understanding,

"By a Magus is this writing made known through the mind of a Magister. The one uttereth clearly, and the other understandeth; yet the Word is falsehood, and the Understanding darkness. And this saying is Of All Truth." (Aleister Crowley, "The Book of the Magus".)

2. Why do some of you posters here presume or believe that I am putting some sort of 'onus' for 'not understanding' onto 'the other'?

3. I am just asking clarifying questions so that I can gain a better understanding, only. Why would me doing this, be mistaken, or seen, as me ' putting 'an onus' for not understanding 'the other', 'on the other' '?

How else, or what better way, could one obtain a better understanding of another if not through just asking Truly open clarifying questions, without any 'judgmental view' at all being had nor made?

Somehow, you very much do seem to have a judgmental view to me and, so it also seems to me, to others as well...

Because that's what it seems like, to me. Here's another example:

https://forum.philosophynow.org/posting.php?mode=quote&p=728152

you adding this link here seems like, to me, you just trying to deflect, not intentionally but because you are completely missing and misunderstanding what I am actually doing here.

Dude... It's referring to more than one if there be more than one.

Were you not yet aware that 'this' absolutely contradicts your previous claim above here?

No, nor am I now. Please quote both supposedly contradictory claims below.

Also, is there 'just One', or 'more than one', to 'you'?

The (scare) quotes serve to confirm that I don't think there necessarily is more than one—confirm, for that's what that very conditional clause says.

Okay, but 'you', still, want to persist with words and terms like, 'ourselves', which actually mean 'more than one', right?

Right.

Well, the word "instrument" was not mine, but Alexis Jacobi's. I simply did him the courtesy of responding on his own terms.

But, responding on, and with, 'a term', which you do not even think needs to exist.

I think what that term refers to need not exist—but may, and therefore the term does need to exist.

I disagree. Where did you get this "would have to"?

From the very Fact that some thing would have to exist for 'consciousness', or 'perception' itself, to exist.

That's just a rephrasing, not an explanation. Why would anything but "consciousness" or "perception" have to exist for "consciousness" or "perception" to exist?

Isn't that itself a perception (or guess, or concoction), that it would have to?

I already answered, and thus clarified, this below.

It will?

For those of you who have not yet 'seen' 'It', yes.

If you say so.

In any case, I suppose we do agree that the some sort of "instrument" there would have to be for the existence of "consciousness" or "awareness" or "perception" to happen and/or occur, might itself just be the "perception", guess, or concoction of the "I" or "this one" (in quotes because the "I" or "this one" is then itself a "perception", guess, or concoction).

Just treat Age like she/he was missing the entire right hemisphere. It somehow works.

[Iwannaplato]

Just treat Age like she/he was missing the entire right hemisphere. It somehow works.

Pow, spot on! Hey you ever read The Master and His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist. He has a really interesting take on the hemispheres and what has happened over time. Interdisciplinary and a very interesting read, even if one doesn't end up agreeing with all or some. The focus is, in a sense, the problems with precisely that lack of balance.

[Atla]

Just treat Age like she/he was missing the entire right hemisphere. It somehow works.

Pow, spot on! Hey you ever read The Master and His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist. He has a really interesting take on the hemispheres and what has happened over time. Interdisciplinary and a very interesting read, even if one doesn't end up agreeing with all or some. The focus is, in a sense, the problems with precisely that lack of balance.

No I haven't, and my neuroscientific knowledge is lacking in general, hope I'll find the time eventually to get more up-to-date.

[Iwannaplato]

Just treat Age like she/he was missing the entire right hemisphere. It somehow works.

Pow, spot on! Hey you ever read The Master and His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist. He has a really interesting take on the hemispheres and what has happened over time. Interdisciplinary and a very interesting read, even if one doesn't end up agreeing with all or some. The focus is, in a sense, the problems with precisely that lack of balance.

No I haven't, and my neuroscientific knowledge is lacking in general, hope I'll find the time eventually to get more up-to-date.

It's not hard to follow for the generally decently read. But, yeah, there's so many things to learn.