Triune or Nondual God 🤔

[Alexis Jacobi]

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

Yes! Yes! And as I expound in Section 3, Subsection 5-6 of The Course, many intelligent birds (magpies, crows & ravens, parrots, etc.) do seem to recognize at least some metaphysical truths. I expound in that illuminating section a curious interaction I had for weeks with a magpie in the patio of the Starbucks at 120th and I-25 in Thornton, CO.

[Alexis Jacobi]

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

They say •A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step•.

You are right on the very verge of making that momentous step!

What is man’s world, Age?

[Age]

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.

Will you clarify what all of what you say and claim here is in reference to, exactly?

If no, then why not?

[Iwannaplato]

Will you clarify what all of what you say and claim here is in reference to, exactly?

No, I am done adapting to your way of having a conversation, which has included adapting to your inability to remember things, including things that you have said. I have done this quite a bit in the past, and it does not lead anywhere. You'll have to do your own work, if you are interested.

[Fairy]

Will you clarify what all of what you say and claim here is in reference to, exactly?

If no, then why not?

Why not! Because you have to do your own nobody home work, just like everyone else has to do theirs.

If you have to question by asking anything at all, then who else do you think you are you talking to.

Did you simply imagine another knowing entity. This belief in many knowers, is futile since imaginary people do not exist. The paradox is unbelievable because by questioning and asking other imaginary others, assuming they know the truth too reinforces the belief in imaginary characters who can know the truth. Every one who claims to know, will know the truth…but only in an imagined sense.


And that is how I know
When I try to get through
On the telephone to you
There will be nobody home



Only when each and every one of us have taken the time and effort to do their own nobody home work will each and everyone of us get through to each imagined other what it is every one is trying to communicate with itself, namely the truth.

Truth is not for the lazy or half hearted can’t be bothered types. It takes dedication and consistency, it’s a full on exhausting but worthwhile project. The end result is astoundingly rewarding.

No one knows truth like you. It’s not outside of you in some external others. Because others have their truth too, they got it from the exact place you did.

Good luck.


PS when you do eventually come into alignment with your own truth, you will have no more need to ask your imaginary friends anything ever again.

[Age]

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".

So, what was actually meant here was closer to the term "myself", instead of.the term "ourselves", because the word 'our' or "ourselves" implies, means, or refers to more than one, right?

And, lthough the "myself" word is also a contraction in terms, and thus, what will become blatantly clear and obvious anyway, is self-refuting as well

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.

But why 'suppose' either of these things when just 'looking at', 'seeing', and 'expressing' only 'that' what is actually irrefutably True and Right instead could be done just as easily, and if not, then even easier?

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.

But I am not so-called 'so pedantic' because I want to put the onus for not understanding the other on there other, for a couple of reasons:

1. I am not not understanding 'the other', in 'the way' that you, and others, here imagine.

2. So, I am not putting the onus on 'the other'.

3. By asking clarifying questions to 'another' I am allowing 'the other' to show and prove just how much, or how little, they, really, know in regards to their assertions and/or claims, here.

And, if in 'this forum' is what you meant above, then some would, surely, say that yes I am, always, so so-called 'pedantic', here.

But, then again, you people have different views and different definitions on what the word 'pedantic' even, actually, means, anyway, right?

There's no such thing as absolute accuracy in language;

Is this an absolute accuracy?

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".)

But, there is no, actual, 'mind of ...'.

There is, instead, and again, only One Mind.

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...

Yes, this true. you human beings do have views and perspectives of things, which seem to be accurate or true, but which are not, or are not necessarily so at all, or partly so.

This phenomena, by the way, happened quite frequently to you adult human beings, back in those days when this was being written, because you would, quite frequently, only 'look at' and 'see' things from your own personal perspective only, and you would do so from what I call APE-thinking or from the APE perspective, just about only.

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.


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

No, nor am I now.

Okay.

Please quote both supposedly contradictory claims below.

you said and claimed that you were only meaning 'one' only, but then you, again, went on to use terms that, literally, mean 'more than one'.

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



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

Right.

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

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. [/quote]

So, you do not yet know, for sure, what the actual Truth is here, right?

If yes, then would you, also, like to become aware, and know?

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? [/quote]

Because of the simple fact that if there was nothing else but 'consciousness', or 'perception', itself, then there simply would not be any thing to 'perceive', nor to be 'conscious' about. As well as, if there was no other thing than 'consciousness' or 'perception', only, then how could it even be theoretically possible, let alone actually possibly be?

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).

[Age]

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

Yes! Yes! And as I expound in Section 3, Subsection 5-6 of The Course, many intelligent birds (magpies, crows & ravens, parrots, etc.) do seem to recognize at least some metaphysical truths. I expound in that illuminating section a curious interaction I had for weeks with a magpie in the patio of the Starbucks at 120th and I-25 in Thornton, CO.

Okay.

[Age]

Will you clarify what all of what you say and claim here is in reference to, exactly?

No, I am done adapting to your way of having a conversation, which has included adapting to your inability to remember things, including things that you have said. I have done this quite a bit in the past, and it does not lead anywhere. You'll have to do your own work, if you are interested.

LOL

Once again this one will not just clarify.

[Iwannaplato]

Will you clarify what all of what you say and claim here is in reference to, exactly?

No, I am done adapting to your way of having a conversation, which has included adapting to your inability to remember things, including things that you have said. I have done this quite a bit in the past, and it does not lead anywhere. You'll have to do your own work, if you are interested.

LOL

Once again this one will not just clarify.

Actually, it is 'once again Age expects others to keep track of what he says and what has happened in the interaction' and it's no surprise that someone else on this very page has the same kind of reaction to your habits/patterns. So, you can stick that LOL back in that mouth, a mouth that I doubt actually, literally, laughed.

[Alexis Jacobi]

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…
[…]

For the sake of better understanding I wonder if you might offer an example of what Nietzsche could have been referring to?

While I do certainly grasp that those descriptions of the world, our world, can be fantastic over-impositions and embellishments — projections, inventions — that are superimposed on ‘reality’, I tend to try to focus on the quintessence of what is implied by a given fantastic story, if that makes sense.

When the essence is identified, then the story reveals the meaning, which is actually distinct from the elements of the story.

Thus in my own case, I regard the real meaning as being real. I.e. as “existing” except in no sense comparable to physical existence. Which is why I always use the term metaphysical.

It is the metaphysical that really determines the human world.

The question is whether there could not be many other way[s] of creating such an apparent world

As to the tangible, physical world, I don’t see how. But definitely to the interpreted world.

(I hope I am making sense. There is a magpie bird-war going on in my neighborhood as I write this. Rather distracting.)

[Self-Lightening]

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…
[…]

For the sake of better understanding I wonder if you might offer an example of what Nietzsche could have been referring to?

While I do certainly grasp that those descriptions of the world, our world, can be fantastic over-impositions and embellishments — projections, inventions — that are superimposed on ‘reality’, I tend to try to focus on the quintessence of what is implied by a given fantastic story, if that makes sense.

When the essence is identified, then the story reveals the meaning, which is actually distinct from the elements of the story.

Thus in my own case, I regard the real meaning as being real. I.e. as “existing” except in no sense comparable to physical existence. Which is why I always use the term metaphysical.

It is the metaphysical that really determines the human world.

It doesn't really make sense to ask for examples. And I don't see what any of what you just said has to do with it. Let me try again.

1. Everything I ("I") experience may be a hallucination, and there need not be a hallucinator for there to be hallucinations, for the idea that there must be may itself be hallucinatory.
2. Everything I experience may be an illusion (not a hallucination). That is to say, I may see things wrongly, but the things I see wrongly may still exist, and so may I myself.
3. In the latter case, those things may be absolutely different from myself, in that they do not themselves see things (wrongly).
4. Or, they may be relatively similar to myself, in that they themselves also see things wrongly.

If I leap beyond 1, then it's a smaller leap to 4 than to 3, because it stays closer to 2. If I am a subject who sees things subjectively, it's less far-fetched to suppose that the things I see subjectively are themselves also subjects who see things subjectively than that they are subjects who see things objectively or objects which do not see anything at all.

The question is whether there could not be many other way[s] of creating such an apparent world

As to the tangible, physical world, I don’t see how. But definitely to the interpreted world.

Well, what do you mean by "tangible"? Touch is a sense, like sight or smell. There may be actual sensations occurring, but to categorize those as touch, sense, smell, etc. is already interpretation.

The point is that what we "sense" is probably another subject like us, in that it also interprets sensations of us, rather than an object which does not interpret at all.

(I hope I am making sense. There is a magpie bird-war going on in my neighborhood as I write this. Rather distracting.)

What Nietzsche and I are basically saying is that all existence is a kind of magpie bird-war, and nothing besides.

main-qimg-247a9edf4fd371b781a47c3981b94fe8.png

[Self-Lightening]

But why 'suppose' either of these things when just 'looking at', 'seeing', and 'expressing' only 'that' what is actually irrefutably True and Right instead could be done just as easily, and if not, then even easier?

Well, the only such "Truth" is the following, though I'm quite sure it's not what you mean:

"Nothing is easier to perceive than reality's emptiness. Genuine philosophy or science is the realization that nothing, no divine or natural order, endows anything with a non-arbitrary being, an identity not subject to radical change at any moment. There is nothing in (or behind or above) things to make them more than empty experiences, impressions as Hume called them. Reality and everything in it is nothing but empty impressions, experiences, bigotries, dreams whose dreamer is himself a dream." (Harry Neumann, "What is Bigotry?")

There's no such thing as absolute accuracy in language;

Is this an absolute accuracy?

Yes and no.

There is, instead, and again, only One Mind.

If you say so.

you said and claimed that you were only meaning 'one' only, but then you, again, went on to use terms that, literally, mean 'more than one'.

No, the whole point was that I neither claimed that there was one only, nor that there was more than one. There may be none, or one, or more than one. But if there's one—myself—, and I suppose there's more than one—others—, then it's less far-fetched to suppose those others are (somewhat) similar to me than that they're completely different.

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

To "me", there's either one mind—"mine"—, or many minds—"mine" and "others'". I usually hold the latter, for if the former is true, the latter is what the former dreams up, anyhow.

So, you do not yet know, for sure, what the actual Truth is here, right?

If yes, then would you, also, like to become aware, and know?

Right, and yes, in that order. However, it's most improbable that you do know for sure what the actual truth is.

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?

Because of the simple fact that if there was nothing else but 'consciousness', or 'perception', itself, then there simply would not be any thing to 'perceive', nor to be 'conscious' about. As well as, if there was no other thing than 'consciousness' or 'perception', only, then how could it even be theoretically possible, let alone actually possibly be?

Right, so you're still all the way back there... You may want to note that I adopted Alexis Jacobi's terms "guess" and "concoct" as possible synonyms of "perceive", and also used (scare) quotes around words like "consciousness" and "perception". There need not be a perceiver or a perceived for there to be "perception", because it may really be a concoction or a hallucination.

I think you're just a proselytizer caught in a web of language.

"I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar." (Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols.)

[Age]

But why 'suppose' either of these things when just 'looking at', 'seeing', and 'expressing' only 'that' what is actually irrefutably True and Right instead could be done just as easily, and if not, then even easier?

Well, the only such "Truth" is the following, though I'm quite sure it's not what you mean:

"Nothing is easier to perceive than reality's emptiness.

Why do 'you', the one known here as "self-lightening", believe, absolutely, that this is the only Truth?

And, especially considering all of the, perceived, things 'before you'?

Genuine philosophy or science is the realization that nothing, no divine or natural order, endows anything with a non-arbitrary being, an identity not subject to radical change at any moment.

So, if any other 'view', besides the one/s "self-lightening" has, then 'those views' are not so-called 'genuine philosophy nor science', right?

There is nothing in (or behind or above) things to make them more than empty experiences, impressions as Hume called them. Reality and everything in it is nothing but empty impressions, experiences, bigotries, dreams whose dreamer is himself a dream." (Harry Neumann, "What is Bigotry?")

If 'you' say and believe so, then this is the one and Only, real and true, view, here, right?

There's no such thing as absolute accuracy in language;

Is this an absolute accuracy?

Yes and no.

Okay. Would you like to elaborate on this, or do you believe that this will suffice how it 'stands', here?

There is, instead, and again, only One Mind.

If you say so.

Do 'you' believe that there is not only One Mind, only?

you said and claimed that you were only meaning 'one' only, but then you, again, went on to use terms that, literally, mean 'more than one'.

No, the whole point was that I neither claimed that there was one only, nor that there was more than one.

I thought that when I asked you to clarify what you actually meant when you said and wrote, 'any of us', above here, and that when you replied that it meant; 'that 'the One' is perceiving, (guessing, or concocting), that there is more than just 'this One'.

But, I must of been mistaken, right?

There may be none, or one, or more than one.

Well this is obviously impossible, ant thus False.

But if there's one—myself—,

The word and term 'myself' is an oxymoron, a contradiction in term, and thus is self-refuting.

and I suppose there's more than one—others—, then it's less far-fetched to suppose those others are (somewhat) similar to me than that they're completely different.

Okay. But, one has to start off with the actual Truth, to end up with the actual Truth.

Otherwise you will end up going, and, down Wrong and/or False tangents, and 'paths'. As can be clearly seen throughout this forum.

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

To "me", there's either one mind—"mine"—, or many minds—"mine" and "others'". I usually hold the latter, for if the former is true, the latter is what the former dreams up, anyhow.

Okay.

So, you do not yet know, for sure, what the actual Truth is here, right?

If yes, then would you, also, like to become aware, and know?

Right, and yes, in that order. However, it's most improbable that you do know for sure what the actual truth is.

Why, to 'you', would this be so-called 'most improbable', exactly?

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

Because of the simple fact that if there was nothing else but 'consciousness', or 'perception', itself, then there simply would not be any thing to 'perceive', nor to be 'conscious' about. As well as, if there was no other thing than 'consciousness' or 'perception', only, then how could it even be theoretically possible, let alone actually possibly be?

Right, so you're still all the way back there...

Where is 'back there', exactly?

You may want to note that I adopted Alexis Jacobi's terms "guess" and "concoct" as possible synonyms of "perceive", and also used (scare) quotes around words like "consciousness" and "perception".

Did 'you' inform 'us' before what so-called 'scare quotes' mean, or denote to, exactly, to 'you', when used, 'by you'?

If yes, then where and when, exactly?

But, if no, then will you 'now'?

There need not be a perceiver or a perceived for there to be "perception", because it may really be a concoction or a hallucination.

But, 'now' 'we' are 'back to' 'you' explaining to 'us' how it could be logically and physically possible for a 'concoction' or 'hallucination' to exist, exactly, if there was no other thing existing?

I think you're just a proselytizer caught in a web of language.

Okay. This is just another one, to add to the continually growing list.

"I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar." (Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols.)

[Fairy]

"I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar." (Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols.)

Great quote, so true. Truth unwritten

[Self-Lightening]

But why 'suppose' either of these things when just 'looking at', 'seeing', and 'expressing' only 'that' what is actually irrefutably True and Right instead could be done just as easily, and if not, then even easier?

Well, the only such "Truth" is the following, though I'm quite sure it's not what you mean:

"Nothing is easier to perceive than reality's emptiness.

Why do 'you', the one known here as "self-lightening", believe, absolutely, that this is the only Truth?

I didn't say I believed it absolutely. It's just that, as Neumann says there, "[n]othing is easier to perceive". In fact, as he exclaims in the same book,

"What is clearer than the impossibility of experiencing anything but experiences!" (Neumann, Liberalism, page 35.)

The question, then, is whether those experiences are experiences of something (and by someone) or not. They may be, or they may not.

And, especially considering all of the, perceived, things 'before you'?

What perceived things? All "I" know are "perceptions", impressions, experiences.

Genuine philosophy or science is the realization that nothing, no divine or natural order, endows anything with a non-arbitrary being, an identity not subject to radical change at any moment.

So, if any other 'view', besides the one/s "self-lightening" has, then 'those views' are not so-called 'genuine philosophy nor science', right?

"Heidegger's 'Age of the World-View' rightly notes that 'world view' understood scientifically 'does not mean a view of the world, but the world understood as a view (or picture).[']" (op.cit., page 3.)

There is nothing in (or behind or above) things to make them more than empty experiences, impressions as Hume called them. Reality and everything in it is nothing but empty impressions, experiences, bigotries, dreams whose dreamer is himself a dream." (Harry Neumann, "What is Bigotry?")

If 'you' say and believe so, then this is the one and Only, real and true, view, here, right?

See above.

Is this an absolute accuracy?

Yes and no.

Okay. Would you like to elaborate on this, or do you believe that this will suffice how it 'stands', here?

Yes.

There is, instead, and again, only One Mind.

If you say so.

Do 'you' believe that there is not only One Mind, only?

I do tend to believe that, yes. "I" am one mind, "you" are another, and there is no overarching one.

you said and claimed that you were only meaning 'one' only, but then you, again, went on to use terms that, literally, mean 'more than one'.

No, the whole point was that I neither claimed that there was one only, nor that there was more than one.

I thought that when I asked you to clarify what you actually meant when you said and wrote, 'any of us', above here, and that when you replied that it meant; 'that 'the One' is perceiving, (guessing, or concocting), that there is more than just 'this One'.

But, I must of been mistaken, right?

Yes. "I" know that the mind "I" am—'am', not 'have', hence the scare quotes—exists. The question is whether other minds exist.

There may be none, or one, or more than one.

Well this is obviously impossible, ant thus False.

You mean, it's impossible that there are none? Well, what I meant there is that there may be no I, no thing, no substance. "Something" certainly exists, even if it's just a—single—hallucination.

But if there's one—myself—,

The word and term 'myself' is an oxymoron, a contradiction in term, and thus is self-refuting.

So the terms "my" and "self" contradict each other? Please explain.

and I suppose there's more than one—others—, then it's less far-fetched to suppose those others are (somewhat) similar to me than that they're completely different.

Okay. But, one has to start off with the actual Truth, to end up with the actual Truth.

No, that's just your circular reasoning—typical of a believer.

So, you do not yet know, for sure, what the actual Truth is here, right?

If yes, then would you, also, like to become aware, and know?

Right, and yes, in that order. However, it's most improbable that you do know for sure what the actual truth is.

Why, to 'you', would this be so-called 'most improbable', exactly?

Because then someone, and in fact you of all people, would have to have had a divine revelation. I do believe people have had experiences that they—and/or their followers—have interpreted that way, but that's just interpretation, not revelation.

Because of the simple fact that if there was nothing else but 'consciousness', or 'perception', itself, then there simply would not be any thing to 'perceive', nor to be 'conscious' about. As well as, if there was no other thing than 'consciousness' or 'perception', only, then how could it even be theoretically possible, let alone actually possibly be?

Right, so you're still all the way back there...

Where is 'back there', exactly?

Back where it's reasoned that, because a predicate requires a subject, an experience requires an experiencer. It doesn't. It merely requires the idea of an experiencer (and an experienced, for that matter).

You may want to note that I adopted Alexis Jacobi's terms "guess" and "concoct" as possible synonyms of "perceive", and also used (scare) quotes around words like "consciousness" and "perception".

Did 'you' inform 'us' before what so-called 'scare quotes' mean, or denote to, exactly, to 'you', when used, 'by you'?

If yes, then where and when, exactly?

But, if no, then will you 'now'?

Nope.

There need not be a perceiver or a perceived for there to be "perception", because it may really be a concoction or a hallucination.

But, 'now' 'we' are 'back to' 'you' explaining to 'us' how it could be logically and physically possible for a 'concoction' or 'hallucination' to exist, exactly, if there was no other thing existing?

No, because there's no need to explain that whatsoever.

I think you're just a proselytizer caught in a web of language.

Okay. This is just another one, to add to the continually growing list.

Yet another wrong-way driver!