What do you think ? 💭

[Fairy]

I can stop any time I want but can you?

Yes, I too can stop talking to myself anytime I want.

I can return to the silent unknowing oneness that is my true essence, or I can make a noise, but that noise will have no source but pure unknowing silence.

[Atla]

I can stop any time I want but can you?

Yes, I too can stop talking to myself anytime I want.

I can return to the silent unknowing oneness that is my true essence, or I can make a noise, but that noise will have no source but pure unknowing silence.

echo

[Fairy]

I can stop any time I want but can you?

Yes, I too can stop talking to myself anytime I want.

I can return to the silent unknowing oneness that is my true essence, or I can make a noise, but that noise will have no source but pure unknowing silence.

echo

Yes.

What we say here in life echoes in eternity.

[Atla]

Yes, I too can stop talking to myself anytime I want.

I can return to the silent unknowing oneness that is my true essence, or I can make a noise, but that noise will have no source but pure unknowing silence.

echo

Yes.

What we say here in life echoes in eternity.

.

[Fairy]

echo

Yes.

What we say here in life echoes in eternity.

.

Silence is the only answer to all our questions.

Oneness has no argument with itself.

[Atla]

Yes.

What we say here in life echoes in eternity.

.

Silence is the only answer to all our questions.

Oneness has no argument with itself.

.

[Fairy]

.

center-of-the-circle-shape-distortion-illusion-explanation.png

God is a circle whose centre is everywhere and circumference nowhere.

In other words, oneness, infinity, nothing and everything. I am that I am.

[Fairy]

The true use of art is, first, to cultivate the artist’s own spiritual nature. - George Inness

Art is natural. Nature is artificial. - Fairy.

[Fairy]

It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong. - Voltaire

This quote suggests that standing up for the truth or being correct in situations where influential people or the majority are wrong can be risky. It highlights the potential backlash, ostracism, or even persecution one might face when challenging established norms, beliefs, or the status quo, especially if those in power are committed to preserving it. It underscores the courage needed to voice out truths or ideas that are contrary to popular opinion or the views of those in authority.

The quote is also a commentary on the human tendency to resist change or new ideas, especially when these challenge long-held beliefs or threaten vested interests. It implies that the truth is not always welcomed or accepted, and that those who dare to speak it may be met with hostility or resistance.

In today’s world, this quote is highly relevant in various fields and contexts. For instance, in politics, whistleblowers who expose corruption or wrongdoings often face retaliation or threats to their safety. In science, new theories or discoveries that challenge established paradigms may be met with skepticism or outright rejection. In social issues, activists who advocate for change often face opposition from those who benefit from maintaining the status quo.

In terms of personal development, this quote may serve as a reminder of the importance of courage, integrity, and resilience. It suggests that standing up for one’s beliefs or principles, even in the face of opposition or adversity, is a crucial aspect of personal growth and character development. It also highlights the need for critical thinking and the ability to question and challenge prevailing norms or beliefs.

However, this quote also serves as a cautionary note. It suggests that being right is not always enough, and that one must also consider the potential consequences and be prepared to face them. It encourages one to balance the pursuit of truth with wisdom and discretion.


It's a filthy job, but someone's got to do it. Action man. The only way to see the value of a play is to see it acted. Act i on.. man.

We have dared to be free. Let us dare to be so by ourselves and for ourselves.

[bahman]

I cam make distinctions yes, conceptually. Via thought here in me, as me, as consciousness here, I can only experience myself, not others. I crave zero access to anything external to my direct consciousness here.

If there was not me, you couldn't possibly have access to my writing and couldn't possibly have a concept of me.

As awareness here, I conceptually create you as an object separate from the awareness observing here. Without I here, there is no you there.

Sure you are wrong in this step. Without you, there is still me!

[Fairy]

If there was not me, you couldn't possibly have access to my writing and couldn't possibly have a concept of me.

As awareness here, I conceptually create you as an object separate from the awareness observing here. Without I here, there is no you there.

Sure you are wrong in this step. Without you, there is still me!

Without me, there is no you there that I can know exists. However, of course you still exist without me here, because the awareness you are there knows you exist there. But if there is no me here to be aware of you there, then you there who still exists is not known to me, because I don’t exist to be aware of you. I need to exist to be aware of otherness.

I cannot know you exist there, until I exist, to know you exist, otherwise you don’t exist for me. This is talking about knowledge of an I that exists. It’s about the knower and the known. It’s about the knowledge of separation, the distinction and the ability to be able to differentiate between you there and me here. It takes two things to separate infinite seamless reality. In this conception there and here are concepts known, within the dream of separation, but not in actuality.

[Age]

You opted not to point out, in your previous post what they meant, so I made that decision regarding that issue, yes.

What is 'they', exactly, which I, supposedly, did not point out what 'they' meant?

And this is one of the consequences of your not explaining directly, rather than simply labeling something as false. If you do that directly, then we don't have to go back and find all the references, which you have a tendency to remember less well than other posters here. Which means that I or other interlocutors must produce more text - which can also then be questioned by you. I find this very inefficient and also not collaborative. But it is, of course, your culture of discussing and obviously I can choose to engage with it or not, so it isn't really problematic. But that's why I am choosing not to go into your culture of communication yet again. I've have dropped by original request and interest in that line.

And, once more this one will not just clarify.

Which makes some wonder why this one comes here, in a philosophy forum of all places, making claims and assertions.

If one can not, will not, or is not prepared to just clarify, then why even begin talking?

I pointed out how the quotes supported what I said, you have just not comprehend this here, again.

No, you did not.

See, how 'this one', continually, does not 'comprehend' things, but, to it, it is not it not comprehending.

And this is rude and continues to not explain or justify.

Oh 'this poor thing' gets affected by some words on a screen in front of it.

Once more, and for the very slow of comprehending and learning, if absolutely any one wants absolutely any thing explained and/or justified, to them, then just inform me of what 'it' is, exactly, that you want explained and/or justified.

I am not sure how I could make this more simpler and easier to comprehend, and understand.

As is your habit, you simply stated that the other person was wrong.

Well if they are wrong, then they are wrong. I am allowed to point out and state this, correct.

I'll take that as a question. Of course, you are allowed to.

Great.

And, once again, if anyone has any curiosity and interest at all, then they will ask some thing like, 'Why?'

What an odd question. If I think you are actually doing something that is not allowed, I'll let you know. Or, perhaps the moderators, though I can't imagine what that would be.

Just out of curiousity, could it possible that you are completely and utterly off on another Wrong tangent here, now, because you are presuming some thing that is completely and utterly Wrong here, once again?

Could it be so-called 'odd' because it does not even relate in anyway to what you are presuming and/or believing here?

And, if absolutely any one wants the actual proof of how and why they are wrong, when I just simply state that they are wrong, then all of you here all already know what to do, right?

1) I know how you prefer to have communication go, your taste there, yes.

And, just so the readers here can see that you actually do know, what is it here, exactly, that you 'do know'?

2) I haven't found proof very often at the end of those dialogues. Your sense of what proof is is confused. Any text I create in the process of trying to arrive at the promised proof generally becomes the focus of the conversation. So, as said, I won't be joining your personal conversation culture any more.

Great, then there will be more irrefutable proof of why 'these ones', back then, took so long to catch up and find out and see what the actual Truth is, exactly, also.

This was never noticed on your part, that I and others have adapted, for periods of time, to your culture of conversation, and often got insults, intended or not, for our trouble.

But this was always noticed. you, obviously, have just not noticed how often this is always noticed. As you will show and prove, once more.

It's part of the Age culture of communication, adding extra steps to discussions.

And, one could just easily, and as simply, state that it is a part of "iwannaplato's" 'culture of communication', to lead down an unrecoverable hole.

To the first part, yes, it relates to my culture of communication. However, I do share this with vastly more people than your culture is shared. Now if this was not about communication, this larger amount of people sharing that culture would mean little. However given that you have stated that you would like to improve your communication and this entails improving it with the people who have a different culture, then your intransigence on these issues is odd.

LOL After all of the time this one has been on here it is, still, absolutely no closer to finding or working out what it is, exactly, that I want, and am doing, here.

In addition, the unrecoverable hole is an excellent description of most of the discussions you have had here and one of the reasons so few engage with you much.

Okay. If this is what you want to, absolutely, believe is true here, then you are, obviously, absolutely, free to do so.

They are less curious and interested than I am, and that curiosity and interest offset, to some degree your idiosyncracies.

But, you have shown and proved that you, really, have absolutely no curiosity nor interest at all at times when others have some and thus more than you.

I am sure it works for you, given your values and goals,

Okay.

But, are you as sure that it words for you, also?

No, yours does not work for me very well.

Once again you completely and utterly missed and misunderstood here.

And, once more, this is because you much prefer to believe that your own presumption/s are actually true, before you even begin to just seek out what the actual Truth is, first.

Perhaps you meant 'Are you sure that yours works for you.' Yes, though it can always improve.

Ah, I see.

This one has, still, not yet worked out how to find and see what the actual Truth is, exactly.

but....nah, at a certain point, given that you do not even notice when people try to meet your values around how to carry out a conversation, nor try to meet their way of communicating with as much flexibility, it's not worth it. I would guess you don't realize how rude you are being, but that changes the experience very little for others.

Here is another prime example of how absolutely every thing is relative to 'the observer'.

And, how 'an observer' sees and views things is, solely, dependent upon their pre-existing beliefs and presumptions.

What 'this one' 'sees' is, obviously, not what is necessarily true at all, nor even necessarily remotely what is a bit true at all.

If fact, what the actual Truth is, exactly, is the exact opposite of what "iwannaplato" is 'seeing', and 'believing', here.

The day you understand that this applies to you also and that you have beliefs, that day, I think is a day when we might actually be able to get somewhere together in a discussion.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This one, still, believes, absolutely, that I must have beliefs and that it is absolutely impossible for me to not have beliefs.

Which, again, is only because of this one's own 'current' beliefs here, which makes what it is.claiming and doing here more absolutely hilarious to watch, and observe play out, here.

So, from here on out, I will adjust even less to your idiosyncracies.

Okay, 'we' will see.

[Age]

Idiosyncracies are an inevitable consequence of the dual nature of the mind of conceptual constructs within the illusory dream of separation

Oh, I think idiosyncracies just are...look at the little figure of a human between the playwright Samuel Beckett's eyebrows...



or was it something else? but I've not seen that figure on any other face.

Or



Here's the Bower Bird flirting with a potential mate....

Until the day you understand that there is no one who believes anything except in this imagined conception, that day, I think is a day when you and I might actually be able to get somewhere,

Oh, I think sometimes we've gotten somewhere, you and I, even if you think you and I don't exist. And then sometimes we haven't gotten somewhere. It seems in general to be more of the former these days than in the past, which I like.

To wit: there's two sides to every story,

There seem to be three here, probably more.

to which both must be listened to and accepted as being two sides of the same coin, to coin a phrase.

Glad to be one of the three sides of this magical coin.

Iwannaplato it appears is simply not hearing the Age message that's all.

Yes, he thinks this also. That I do not understand his message. It's an assumption, his bête noire. But he's just throwing shade, the mirror effect and all. Sometimes shade is nice. His message has been around for a long time with many bearers.

if you think or believe that you understand 'my message's, then will you explain to the readers here what 'my message's is, exactly?

If no, then why not.

If you do not, then some would take this as, actual, proof that you have not been 'hearing', and not been 'understanding', me, here.

Which would make it not an assumption on my part at all.

Therefore, here is your chance to show and prove to the readers here what the actual Truth is, exactly.

[Iwannaplato]

if you think or believe that you understand 'my message's, then will you explain to the readers here what 'my message's is, exactly?

If no, then why not.

Because I have actually quoted you in the past and you have denied that you believed what was in the quotes. Because, consciously or unconsciously, what you do is get people to create text which you then pretend you laugh at via LOLs, judge negatively, request endless clarification about or simply dismiss with an unjustified evaluation often with False and Wrong, included and for some reason capitalized. I have, in the past spent time finding where you say things, which often requires some time and effort figuring out what search words to use, and even upon presenting evidence, you deny that you meant anything inconvenient to you and then do not explain what you actually meant. Which means one must then ask you what you meant and this will lead to clarifying questions about any words I use in the request or the form of the request.

So, such things are pointless.

If you do not, then some would take this as, actual, proof that you have not been 'hearing', and not been 'understanding', me, here.

What a silly contruction, a meaningless step in the conversation this sentence is. If you think it is proof, then saying that would get us closer to understanding each other. If you don't think this, then saying it is irrevelent. Who cares what some would take this as?

And then, such a person would be confused about proof.

What people don't do doesn't prove as assertion correct unless the assertion said they don't do that. Gosh, it would make science so easy and cheap, these some people actually could prove things this way.

Which would make it not an assumption on my part at all.

Wow, so whether you are making assumptions is dependent on my behavior or on the thinking of some people.

Therefore, here is your chance to show and prove to the readers here what the actual Truth is, exactly.

You might think your message is the truth, but I don't. Your message(s) are a partial truth as best, because you are unaware of many things and you universalize your partial understanding and judge from your preferences, like any other overly egotistical person.

[Iwannaplato]

And, once more this one will not just clarify.

Sure, and I tend not to clarify with drunks either.

Which makes some wonder why this one comes here, in a philosophy forum of all places, making claims and assertions.

Age's hypothetical some. In any case, others might no universalize from their individual experiences like you do. They might also remember the explanations for why I don't clarify as often as I used or as you wish I would, were they you. It's like dealing with someone with anterograde amnesia.

No, you did not.

See, how 'this one', continually, does not 'comprehend' things, but, to it, it is not it not comprehending.

And this is rude and continues to not explain or justify.

Oh 'this poor thing' gets affected by some words on a screen in front of it.

I appreciate when you are more honest, like this, about who you are. Edit: Ah, yes, forgot to mention: Can Age figure out what assumption he made about my reaction here? Well, if he manages to figure it out, he won't be able to acknowledge it. He doesn't make assumptions, he thinks.

Once more, and for the very slow of comprehending and learning, if absolutely any one wants absolutely any thing explained and/or justified, to them, then just inform me of what 'it' is, exactly, that you want explained and/or justified.

Notice how Age never actually addressed the issue I raised about how inefficient his approach is. I haven't even seen him manage to admit it is an uncommon one. While uncommon approachs can of course be useful, he seems utterly incapable of noticing what it pointed out about his behavior, then admitting it, so a discussion could then take place about the merits of it.

I am not sure how I could make this more simpler and easier to comprehend, and understand.

Convenient assumption on your part that I had forgotten what you wrote above, rather than actually dealing with what I wrote. Typical of you. Some people might realize that the interesting thing about you is what you don't notice, even when it is pointed out. Some people might see how you repeatedly assume things while saying you do not do this is beyond hypocrisy, but something more clinical.

yes, this is definitely an effective way to communicate. you've really taught people at the time this is being written something useful, though some people might think it is idiotic communication when one uses that sentence structure and opening content: Some people might think......

Good stuff.

As is your habit, you simply stated that the other person was wrong.

Some might wonder why Age comes to a philosophy forum with such disdain when they people here might not even be the intended audience, who has so little functional memory, and has such poor conversations with people here. Some might think he is totally clueless or, at least metaphorically, missing his right brain. Some might think he is incredibly passive aggressive due to mistreatment as a child, combined with a guru complex. Some might wonder if he can manage to be aware that people may communicate with him in one way but with others, at a philosophy forum, for example, they communicate differently. Some might think there is some kind of serious cognitive malfunction in Age, which some would then consider the more charitable interpretation.