What do you think ? 💭

[bahman]

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.

If you don't exist then Henry exists. So, either both of you are one and you are lying to me which means that there is at least one or you are not lying to me and there are more than two.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

If you don't exist then Henry exists. So, either both of you are one and you are lying to me which means that there is at least one or you are not lying to me and there are more than two.

Goodness, the fragments of me in my dream seem almost like other entities having a squabble. Why it's almost like they have separate consciousness. Of course, that's impossible. Me Brahma, me everything.

[henry quirk]

I exist. I'm not part of, or an aspect of, a universal hive mind. I exist independently of others. I'm real no matter what the other guy thinks, or doesn't think, of me.

This bears repeating: I'm real no matter what the other guy thinks, or doesn't think, of me.

I don't cease to exist becuz the other guy doesn't have me in mind.

Best the other guy can say is: when I don't have Henry in mind, he doesn't exist to me. And really, am I supposed to give a shit?

Me: quite happy to be offa most folks radar.

[Fairy]

If you don't exist then Henry exists. So, either both of you are one and you are lying to me which means that there is at least one or you are not lying to me and there are more than two.

I have realised through relentless days spent on self introspection that there is only one of us here. By one I mean one awareness, or consciousness or whatever the action of observation is called.


This awareness is what’s knowing and seeing. And this seeing and knowing is the exact same action where what is seen is also known in the exact same moment.

Awareness is aware of every concept. Meaning every concept is known by awareness which is everywhere all at once.

Fairy is not aware, fairy is known as a concept known only by awareness.

No concept has ever been seen, concepts are only known by awareness which is one and no other.


This is about the seer isn’t it?

Can that which is looking out of every eye be seen? No, is the correct answer.
But then again, one could lie to itself by conceptualising what it thinks and believes is seeing out of every eye, but then you’d have to ask how is a concept that is already known by awareness, also be able to see as well. Awareness is the only seer, awareness is Nondual.

If you want to know what is being pointed to then you have to study Nonduality. No one else can help you understand it, only you can see what nonduality is pointing to.

Only awareness is our being, not the body, the body is known to awareness but is not the knower…if the body was the knower…
That would be like saying to yourself, is my “hand” a concept known to myself as awareness( is that hand looking at me) or is it me as awareness looking at my hand?

Can a hand see? No, seeing is non physical, matter doesn’t see, matter is being seen and known by awareness that cannot be seen, because it is the seeing all one alone infinitely for eternity.

[promethean75]

You're starting to sound like Lao Tzu again, Fairy.

[Fairy]

You're starting to sound like Lao Tzu again, Fairy.

Thanks prom Would you like to test your own Lao Tzu impersonations on my thread? . .

[Walker]

What did you think?

You thought the topic you thought was actually the ostensible cloak for communion, i.e., the universe engaging with itself.

[promethean75]

"Would you like to test your own Lao Tzu impersonations on my thread?"

I'll prolly have to pass becuz I'm a historical materialist. I wouldn't even know what to say. I guess i could aks u what the sound of one hand clapping is and then as u stare at me in speechless bewilderment, i could gaze at u as if I've just aksed something utterly profound and then right before u start to answer, i could stop u, say 'shhhhh', and then start up a mountain with my walking cane, alone.

[Fairy]

"Would you like to test your own Lao Tzu impersonations on my thread?"

I'll prolly have to pass becuz I'm a historical materialist. I wouldn't even know what to say. I guess i could aks u what the sound of one hand clapping is and then as u stare at me in speechless bewilderment, i could gaze at u as if I've just aksed something utterly profound and then right before u start to answer, i could stop u, say 'shhhhh', and then start up a mountain with my walking cane, alone.

That was spine tingly wonderful. gave me goosebumps on me goosebumps.

[Age]

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.

This is obviously not a reasonable reason for not, now, explaining to the readers here what 'my message' is, exactly?

This is just an excuse for you not explaining, which may well be a very strong sign that, actually, you really cannot explain to the readers what 'my message' is, exactly, because you actually do not know what 'my message' is.

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.

LOL All of your assumptions here are absolutely False and Wrong. And, that you, still, appear to not yet know how to obtain actual clarity, and thus actual Truth, shows that you have, essentially, not progressed at all here.

But, please feel absolutely free to keep carrying on the way that you have been.

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.

Look "iwannaplato" you have, once again, made a claim here, this time being that you understand 'my message'. Now, either back up and support 'this claim' of yours here by proving that you know what 'my message' is, or, just be 'mature' and admit that, actually, you do not understand it.

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.

Or, you can just be a Truly 'grown up' human being and just prove 'your claim' here True?

So, such things are pointless.

If you say and believe so.

But, you are now also proving, absolutely, at what lengths adult human beings would go to, back in those 'olden days' when this was being written, to 'try to' justify their clearly False claims.

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?

It might help you, somewhat, if you did start caring how the readers here are seeing you claiming things but never actually backing them up and supporting 'the claim' in absolutely any way whatsoever.

Now, you seem to be under some sort of illusion here that you can come into a philosophy forum, make all sorts of accusations and/or claims, but do not have to do anything other than just make up continual 'excuses' for never getting around to actually just supporting your claims and accusations, let alone ever getting to proving them.

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

you appear to be confused here about what is 'proof', itself. Obviously if you provide actual proof, then absolutely no one would be confused.

Also, what you are doing here is just looking for more 'excuses' for just not doing what you ever increasingly appear to not be able to do at all.

What people don't do doesn't prove as assertion correct unless the assertion said they don't do that.

And, my assertion here is that you are not proving that you actually do understand 'my message'. Obviously you are not proving that you do.

Gosh, it would make science so easy and cheap, these some people actually could prove things this way.

What 'we' have here is further proof of the lengths these types of people would go to to look for and find 'excuses' for just not backing up, supporting, and proving their assertions or claimed True. And, just about every time this is because they actually could not.

LOL This one claims that it understands 'my message'. So, all it has to do for you readers here is just explain what 'my message' is, exactly.

Really, how much simpler and easier could things get here?

Once more I will suggest that before one makes, public, an assertion, claim, or accusation, especially on an open philosophy forum, that they have already obtained the irrefutable proof for what they say, and write.

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.

No, now that was another Truly absurd False and Wrong assumption on your part.

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.

LOL Still no proof at all, that this one even 'knows' what 'my message' is, exactly, let alone 'understands' it, at all.

[Iwannaplato]

Did you ever thank Atla for helping you to stop that annoying way you formatted your posts?

[Age]

And, once more this one will not just clarify.

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

Okay, but what this has to do with any thing here I have no clue.

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

Age's hypothetical some.

Even what you assumed here appears to be absolutely False and Wrong.

When will this one ever learn to seek out and obtain actual clarification, and thus clarity, first, before it begins to even presume things, and then to carry on as though its own assumptions are actually true and right?

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.

And, what 'we' have here, once again, are more 'excuses' for just not clarifying one's own position.

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.

Is this meant to be relating to some particular thing?

If yes, then what is that, exactly?

Not that you will clarify, right?

Edit: Ah, yes, forgot to mention: Can Age figure out what assumption he made about my reaction here?

If you, ever, provide more details, and I was allowed to respond, then the readers will be able to figure out if I did make an assumption or not.

Will you clarify what was 'your reaction', here, exactly, and, where and when 'here' was, exactly, also?

If no, then why not?

Well, if he manages to figure it out, he won't be able to acknowledge it.

This is a very strongly held belief you have here. What are you basing this assumption and belief that you have here on, exactly?

He doesn't make assumptions, he thinks.

If you say so.

But, why, also, say and claim that I do make assumptions, at more or less the same time?

Also, your assumption here is, also, completely and utterly Wrong, as well.

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.

Just because you believe, absolutely or not, that my approach is inefficient does not, necessarily, mean that it is.

After all I would love to see you provide a more efficient approach for gaining explanations and clarifications from others.

Will you explain and clarify this?

If no, then why not, exactly?

Now, you here are, also, claiming that I am not addressing 'the issue' you raised about how, supposedly, inefficient my approach is. The reason I did not address any thing here is because, to me, there is no 'issue' at all.

Obviously you have, still, not yet seen what I have actually been saying, and meaning, and you are only presuming some thing that is not even here. So, I would now suggest, not that you ever would, for you to highlight what the purported and supplied 'issue' is that you 'see' here, and then provide a more efficient approach.

'We' now wait to see what transpires, if any thing.

Oh, and by the way, just like you not yet understand 'my message' you do not yet understand 'my approach'.

Please do not forget that what you presume and/or believe is true is never ever, necessarily, true, until actual clarity is obtained.

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.

But, as usual, you have completely and utterly missed, misunderstood, and/or misinterpreted what it even is, here.

As you will again show and prove absolutely True, and Right, and Accurate, and Correct, once more.

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.

But, and as you will again, not clarify any thing here and will just make up 'excuses' for not doing so, and will make further accusations and claims, which, again, you will not.back up, support, nor substantiate, at all.

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.

If you say and believe so.

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.

Yes, some might, and I am pretty sure some already do. But was there an actual point that you would like to express, directly, here?

If yes, then will you?

But, if no, then okay.

[Iwannaplato]

Okay, but what this has to do with any thing here I have no clue.

I know. I certainly understand that you don't agree that this example of a category of people I have also learned to generally not clariy things for, but that you cannot imagine what I meant is, actually, rather amazing.

When will this one ever learn to seek out and obtain actual clarification, and thus clarity, first, before it begins to even presume things, and then to carry on as though its own assumptions are actually true and right?

Which of course you do. You label things I saw with great regularity as Wrong and False without first seeing what I meant and what the definitions of my words were. You assume things with great regularity; but do not notice this. For example the assumption about what I was asserting when I pointed out you were being rude, in your use of 'poor you'.

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.

Yes, some might, and I am pretty sure some already do. But was there an actual point that you would like to express, directly, here?

Again, inability to understand context. One actual point is the silliness of the construction: some people might think and related structures. Of course, I explained this in an earlier interaction in more detail, but, hey. I know you don't remember such things.

It's often not a matter of when will I, but when have I already explained, clarified, etc. One learns through experience that certain kinds of conversation are pointless with drunks, for example. I have learned that certain kinds of discussion with you are pointless. In part because if something is clarified, you forget, and if I opt not to clarify again, this leads to silly statements including the phrase 'in a philosophy forum^and often 'this one.'

Confusion about literal vs. metaphorical.
Hyperfocus
Control issues.
Memory problems - could be caused by the hyperfocus
Inability to take in context
Not noticing your own assumptions and doing preciely what you are critical of when others do it.
Not noticing what happens in practice with your preferred conversational approach
Projection
Confusion about what to prove something include
Confusion about causation
Imparied social reasoning
Denial of emotional reactions
Denial of judgments
Expectations that others will justify and clarify more - given that before clarifying, you expect others to clarify things, and their clarifications lead to you expecting more clarifications, and we often never get to the original request the other person made for clarification.

These issues and how they affect conversations lead to me and others opting not to do certain things in interactions with you.

You may well disagree that these are real aspects to your interpersonal and discussion style and approach or lead to any problems, but you universalize from people's reactions to you about their behavior and attitudes in general.

Of course, human beings have all sort of foibles and fallibilities, but since you think you have transcended such issues and the human and refer to others as you human beings and deny the presence of such patterns in yourself, there is an extreme imbalance in the communication. Hence most avoid you.

[Age]

I exist. I'm not part of, or an aspect of, a universal hive mind. I exist independently of others. I'm real no matter what the other guy thinks, or doesn't think, of me.

So, to 'this one' anyway, 'part of an answer' to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' is that 'I' exist, absolutely independently of absolutely all others.

This bears repeating: I'm real no matter what the other guy thinks, or doesn't think, of me.

I don't cease to exist becuz the other guy doesn't have me in mind.

Best the other guy can say is: when I don't have Henry in mind, he doesn't exist to me. And really, am I supposed to give a shit?

Me: quite happy to be offa most folks radar.

[Age]

Did you ever thank Atla for helping you to stop that annoying way you formatted your posts?

LOL
LOL
LOL

It appears that it does not matter how many times I keep informing 'this one' that I did not change from what I was doing for the reason that it believes is absolutely true, right, accurate, and correct, 'this one' will just keep seeing, and believing, what it is here.

But, this the very nature of the 'belief-system', itself. And, in fact, what 'this one' has been continually showing and actually doing here is, actually, proving another one of 'my claims' irrefutably, True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.