What do you think ? 💭

[Age]

It can be all sorts of things. It can be overeactions, being angry at one thing but somehow it comes out in response to her and it has nothing to do with her, it can be me having a pattern of forgetting something and so on. Of course in the moment, we don't know if it is actually 'shit' yet. Maybe she is misunderstanding, bringing in stuff that has nothing to do with me. stressed about other things, whatever. This all gets worked out over time. It can be both of us. We both believe, also, that the old stuff needs to be expressed and we understand that it may come up in relation to the other person and later can be expressed in relation to the real source. Might be a past one or something ongoing now that isn't the other one of us.

I am expressing this in a kind of ideal form. Of course, we can have mixed reactions, not want to hear in a given moment and so on.

Beautiful, well expressed. I totally relate to that.
Ideals are always your own unique expression, and not necessarily someone else's...recognition of differences is the key to aligning with opposing truths as being part and parcel of any dual/relational experience.

and my sense is that expression, in sound, of often best. This can happen with the other or alone, with support or something more like a loving witness.

Suppression and denial have been tried for so long and they just dont seem to be working. Expressing in the field of judgment has also been tried for so long and also has not worked. So a common culture and support has been what I have longed for and found. Not just my wife, but certainly she is the daily center.

Beautiful.

Tat's good if one can. When we met my wife was much better at that then me, though I think I've fiinally caught up.

Beautiful, (( smile)) yes, I think that's usually how it goes for most couples, one is always playing catch up to the other, until they are both in the same place at the same time... Yes, it's great when both are in complete alignment. That's usually when their energy is felt as good feelings.. when they are both singing from the same hymn sheet, metaphorically speaking.

I tend not to use 'negative enegy' or 'negative emotions' (you didnt' use the second term). I feel like all these things are fine in their right place and also it is best to experss then (in a place and with those who can accept that process).

Perfect understanding though, in your own unique way. Absolutely well said, plato!

Acceptance is the key to unlocking the door to unconditional love. When everything is just allowed to happen without judgement or fear.

I have found there is no easy road map for this process, even though many people think they know that map and whole traditions have sprouted up around one trick ponies and paths with heavy denials and partial pictures. For example, the distance between men and women, that inner distance, none of those traditions had the tools and understanding to heal that distance, despite the certainty of many a guru, messiah, pychologist, spiritual leader, etc.

I absolutely agree with that statement I am so glad you mentioned that. That's an important point to remember, that spiritual gurus can often lead one down the wrong path. No one else's path is your path.

Because, the only true path, is the one you walk yourself, all alone. And when you have reached your final destination, is when you can recognise what every single other guru is saying. We can only see ourselves through the reflection of others, who reflect back to us, what we already are.

In other words, no one said it was going to be easy, just that it would be worth it.

But it is easy, and very easy and very simple in fact.

One just needs to become Truly open, honest, and curios, again, to learn how simple and easy it really is. See, with self-disciple one can then learn what is True, and Right, in Life, and then from there absolutely every thing is Truly simple and easy in Life.

[Age]

'

'Love is anxiety. Attachment is suffering. Life is suffering. Relationships are two insecure individuals that use and tolerate each other for their own selfish needs and wants all for the fear of being alone. They are all toxic on some level and narcissistically controlled by one. This is not love and this is no way to live but most and many do out of fear. All relationships are full of lies, deceit and manipulative manipulation due to hate which comes from fear. Everything we do is out of fear. If everyone truly knew what everyone was thinking then no one would have any friends and relationships would not be a thing. Fantasies are cheating. Everyone has fantasies. Trust no one ever.''

Could you show me where you did this. I haven't found it yet.

I have done this, continually, throughout this forum, and could say in just about every post of mine.

Ah, so no communicating as I did about how this plays out in your personal life between you and others. I mean, sure, I've noticed that you've posted things on the more universal level, your opinions about such things. But nothing generous of self, where you go into, as I and other have, their their direct lived experiences in relationship.

Once again 'you' have completely and utterly missed where I have spoken more about 'I' than 'you' ever have here.

That's enough information. I have no interest in discussing with you the issues you focused on and asked about regarding my response to that quote.

Once again, okay

[Age]

Near gibberish.

So, now, to 'this one' anyway, just asking questions for clarification is so-called 'near gibberish'

[Iwannaplato]

Yup, he's not a person to be generous with.

[Iwannaplato]

Near gibberish.

So, now, to 'this one' anyway, just asking questions for clarification is so-called 'near gibberish'

LOL, yeah. It was the fact that you asked questions, not the form of those questions and the one statement that lead me to say that. The value of your logic + $4.65 could get me a cappuccino Venti at a Starbucks in Baltimore.

[Iwannaplato]

That's enough information. I have no interest in discussing with you the issues you focused on and asked about regarding my response to that quote.

Once again, okay

There you go, no faux outrage, just acceptance.

And yes, I certainly have missed some of your 22,202 posts as Age and your 2,075 posts as Ken. Yup, what a jerk I am for missing some of those posts. Except, of course, I asked you to link me to a posts that did similar things as my post did in relation to that quote that Fairy posted. And did Age or Ken or perhaps other posters who are the same guy, did any of these incarnations do this? Nah. Did any of these incarnations link me to where he posted all this personal stuff - more than I have ever shared - that related directly to that quote? Nah.

It's easy to miss - that is: not catch - a ball that's not been thrown.

But yeah, everything's other people's fault, Age, not yours. Enlightenment must be so...immaculate.

Not generous in responses to that quote, nor generous to those who have responded to it, Age finds a way to frame others as half empty glasses.

[Age]

Near gibberish.

So, now, to 'this one' anyway, just asking questions for clarification is so-called 'near gibberish'

LOL, yeah. It was the fact that you asked questions, not the form of those questions and the one statement that lead me to say that.

So, 'this' one', has now, just confirmed that it was the fact that I asked questions that led it to say what it did.

I would have imagined that there was more to it, but 'this one' just claimed otherwise.

The value of your logic + $4.65 could get me a cappuccino Venti at a Starbucks in Baltimore.

'This one' appears to be becoming more confused the further 'we' move along here.

[Age]

That's enough information. I have no interest in discussing with you the issues you focused on and asked about regarding my response to that quote.

Once again, okay

There you go, no faux outrage, just acceptance.

And yes, I certainly have missed some of your 22,202 posts as Age and your 2,075 posts as Ken. Yup, what a jerk I am for missing some of those posts.

Just to be absolutely clear it was my posts that 'this one' actually responded to that I was referring to.

Hopefully there was no one presuming something else.

Except, of course, I asked you to link me to a posts that did similar things as my post did in relation to that quote that Fairy posted. And did Age or Ken or perhaps other posters who are the same guy, did any of these incarnations do this? Nah.

But I have link you to those things.

you just missed them, as well.

Did any of these incarnations link me to where he posted all this personal stuff - more than I have ever shared - that related directly to that quote? Nah.

I am, certainly, under no obligation to.

'This one' appears to keep forgetting that this is a 'philosophy forum' where discussions around questions like, 'Who am 'I'?' 'What is the meaning of life?' Why are 'we' here?' 'What is 'our' purpose for being here?' 'Is it nature, nurture, or both?' 'Is every thing determined, is there free will, or both?' Among many, many other questions, and not a social media website where human beings discuss how their so-called 'partners' treat or mistreat them nor what the emotions arise due to how they choose to live.

If you want to talk about 'personal stuff' "iwannaplato", then I suggest you go to a forum where 'personal stuff' is the topic of discussion.

Now, the topic of this discussion/thread is; 'What do you think?' And, in regards to; The idea that there is only ONE OF US HERE?

If I recall correctly, the poster of this opening post started a thread/discussion about 'partners' or 'couples' living together. So, if you want to talk about 'your own personal thoughts and/or feelings' regarding living with just one other human being, then you go into that discussion/thread, and 'discuss'.

But, obviously, you are absolutely free to choose and write just about absolutely any word you like here, in this thread and discussion, but expecting another to talk about personal emotions, and especially in relation to some so-called 'shit', like you are doing and 'want to' others to, really, is going way, way off tangent.

Again, the topic of this thread, and discussion, is 'What do you think, in regards to the idea that there is only One, HERE'.

Do you think there is Only One, two, or more?

By the way a great clarifying question you could begin with and ask could be some thing like, 'What is the word 'ONE, or 'One', referring to, exactly? Before you even begin to assume absolutely any one thing is being meant.

It's easy to miss - that is: not catch - a ball that's not been thrown.

Once again for the slow of learning and comprehending. What you have been missing have been the exact meanings in the words that you have actually been responding to.

Again, to be absolutely clear, it has been the very words that I have put here, in front of you, that you have been missing and/or misunderstanding the exact meaning/s within or behind 'those words'. Also, it has been, in fact, 'your very words'/ responses to 'my words' how I knew, exactly, that you have been misinterpreting, misunderstanding, mistaking, and/or just missing, here.

Or, in 'your terms', you have not been catching (seeing) what is thrown (before) you, here.

And, you continually doing so has been working in, perfectly, for me in regards to what I am showing, revealing, and proving, to my intended audience.

For it is 'those' who can 'see' what has been, and is, still, happening and occurring here, or are just 'starting to see', and 'recognize', what can been proved, irrefutably, after 'looking back' over this forum who are realizing 'who' these writing were for, exactly, and thus 'who' my intended audience has been all along, HERE.

But yeah, everything's other people's fault, Age, not yours. Enlightenment must be so...immaculate.

Why do you claiming 'every thing is other people's fault', and so keep presuming and believing that this is what I have been and am 'saying', and meaning, when there is not a single word in absolutely any thing that I have written in this forum that could lead to this conclusion?

In fact, when, and if, all of this forum is 'read', then what will most likely be found is that 'I' am the 'only one' throughout this whole forum who has clearly written some thing like; 'If absolutely any thing I have said and written here is Wrongly, not, or mis understood, or just missed, then this is 'my fault', only and absolutely, and this is because I am, still, learning how to communicate better, with you human beings.'

There is not one hint of me ever alluding to that if I am not being fully understood here that this is 'the fault' of another, let alone me ever saying or claiming this. And, in fact it is the very opposite that is True, and Right.

So, once again, what 'we' can, clearly, see here, again, is just how much 'this one' keeps missing, and misunderstanding, 'me', here.

Again, why this is happening and occurring is, exactly, because of how the brain, combined with the 'belief-system', within human bodies, work, and react.

Now, explaining how the brain actually works, behaves, and/or reacts is Truly simple and easy, and even understanding how the brain works, behaves, and/or reacts, exactly, is also Truly very simple and easy to do. However, finding 'those' who have been/are prepared to 'listen', and learn, is a whole other issue, or thing.

My 'intended audience' has always been for 'those' who Truly want to 'listen', and learn. What I have, and want, to express, and share, is not for 'those' who think or believe that they already know 'the answer/s', for those who want to 'debate', nor for those who want to express, or share, what they think nor believe is true.

My 'intended audience' are those 'who' are Honest and Open, and 'who' Want to learn 'how' to find 'the answers' to all of the meaningful questions, in Life.

Not generous in responses to that quote, nor generous to those who have responded to it, Age finds a way to frame others as half empty glasses.

'This one' is, still, expecting 'me' to communicate how it wants, and expects, me and others to communicate here.

Look "iwannaplato" 'I' am here, in this thread, to discuss, talk. and communicate about if there is just One, or not just One. I am not here to communicate, nor talk about and discuss, how 'you feel' when some so-called 'partner' or 'wife' of 'yours' calls 'you' on 'your shit'.

And, what makes this even more ridiculous is 'you' do not even want to elaborate on nor clarify 'what shit' you are even talking about.

[Age]

Age finds a way to frame others as half empty glasses.

Even 'this claim' is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I have, ACTUALLY, said and presented here.

Again, I have not and do not 'look at' any thing as 'half full' nor 'half empty'.

Instead I 'look at' and 'see' things exactly as they are.

And, this is backed up, supported, and verified by having 'seen' a G.U.T.O.E., which cannot be refuted. However, formulating this, in 'a way', that can be and will be communicated in the most simplest and easiest way for 'all' to comprehend and understand just takes 'some time'.

Again, I am here to learn how to communicate better, with you human beings.

[Gary Childress]

Age finds a way to frame others as half empty glasses.

Even 'this claim' is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I have, ACTUALLY, said and presented here.

Again, I have not and do not 'look at' any thing as 'half full' nor 'half empty'.

Instead I 'look at' and 'see' things exactly as they are.

And, this is backed up, supported, and verified by having 'seen' a G.U.T.O.E., which cannot be refuted. However, formulating this, in 'a way', that can be and will be communicated in the most simplest and easiest way for 'all' to comprehend and understand just takes 'some time'.

Again, I am here to learn how to communicate better, with you human beings.

What is a G.U.T.O.E.?

EDIT: Is it Grand Unified Theory of Everything?

[Age]

Age finds a way to frame others as half empty glasses.

Even 'this claim' is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I have, ACTUALLY, said and presented here.

Again, I have not and do not 'look at' any thing as 'half full' nor 'half empty'.

Instead I 'look at' and 'see' things exactly as they are.

And, this is backed up, supported, and verified by having 'seen' a G.U.T.O.E., which cannot be refuted. However, formulating this, in 'a way', that can be and will be communicated in the most simplest and easiest way for 'all' to comprehend and understand just takes 'some time'.

Again, I am here to learn how to communicate better, with you human beings.

What is a G.U.T.O.E.?

EDIT: Is it Grand Unified Theory of Everything?

Yes.

And, thank you for the clarifying question here.

And also for the 'stopping', for 'a second' 'to wonder', for then attempting ' to answer "yourself" ', and again, especially so, for the 'seeking out of clarification', before 'just assuming and concluding only'.

Having a 'Theory of Everything' combined with a 'Grand Unified Theory' just makes things far more logical and far more unified, as One. Which is how all things, really, are, anyway.

[Iwannaplato]

Age finds a way to frame others as half empty glasses.

Even 'this claim' is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I have, ACTUALLY, said and presented here.

There is saying and then there is doing. It seems you confuse what you say with what you do. I notice how you react to when I put out what is personal, and then how others react. People often confuse their official positions with what they believe and what they do in interaction with other people.

Again, I have not and do not 'look at' any thing as 'half full' nor 'half empty'.

Instead I 'look at' and 'see' things exactly as they are.

It certainly seems like you think you do.

And, this is backed up, supported, and verified by having 'seen' a G.U.T.O.E., which cannot be refuted.

So,your having seen a G.U.T.O.E. which cannot be refuted backs up supports and verifies that you look at and see things as they are. That may support it for you, but since you have not, as yet communicated this G.U.T.O.E. to us, it does not back up, support and verify your claim
I 'look at' and 'see' things exactly as they are.
for us. We have just another claim: that you have seen a G.U.T.O.E.

Again, I am here to learn how to communicate better, with you human beings.

Only that?

[Age]

Age finds a way to frame others as half empty glasses.

Even 'this claim' is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I have, ACTUALLY, said and presented here.

There is saying and then there is doing. It seems you confuse what you say with what you do. I notice how you react to when I put out what is personal, and then how others react. People often confuse their official positions with what they believe and what they do in interaction with other people.

Yes, this is some thing that you do do.

I, however, have never framed 'others' as so-called half empty glasses.

Now, just like you say, believe, and/or claim some things but do the opposite you also, quite frequently, misinterpret and/or misunderstand what I am meaning, in what I say and claim, and so you do have a tendency to believe that I am doing some thing, which I am actually not doing. you have also, frequently, projected what you "yourself" do onto 'me', even at times I have never been doing what you do, and which you claim I was doing.

Again, I have not and do not 'look at' any thing as 'half full' nor 'half empty'.

Instead I 'look at' and 'see' things exactly as they are.

It certainly seems like you think you do.

And, it is certainly obvious that you believe, absolutely, otherwise.

And, this is backed up, supported, and verified by having 'seen' a G.U.T.O.E., which cannot be refuted.

So,your having seen a G.U.T.O.E. which cannot be refuted backs up supports and verifies that you look at and see things as they are. That may support it for you, but since you have not, as yet communicated this G.U.T.O.E. to us, it does not back up, support and verify your claim

But, how do you know, with any certainty, that it does not back up, support, and verify my claim?

Or, are you, once more, just making another assumption here, which, obviously, could be partly or fully absolutely Wrong, once again?

I 'look at' and 'see' things exactly as they are.
for us.

Obviously just a claim by itself will not necessarily back up, support, nor verify, for another.

This goes without saying, and thus did not need saying. Obviously, only through clarifying and/or challenging questioning will what is claimed able to be thoroughly backed up, supported, and/or verified, but, obviously, another would have to have enough interest and curiosity in order to be able to seek out enough 'clarification' to 'verify' or 'refute' a claim.

Or, I could just say and explain, fully, what this GUTOE is, exactly. But, obviously, satisfying all of you people is not the easiest and simplest thing to do. Especially considering all the varying and even opposing views and beliefs that you adult human beings have, and are holding onto, very tightly, here, when this is being written.

We have just another claim: that you have seen a G.U.T.O.E.

Of course that is what you have, and, obviously, only what you have. So, anything else on your part are just assumptions only. Which again, and of course, could be absolutely completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

Again, I am here to learn how to communicate better, with you human beings.

Only that?

No.

Now, would you like to share any view here on whether there is One, only, or if there is two, or more?

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, this is some thing that you do do.

I, however, have never framed 'others' as so-called half empty glasses.

Sure, the people who see people as half-empty glasses don't use that phrase since it is critical of their attitude. I was categorizing your attitude as you express it here in your posts. And note, in the following quotes, Age does not qualify with words like some and many. Here are some of Age's recent thoughts on all human beings......

This really was how absolutely STUPID human beings used to be.

[in the unlikely case some third party is reading this,.. Age considers our present time, the past, his past, so this is all people alive now]

So, who cares what just a human being says, or claims?

Now her [sic] is a prime example of why the human beings, back then, when this was being written, took so very, very long.
It was this APE-thinking that was holding and keeping them back.

If no, then just maybe the species known as 'human being' has not reached 'Truly intelligent' status, yet, in the days when this is being written

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.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 12:44 pm
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.

Note the contempt in the word choice in the next one:

And, what else does not make sense is just about all of the so-called 'suffering: that you adult human beings whinge and complain about, and claim exist.

They actually believed that they were absolutely right even when they had no actual proof, and were relying on their own made up assumptions, beliefs, and/or stories alone. Individual adult human beings were really like what the one here known as "henry quirk" is showing and proving, here.

That's just a tiny recent sample. Age will of course say something along the lines of that I have completely misunderstoos, etc.

And note that a search for postive remarks would find very little in Age's posts. While looking at just his recent posts on humans, I never had to reject a post because it had positive views of humans. No, I never saw one of those. I did skip ones where he qualified with 'some' or 'many' and those included negative judgments also.

Now, it is possible (though unlikely) that Age actually has a more balanced view of humans, and he has said he is here to learn how to communicate better with humans. If this is actually the case, one can only hope that instead of blaming others for what his communication is like, he will modify his communication to present his non-glass half empty view of humans.

Again, I have not and do not 'look at' any thing as 'half full' nor 'half empty'.

Given that you are probably taking this literally, as if I am attributing specific wordings to you, the phrase means that you focus on the negative and in this case regarding humans/human beings. And it is a generalized, often universalized view, a dim view of your fellow humans.

Instead I 'look at' and 'see' things exactly as they are.

It certainly seems like you think you do.

And, it is certainly obvious that you believe, absolutely, otherwise.

And, this is backed up, supported, and verified by having 'seen' a G.U.T.O.E., which cannot be refuted.

So,your having seen a G.U.T.O.E. which cannot be refuted backs up supports and verifies that you look at and see things as they are. That may support it for you, but since you have not, as yet communicated this G.U.T.O.E. to us, it does not back up, support and verify your claim

But, how do you know, with any certainty, that it does not back up, support, and verify my claim?

I said nothing of the kind.

Note: your question is 'how do I know' not 'do you know', which means it assumes I think I know or do know? Your assumption.

I 'look at' and 'see' things exactly as they are.
for us.

Obviously just a claim by itself will not necessarily back up, support, nor verify, for another.

This goes without saying, and thus did not need saying.

And yet here you are repeating what you say does not need to be said, whereas many mere human beings, whom you hold in disdain, would have more effectively responded to with 'I agree', avoiding saying something you say does not need saying. Perhaps you'll mull over why you opted not to respond in this more efficient and colliegial manner. Or you won't.

[Fairy]

The true and real G T O E

IS the not so grand theory of nothing.

There’s always two sides to every story and we all love a grand story.

An illusion grand. A grandiose aggrandising illusion.