Are Ideas Eternal?

[Jack Daydream]

Is there anything beyond the 'fairytale' of imagination in your viewpoint and, are all ideas a matter of subjective 'fantasy'?

There is nothing beyond direct human awareness. ( Imagined fantasy ) that I can know of. Human awareness, is simply an idea now.

If I could get beyond the horizon to get a sneaky peek of what's beyond it, then all I'd be seeing, is more horizon.

There is no horizon.

But there is a lot which is unknown and horizons change. Science seeks to go beyond direct present human awareness to develop new original ideas. In particular, ideas, theories and
models are representations rather than direct human awareness.

[Age]

Yes, I would agree that most aspects of ideas, from ideas, such as free will vs determinism, nature vs nurture, as well as theism vs determinism are not absolutes.

you appear to have, once again, MISSED the point entirely.

Finding out what the ABSOLUTE Truth is, is possible, and in fact is very simple and easy to uncover really.

My point was they are NOT 'one, or, the other' scenarios. Like most adult human beings believed in the days when this was being written.

'Truth' is partial.

What does this mean, exactly?

That doesn't mean it is simply relative because there may be universal aspects and some more arguable ideas amidst diversity of ideas.

I prefer if you informed me of what 'it' means, instead of telling me what 'it' does not mean.

Also, absolutely every thing is relative, to the observer.

Which means that if one is 'looking' and 'seeing' from a less than Everything perspective, for example a human being perspective, then when a 'relative truth' is 'found', then it could be False or True. However, when one is 'looking' and 'seeing' from the One, Everything perspective, then what is 'found' is the ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE, or Objective, Truth.

The 'relative Truth', from Everything's perspective is just what is in agreement, and acceptance, by EVERY one, or what some would just call the 'Objective Truth'. And, It is 'this way' for the very simple and easy Fact that there is NO one/thing disputing 'this, Truth'.

What is in agreement, and acceptance, by EVERY one could NEVER be False. (And, any attempt to 'try to' argue against this with any 'ad populum fallacy' claim does NOT work. But, any one is absolutely free to 'try to'.)

Also, it makes sense to say that ideas may be built into matter. That is because ideas or laws exist prior to thought, such as in the form of instincts in the animal kingdom. Much of nature, including processes, are reconstructed automatically as memory in nature.

Okay.

I do see your claim for 'absolute' truth as being problematic. Many may think that their perspective is the absolute or ultimate one. However, they come from different perspectives and disagree.

OBVIOUSLY you have COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED just about every thing, if not every thing, that I SAID and POINTED OUT above here.

The most obvious example is of differing religious perspectives or criticisms of religion. However, there are some overlaps in ideas, or the idea of perennial truths underlying the various traditions.

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I POINTED OUT and RAISED above, here.

[Fairy]

Is there anything beyond the 'fairytale' of imagination in your viewpoint and, are all ideas a matter of subjective 'fantasy'?

There is nothing beyond direct human awareness. ( Imagined fantasy ) that I can know of. Human awareness, is simply an idea now.

If I could get beyond the horizon to get a sneaky peek of what's beyond it, then all I'd be seeing, is more horizon.

There is no horizon.

But there is a lot which is unknown and horizons change. Science seeks to go beyond direct present human awareness to develop new original ideas. In particular, ideas, theories and
models are representations rather than direct human awareness.

That which is not known, will eventually become known. But that which is unknowable, can never be known.

Models and representations are not actuality. They are mental constructs, illusions.

When the mind runs out of models, it will simply construct new models...just more fantasy.

[Jack Daydream]

you appear to have, once again, MISSED the point entirely.

Finding out what the ABSOLUTE Truth is, is possible, and in fact is very simple and easy to uncover really.

My point was they are NOT 'one, or, the other' scenarios. Like most adult human beings believed in the days when this was being written.



What does this mean, exactly?


I prefer if you informed me of what 'it' means, instead of telling me what 'it' does not mean.

Also, absolutely every thing is relative, to the observer.

Which means that if one is 'looking' and 'seeing' from a less than Everything perspective, for example a human being perspective, then when a 'relative truth' is 'found', then it could be False or True. However, when one is 'looking' and 'seeing' from the One, Everything perspective, then what is 'found' is the ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE, or Objective, Truth.

The 'relative Truth', from Everything's perspective is just what is in agreement, and acceptance, by EVERY one, or what some would just call the 'Objective Truth'. And, It is 'this way' for the very simple and easy Fact that there is NO one/thing disputing 'this, Truth'.

What is in agreement, and acceptance, by EVERY one could NEVER be False. (And, any attempt to 'try to' argue against this with any 'ad populum fallacy' claim does NOT work. But, any one is absolutely free to 'try to'.)


Okay.

I do see your claim for 'absolute' truth as being problematic. Many may think that their perspective is the absolute or ultimate one. However, they come from different perspectives and disagree.

OBVIOUSLY you have COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED just about every thing, if not every thing, that I SAID and POINTED OUT above here.

The most obvious example is of differing religious perspectives or criticisms of religion. However, there are some overlaps in ideas, or the idea of perennial truths underlying the various traditions.

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I POINTED OUT and RAISED above, here.

Perhaps, what you were trying to say was unclear in the first place. You seem to be suggesting in this postthat the relativity of 'truth' is the absolute, or objective one Is this what you are saying, because I would say that complete relativity means that there is no truth at all.

[Jack Daydream]

There is nothing beyond direct human awareness. ( Imagined fantasy ) that I can know of. Human awareness, is simply an idea now.

If I could get beyond the horizon to get a sneaky peek of what's beyond it, then all I'd be seeing, is more horizon.

There is no horizon.

But there is a lot which is unknown and horizons change. Science seeks to go beyond direct present human awareness to develop new original ideas. In particular, ideas, theories and
models are representations rather than direct human awareness.

That which is not known, will eventually become known. But that which is unknowable, can never be known.

Models and representations are not actuality. They are mental constructs, illusions.

When the mind runs out of models, it will simply construct new models...just more fantasy.




REPLY TO FAIRY BY JACK DAYDREAM:

The unknown is the metaphysics beyond the human mind, but there can be some intuitive grasps even if it is important to know that intuition is speculative. It is based on human imagination, like all models, Where models or theories are illusions are when the models are seen as more than they are. The problem with ideas as being seen as objective and eternal is that the ideas are represented in the form of language as a structure, even if they refer to some aspect of 'truth'.

[Fairy]

REPLY TO FAIRY BY JACK DAYDREAM:

The unknown is the metaphysics beyond the human mind, but there can be some intuitive grasps even if it is not easy to verify objectively. It is based on human imagination, like all models, Where models or theories are illusions are when the models are seen as more than they are. The problem with ideas as being seen as objective and eternal is that the ideas are represented in the form of language as a structure, even if they refer to some aspect of 'truth'.

Your truth, my truth is fantasy.

Then there's real truth, that no one knows or owns.

[Jack Daydream]

REPLY TO FAIRY BY JACK DAYDREAM:

The unknown is the metaphysics beyond the human mind, but there can be some intuitive grasps even if it is not easy to verify objectively. It is based on human imagination, like all models, Where models or theories are illusions are when the models are seen as more than they are. The problem with ideas as being seen as objective and eternal is that the ideas are represented in the form of language as a structure, even if they refer to some aspect of 'truth'.

Your truth, my truth is fantasy.

Then there's real truth, that no one knows or owns.

I am content to accept that 'my ''truth' is fantasy. The concept of 'truth' itself is one of the truths that is not owned by anyone and that is what I. mean by an archetype.

[Fairy]

REPLY TO FAIRY BY JACK DAYDREAM:

The unknown is the metaphysics beyond the human mind, but there can be some intuitive grasps even if it is not easy to verify objectively. It is based on human imagination, like all models, Where models or theories are illusions are when the models are seen as more than they are. The problem with ideas as being seen as objective and eternal is that the ideas are represented in the form of language as a structure, even if they refer to some aspect of 'truth'.

Your truth, my truth is fantasy.

Then there's real truth, that no one knows or owns.

I am content to accept that 'my ''truth' is fantasy. The concept of 'truth' itself is one of the truths that is not owned by anyone and that is what I. mean by an archetype.

Then you've simply answered your own question.... ''Are Ideas Eternal?''

[Age]

I do see your claim for 'absolute' truth as being problematic. Many may think that their perspective is the absolute or ultimate one. However, they come from different perspectives and disagree.

OBVIOUSLY you have COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED just about every thing, if not every thing, that I SAID and POINTED OUT above here.

The most obvious example is of differing religious perspectives or criticisms of religion. However, there are some overlaps in ideas, or the idea of perennial truths underlying the various traditions.

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I POINTED OUT and RAISED above, here.

Perhaps, what you were trying to say was unclear in the first place.

NOT 'perhaps'. It MUST OF BEEN UNCLEAR, and VERY UNCLEAR at that.

You seem to be suggesting in this postthat the relativity of 'truth' is the absolute, or objective one

Once again, what 'we' can see here, VERY CLEARLY, is ANOTHER one who does not just seek out CLARIFICATION, and who prefers to just ASSUME or GUESS, AS WELL.

This, guessing and assuming what MIGHT BE true, instead of just seeking out and obtaining ACTUAL clarity was a very common habit of the adult human being, back in the days when this was being written.

Just so you become AWARE I was NEVER EVER suggesting ANYWHERE in this WHOLE forum that the relativity of 'truth' is the absolute, or objective one.

And, I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE HOW you could have even STARTED to BEGIN ASSUMING ABSOLUTELY ANY thing like this, especially considering what I have ACTUALLY SAID and WRITTEN above here.

There is, however, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL in what I have said and written above that is even REMOTELY CLOSE to what you have claimed here.

Is this what you are saying,

ABSOLUTELY, NO.

because I would say that complete relativity means that there is no truth at all.

Okay.

[Jack Daydream]

OBVIOUSLY you have COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED just about every thing, if not every thing, that I SAID and POINTED OUT above here.


This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I POINTED OUT and RAISED above, here.

Perhaps, what you were trying to say was unclear in the first place.

NOT 'perhaps'. It MUST OF BEEN UNCLEAR, and VERY UNCLEAR at that.

You seem to be suggesting in this postthat the relativity of 'truth' is the absolute, or objective one

Once again, what 'we' can see here, VERY CLEARLY, is ANOTHER one who does not just seek out CLARIFICATION, and who prefers to just ASSUME or GUESS, AS WELL.

This, guessing and assuming what MIGHT BE true, instead of just seeking out and obtaining ACTUAL clarity was a very common habit of the adult human being, back in the days when this was being written.

Just so you become AWARE I was NEVER EVER suggesting ANYWHERE in this WHOLE forum that the relativity of 'truth' is the absolute, or objective one.

And, I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE HOW you could have even STARTED to BEGIN ASSUMING ABSOLUTELY ANY thing like this, especially considering what I have ACTUALLY SAID and WRITTEN above here.

There is, however, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL in what I have said and written above that is even REMOTELY CLOSE to what you have claimed here.

Is this what you are saying,

ABSOLUTELY, NO.

because I would say that complete relativity means that there is no truth at all.

Okay.

I am not sure if my misunderstandings of you are my fault or yours, or a mixture of both. From my end, it seems that a lot of what you say is telling me repeatedly how wrong I am, but so much ambiguities over your own thinking.

know that you break up what I say into quotes is good practice. The reason why I don't do this is because it is difficult to do all of this on my phone without getting the layout in boxes wrong. This is mainly because I am not using a mouse. You may see this as a poor excuse or think that I should not write here at all.

I do wish to understand your point of view and, if anything, think that you might be clearer to me if you wrote shorter answers and with more about your ideas.

Also, writing on philosophy forums is quite complex because it a media site, communicating with other minds remotely. Books are read as opposed to face to face and it is also likely that people interpret them differently. However, as there is less open dialogue this may not be known between author and audience.

[seeds]

Perhaps, what you were trying to say was unclear in the first place.

NOT 'perhaps'. It MUST OF BEEN UNCLEAR, and VERY UNCLEAR at that.

You seem to be suggesting in this postthat the relativity of 'truth' is the absolute, or objective one

Once again, what 'we' can see here, VERY CLEARLY, is ANOTHER one who does not just seek out CLARIFICATION, and who prefers to just ASSUME or GUESS, AS WELL.

This, guessing and assuming what MIGHT BE true, instead of just seeking out and obtaining ACTUAL clarity was a very common habit of the adult human being, back in the days when this was being written.

Just so you become AWARE I was NEVER EVER suggesting ANYWHERE in this WHOLE forum that the relativity of 'truth' is the absolute, or objective one.

And, I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE HOW you could have even STARTED to BEGIN ASSUMING ABSOLUTELY ANY thing like this, especially considering what I have ACTUALLY SAID and WRITTEN above here.

There is, however, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL in what I have said and written above that is even REMOTELY CLOSE to what you have claimed here.

Is this what you are saying,

ABSOLUTELY, NO.

because I would say that complete relativity means that there is no truth at all.

Okay.

I am not sure if my misunderstandings of you are my fault or yours, or a mixture of both.

It's not you, Jack.

Perhaps it would help if you knew that when you are conversing with Age, you are talking to an ancient "entity" who claims to have inspired the writing of the Bible.

You can judge this for yourself by reading what he clearly stated a few years back under the moniker of "ken"...

ken [aka Age] wrote:
"...This impatience comes out and through the one, which I am using, who is writing this. This is a bit like how the ones, I used who wrote the bible, misinterpreted what I was actually trans and in spiring to them, which obviously has caused a lot of confusion. Now I found another human being who I can use to share things..."

In other words,...

(and he [she/it] will make a big stink about this)

...when you are talking to Age, you are conversing with what appears to be a "channeled" (non-human) entity that, according to his own words above, is sharing things (irrefutable truths) with us by using a human that he (she/it) has "found."

Again, it's not you, Jack, and welcome to the PN asylum.
_______

[Age]

Perhaps, what you were trying to say was unclear in the first place.

NOT 'perhaps'. It MUST OF BEEN UNCLEAR, and VERY UNCLEAR at that.

You seem to be suggesting in this postthat the relativity of 'truth' is the absolute, or objective one

Once again, what 'we' can see here, VERY CLEARLY, is ANOTHER one who does not just seek out CLARIFICATION, and who prefers to just ASSUME or GUESS, AS WELL.

This, guessing and assuming what MIGHT BE true, instead of just seeking out and obtaining ACTUAL clarity was a very common habit of the adult human being, back in the days when this was being written.

Just so you become AWARE I was NEVER EVER suggesting ANYWHERE in this WHOLE forum that the relativity of 'truth' is the absolute, or objective one.

And, I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE HOW you could have even STARTED to BEGIN ASSUMING ABSOLUTELY ANY thing like this, especially considering what I have ACTUALLY SAID and WRITTEN above here.

There is, however, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL in what I have said and written above that is even REMOTELY CLOSE to what you have claimed here.

Is this what you are saying,

ABSOLUTELY, NO.

because I would say that complete relativity means that there is no truth at all.

Okay.

I am not sure if my misunderstandings of you are my fault or yours, or a mixture of both.

'your misunderstandings' of 'my words' are 'my FAULT', ENTIRELY. BECAUSE I have NOT YET LEARNED HOW TO SPEAK and WRITE in 'the way' that you, personally, could understand, FULLY.

AGAIN, I am in the process of learning how to communicate better, with you human beings. And, this is CERTAINLY NOT going to be a quick process. Especially considering that ALL of you older human beings learn and understand different things, in DIFFERENT WAYS, and at DIFFERENT RATES.

See, learning how to communicate better, so that ALL human beings can and will be able to understand 'new/er ideas or perspectives' equally, or the same, is just an ongoing process. So, you misunderstanding here is, and was, not unexpected AT ALL. As I keep REMINDING you people here, if, and when, one is Honest, Open, and Wants to CHANGE, for the better, then that one, or they, WILL BEGIN TO SEE, and UNDERSTAND, ALL things, HERE, in Life, FULLY.

I am only learning HOW to teach you older human beings HOW you can all find, by "yourselves", and know you HAVE, for "yourselves", the ACTUAL Truth of things, in Life. Like, for example, all of the answers, and solutions, you have all been 'looking' and 'searching' for ALL of the Truly MEANINGFUL questions, in Life. Once I can FIND the Right people, who Truly do Want to FIND and SEE things, for "themselves", then their will be NO 'misunderstandings' on 'their part'.

From my end, it seems that a lot of what you say is telling me repeatedly how wrong I am, but so much ambiguities over your own thinking.

Well, from 'your end' have you ASKED 'me' A CLARIFYING QUESTION, YET?

See, from 'my end' you just keep ASSUMING things, which MOST OF have been ABSOLUTELY False, and Wrong. Exactly like 'this ASSUMPTION' of yours here IS.

And, from 'my perspective' there is NO 'ambiguity' over 'the thinking', from 'this end'. Which, like always, you will ever only FIND OUT if this is True, or NOT, AFTER you start SEEKING OUT, and OBTAINING, ACTUAL CLARIFICATION, and thus ACTUAL CLARITY, FIRST.

know that you break up what I say into quotes is good practice. The reason why I don't do this is because it is difficult to do all of this on my phone without getting the layout in boxes wrong.

Okay. So, you must use a DIFFERENT phone then I do, you must do 'all this' DIFFERENTLY than I do, or, what you find 'difficult' I do NOT.

This is mainly because I am not using a mouse. You may see this as a poor excuse or think that I should not write here at all.

I have NOT even CONSIDERED/THOUGHT ABOUT 'breaking what any one says into quotes', let alone thought about nor considering if it is so-called 'good' or 'bad' practice, let alone ever WONDERING about 'what reasons' why one does it or does not do it.

I WONDER MUCH MORE ABOUT WHY you human beings here JUST KEEP PRE/ASSUMING things BEFORE you EVER START CONSIDERING whether to just ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION or NOT?

Although I ALREADY KNOW FULLY, and EXACTLY, WHY you older human beings DO NOT, I do WONDER WHY you people can NOT SEE and RECOGNIZE just HOW MUCH and HOW OFTEN you KEEP DOING this.

I do wish to understand your point of view

If, and WHEN, one, REALLY DOES WISH TO UNDERSTAND 'another', then 'that one' WILL JUST ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS in regards to what 'it' is, EXACTLY, that they Truly DO WISH TO UNDERSTAND.

For example, if I wished to understand what 'it' is, exactly, that you are NOT, YET, 'understanding' in regards to 'my point of view', then 'I' would JUST ASK 'you', 'What is 'it', exactly', about 'my point of view' that you are not yet understanding?', or, 'What part or parts of 'my point of view' are you not yet understanding, exactly?'

Then, if you INFORMED 'me', exactly, what you are NOT YET understanding, then I could, and would, INFORM you.

But, see I, REALLY, do have to have A DESIRE, or WISH, 'to understand' 'you', and/or 'your point of view', BEFORE I would even BEGIN to CONSIDER to JUST ASK you CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, like those in the examples I just provided, for you, here.

and, if anything, think that you might be clearer to me if you wrote shorter answers and with more about your ideas.

I am NOT SURE how I could write 'shorter answers', if NO clarifying questions are being asked.

I could, obviously, write shorter 'responses', but just as obvious to be able to write 'shorter answers' I need to be asked 'questions'.

Also, writing on philosophy forums is quite complex because it a media site, communicating with other minds remotely.

1. There are, again, NO 'other minds'.

2. I am not sure how, just 'writing on a media site' is so-called 'quite complex'. Are you able to explain WHY just writing on media sites is 'quite complex', to you, exactly?

Books are read as opposed to face to face and it is also likely that people interpret them differently.

I am not sure WHY you would think it is 'also likely' that 'people interpret them differently', in books/reading compared to in person/hearing.

Absolutely ANY thing can, and usually is, interpreted DIFFERENTLY. And, this happens and occurs for the very reason/s I have provided, ALREADY.

And, AGAIN, it all comes down to the most basic fundamental reason, and if, and when, this is/was uncovered, then reducing ALL misunderstanding/s can, and did, Truly BEGIN.

However, as there is less open dialogue this may not be known between author and audience.

Okay.

But, are you AWARE that within forum like this one here, 'the audience' is ABLE TO ASK 'the author' CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, for CLARITY SAKE?

See, while 'the author' is, what is called, 'still alive', then what 'the author' Truly MEANT and Truly INTENDED can, actually, be FOUND OUT, and FULLY UNDERSTOOD.

But, and obviously, one has to have, FIRST, A True DESIRE, WISH, and WANT to Truly UNDERSTAND, 'the other'.

[Fairy]

It's not you, Jack.

There is no Jack.

Jack is a character in a fictional movie.

Jack is No One posing as someone.

Age is ageless. No Age.

That's all that's being unwritten in the days when this is being written.

[Jack Daydream]

NOT 'perhaps'. It MUST OF BEEN UNCLEAR, and VERY UNCLEAR at that.


Once again, what 'we' can see here, VERY CLEARLY, is ANOTHER one who does not just seek out CLARIFICATION, and who prefers to just ASSUME or GUESS, AS WELL.

This, guessing and assuming what MIGHT BE true, instead of just seeking out and obtaining ACTUAL clarity was a very common habit of the adult human being, back in the days when this was being written.

Just so you become AWARE I was NEVER EVER suggesting ANYWHERE in this WHOLE forum that the relativity of 'truth' is the absolute, or objective one.

And, I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE HOW you could have even STARTED to BEGIN ASSUMING ABSOLUTELY ANY thing like this, especially considering what I have ACTUALLY SAID and WRITTEN above here.

There is, however, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL in what I have said and written above that is even REMOTELY CLOSE to what you have claimed here.


ABSOLUTELY, NO.


Okay.

I am not sure if my misunderstandings of you are my fault or yours, or a mixture of both.

It's not you, Jack.

Perhaps it would help if you knew that when you are conversing with Age, you are talking to an ancient "entity" who claims to have inspired the writing of the Bible.

You can judge this for yourself by reading what he clearly stated a few years back under the moniker of "ken"...

ken [aka Age] wrote:
"...This impatience comes out and through the one, which I am using, who is writing this. This is a bit like how the ones, I used who wrote the bible, misinterpreted what I was actually trans and in spiring to them, which obviously has caused a lot of confusion. Now I found another human being who I can use to share things..."

In other words,...

(and he [she/it] will make a big stink about this)

...when you are talking to Age, you are conversing with what appears to be a "channeled" (non-human) entity that, according to his own words above, is sharing things (irrefutable truths) with us by using a human that he (she/it) has "found."

Again, it's not you, Jack, and welcome to the PN asylum.
_______

[Jack Daydream]

NOT 'perhaps'. It MUST OF BEEN UNCLEAR, and VERY UNCLEAR at that.


Once again, what 'we' can see here, VERY CLEARLY, is ANOTHER one who does not just seek out CLARIFICATION, and who prefers to just ASSUME or GUESS, AS WELL.

This, guessing and assuming what MIGHT BE true, instead of just seeking out and obtaining ACTUAL clarity was a very common habit of the adult human being, back in the days when this was being written.

Just so you become AWARE I was NEVER EVER suggesting ANYWHERE in this WHOLE forum that the relativity of 'truth' is the absolute, or objective one.

And, I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE HOW you could have even STARTED to BEGIN ASSUMING ABSOLUTELY ANY thing like this, especially considering what I have ACTUALLY SAID and WRITTEN above here.

There is, however, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL in what I have said and written above that is even REMOTELY CLOSE to what you have claimed here.


ABSOLUTELY, NO.


Okay.

I am not sure if my misunderstandings of you are my fault or yours, or a mixture of both.

'your misunderstandings' of 'my words' are 'my FAULT', ENTIRELY. BECAUSE I have NOT YET LEARNED HOW TO SPEAK and WRITE in 'the way' that you, personally, could understand, FULLY.

AGAIN, I am in the process of learning how to communicate better, with you human beings. And, this is CERTAINLY NOT going to be a quick process. Especially considering that ALL of you older human beings learn and understand different things, in DIFFERENT WAYS, and at DIFFERENT RATES.

See, learning how to communicate better, so that ALL human beings can and will be able to understand 'new/er ideas or perspectives' equally, or the same, is just an ongoing process. So, you misunderstanding here is, and was, not unexpected AT ALL. As I keep REMINDING you people here, if, and when, one is Honest, Open, and Wants to CHANGE, for the better, then that one, or they, WILL BEGIN TO SEE, and UNDERSTAND, ALL things, HERE, in Life, FULLY.

I am only learning HOW to teach you older human beings HOW you can all find, by "yourselves", and know you HAVE, for "yourselves", the ACTUAL Truth of things, in Life. Like, for example, all of the answers, and solutions, you have all been 'looking' and 'searching' for ALL of the Truly MEANINGFUL questions, in Life. Once I can FIND the Right people, who Truly do Want to FIND and SEE things, for "themselves", then their will be NO 'misunderstandings' on 'their part'.

From my end, it seems that a lot of what you say is telling me repeatedly how wrong I am, but so much ambiguities over your own thinking.

Well, from 'your end' have you ASKED 'me' A CLARIFYING QUESTION, YET?

See, from 'my end' you just keep ASSUMING things, which MOST OF have been ABSOLUTELY False, and Wrong. Exactly like 'this ASSUMPTION' of yours here IS.

And, from 'my perspective' there is NO 'ambiguity' over 'the thinking', from 'this end'. Which, like always, you will ever only FIND OUT if this is True, or NOT, AFTER you start SEEKING OUT, and OBTAINING, ACTUAL CLARIFICATION, and thus ACTUAL CLARITY, FIRST.

know that you break up what I say into quotes is good practice. The reason why I don't do this is because it is difficult to do all of this on my phone without getting the layout in boxes wrong.

Okay. So, you must use a DIFFERENT phone then I do, you must do 'all this' DIFFERENTLY than I do, or, what you find 'difficult' I do NOT.

This is mainly because I am not using a mouse. You may see this as a poor excuse or think that I should not write here at all.

I have NOT even CONSIDERED/THOUGHT ABOUT 'breaking what any one says into quotes', let alone thought about nor considering if it is so-called 'good' or 'bad' practice, let alone ever WONDERING about 'what reasons' why one does it or does not do it.

I WONDER MUCH MORE ABOUT WHY you human beings here JUST KEEP PRE/ASSUMING things BEFORE you EVER START CONSIDERING whether to just ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION or NOT?

Although I ALREADY KNOW FULLY, and EXACTLY, WHY you older human beings DO NOT, I do WONDER WHY you people can NOT SEE and RECOGNIZE just HOW MUCH and HOW OFTEN you KEEP DOING this.

I do wish to understand your point of view

If, and WHEN, one, REALLY DOES WISH TO UNDERSTAND 'another', then 'that one' WILL JUST ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS in regards to what 'it' is, EXACTLY, that they Truly DO WISH TO UNDERSTAND.

For example, if I wished to understand what 'it' is, exactly, that you are NOT, YET, 'understanding' in regards to 'my point of view', then 'I' would JUST ASK 'you', 'What is 'it', exactly', about 'my point of view' that you are not yet understanding?', or, 'What part or parts of 'my point of view' are you not yet understanding, exactly?'

Then, if you INFORMED 'me', exactly, what you are NOT YET understanding, then I could, and would, INFORM you.

But, see I, REALLY, do have to have A DESIRE, or WISH, 'to understand' 'you', and/or 'your point of view', BEFORE I would even BEGIN to CONSIDER to JUST ASK you CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, like those in the examples I just provided, for you, here.

and, if anything, think that you might be clearer to me if you wrote shorter answers and with more about your ideas.

I am NOT SURE how I could write 'shorter answers', if NO clarifying questions are being asked.

I could, obviously, write shorter 'responses', but just as obvious to be able to write 'shorter answers' I need to be asked 'questions'.

Also, writing on philosophy forums is quite complex because it a media site, communicating with other minds remotely.

1. There are, again, NO 'other minds'.

2. I am not sure how, just 'writing on a media site' is so-called 'quite complex'. Are you able to explain WHY just writing on media sites is 'quite complex', to you, exactly?

Books are read as opposed to face to face and it is also likely that people interpret them differently.

I am not sure WHY you would think it is 'also likely' that 'people interpret them differently', in books/reading compared to in person/hearing.

Absolutely ANY thing can, and usually is, interpreted DIFFERENTLY. And, this happens and occurs for the very reason/s I have provided, ALREADY.

And, AGAIN, it all comes down to the most basic fundamental reason, and if, and when, this is/was uncovered, then reducing ALL misunderstanding/s can, and did, Truly BEGIN.

However, as there is less open dialogue this may not be known between author and audience.

Okay.

But, are you AWARE that within forum like this one here, 'the audience' is ABLE TO ASK 'the author' CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, for CLARITY SAKE?

See, while 'the author' is, what is called, 'still alive', then what 'the author' Truly MEANT and Truly INTENDED can, actually, be FOUND OUT, and FULLY UNDERSTOOD.

But, and obviously, one has to have, FIRST, A True DESIRE, WISH, and WANT to Truly UNDERSTAND, 'the other'.

I was definitely aware that your responses were unusual. At first, I thought that you were someone I knew in real life, playing games with me. I don't know if you are generated by A1. Are you claiming to being an entity who inspired the Bible. If so, who are you and where do you come from? What do you think are the most important values and priorities in the world in the twentieth first century?