The AGE of confusion.

[Fairy]

I there wrote:
''The REASON WHY I QUESTION you people, here, AS OFTEN AS I DO IS SO that I can BETTER UNDERSTAND what each of you is SAYING, and MEANING.
Oh, and by the way, MOST of what you people, here, are 'TRYING TO' SAY, and MEAN, is ALREADY KNOWN, by I.''



I here Response:

So does that mean there is some missing data that I here have that I there doesn't have yet. And so only until the I here exchanges that missing data with the I there can the I there better understand the absolute totality of all data, finally knowing absolutely everything.

Is that even possible, to know everything?

[Eodnhoj7]

I there wrote:
''The REASON WHY I QUESTION you people, here, AS OFTEN AS I DO IS SO that I can BETTER UNDERSTAND what each of you is SAYING, and MEANING.
Oh, and by the way, MOST of what you people, here, are 'TRYING TO' SAY, and MEAN, is ALREADY KNOWN, by I.''



I here Response:

So does that mean there is some missing data that I here have that I there doesn't have yet. And so only until the I here exchanges that missing data with the I there can the I there better understand the absolute totality of all data, finally knowing absolutely everything.

Is that even possible, to know everything?

There is what I call "The Totality Paradox", it goes as follows:

1. There is only the totality, nothing is beyond it for it where then the totality would not be the totality.

2. Comparison is necessary for distinction to occur, without distinction there is nothing.

3. The totality has no comparison thus it is nothing.

The point why I bring up this paradox is that if one knew everything they would know nothing, and those who claim to know nothing know the fullness of the experience of their subjective time and space and what it has to offer for they know how transient and empty it is, how is occurs and dissolves into nothing.

Knowing is merely a perception, guided by the act of focusing awareness, and the depth of perception reaps a depth of knowledge relative to the energy applied. In philosophy, and life for that matter, one reaps what they sow.

Age sows confusion so that is what he or she reaps for that person makes the distinction that the occurence of their perspective is the truth by the justification of existence alone. Age can be a low grade and coarse representation of how philosophy is approached generally in the current era.

I see Age as a symbol of the times and this is why, Age knows philosophy is a rhetoric game of applied meaning where the rules of how to apply meaning are chaotically subjective in many degrees thus knowledge is merely expression of what occurs within and without a person.

[Fairy]

I there wrote:
''The REASON WHY I QUESTION you people, here, AS OFTEN AS I DO IS SO that I can BETTER UNDERSTAND what each of you is SAYING, and MEANING.
Oh, and by the way, MOST of what you people, here, are 'TRYING TO' SAY, and MEAN, is ALREADY KNOWN, by I.''



I here Response:

So does that mean there is some missing data that I here have that I there doesn't have yet. And so only until the I here exchanges that missing data with the I there can the I there better understand the absolute totality of all data, finally knowing absolutely everything.

Is that even possible, to know everything?

There is what I call "The Totality Paradox", it goes as follows:

1. There is only the totality, nothing is beyond it for it where then the totality would not be the totality.

2. Comparison is necessary for distinction to occur, without distinction there is nothing.

3. The totality has no comparison thus it is nothing.

The point why I bring up this paradox is that if one knew everything they would know nothing, and those who claim to know nothing know the fullness of the experience of their subjective time and space and what it has to offer for they know how transient and empty it is, how is occurs and dissolves into nothing.

Knowing is merely a perception, guided by the act of focusing awareness, and the depth of perception reaps a depth of knowledge relative to the energy applied. In philosophy, and life for that matter, one reaps what they sow.

Age sows confusion so that is what he or she reaps for that person makes the distinction that the occurence of their perspective is the truth by the justification of existence alone. Age can be a low grade and coarse representation of how philosophy is approached generally in the current era.

I see Age as a symbol of the times and this is why, Age knows philosophy is a rhetoric game of applied meaning where the rules of how to apply meaning are chaotically subjective in many degrees thus knowledge is merely expression of what occurs within and without a person.

I concur.

And very beautifully put, if I may say so myself.

Coherent and precise.

[Age]

I there wrote:
''The REASON WHY I QUESTION you people, here, AS OFTEN AS I DO IS SO that I can BETTER UNDERSTAND what each of you is SAYING, and MEANING.
Oh, and by the way, MOST of what you people, here, are 'TRYING TO' SAY, and MEAN, is ALREADY KNOWN, by I.''

I here Response:

LOL HOW can there be two 'I's', EXACTLY?

And, with One being 'there' AND One being 'here'?

LOL Even you WRITE and CLAIM that there is ONLY 'HERE', correct?

So does that mean there is some missing data that I here have that I there doesn't have yet.

YES. The data that EXPLAINS HOW there are, supposedly, TWO 'I's' AND A so-called 'here' AND A so-called 'there'.

Which 'you' the one here know as "fairy" SAYS and CLAIMS there IS, here.

And so only until the I here exchanges that missing data with the I there can the I there better understand the absolute totality of all data, finally knowing absolutely everything.

NOT necessarily so AT ALL.

See, to 'you', 'I' might ALREADY KNOW ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, here, but STILL, 'I' JUST QUESTION 'you' TO SHOW and PROVE other YET EXPLAINED things.

Is that even possible, to know everything?

HOW could 'the One', 'Everything', NOT ALREADY KNOW ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing?

[Age]

I there wrote:
''The REASON WHY I QUESTION you people, here, AS OFTEN AS I DO IS SO that I can BETTER UNDERSTAND what each of you is SAYING, and MEANING.
Oh, and by the way, MOST of what you people, here, are 'TRYING TO' SAY, and MEAN, is ALREADY KNOWN, by I.''



I here Response:

So does that mean there is some missing data that I here have that I there doesn't have yet. And so only until the I here exchanges that missing data with the I there can the I there better understand the absolute totality of all data, finally knowing absolutely everything.

Is that even possible, to know everything?

There is what I call "The Totality Paradox", it goes as follows:

1. There is only the totality, nothing is beyond it for it where then the totality would not be the totality.

2. Comparison is necessary for distinction to occur, without distinction there is nothing.

3. The totality has no comparison thus it is nothing.

The point why I bring up this paradox is that if one knew everything they would know nothing, and those who claim to know nothing know the fullness of the experience of their subjective time and space and what it has to offer for they know how transient and empty it is, how is occurs and dissolves into nothing.

Knowing is merely a perception, guided by the act of focusing awareness, and the depth of perception reaps a depth of knowledge relative to the energy applied. In philosophy, and life for that matter, one reaps what they sow.

Age sows confusion so that is what he or she reaps for that person makes the distinction that the occurence of their perspective is the truth by the justification of existence alone. Age can be a low grade and coarse representation of how philosophy is approached generally in the current era.

I see Age as a symbol of the times and this is why, Age knows philosophy is a rhetoric game of applied meaning where the rules of how to apply meaning are chaotically subjective in many degrees thus knowledge is merely expression of what occurs within and without a person.

Okay. But what does the word 'paradox' ACTUALLY MEAN, EXACTLY?

HOW MANY of these ones ACTUALLY KNEW that the word 'paradox' ACTUALLY MEANS the EXACT OPPOSITE OF 'itself'?

See, what these older ones DID, back in the days when this was being written, was NOT LOOK and NOT LISTEN. What they, INSTEAD, WOULD DO, is JUST ONLY EXPRESS what they WERE ALREADY BELIEVING WAS TRUE. Even when they had NO PROOF AT ALL

[Fairy]

I there wrote:
''The REASON WHY I QUESTION you people, here, AS OFTEN AS I DO IS SO that I can BETTER UNDERSTAND what each of you is SAYING, and MEANING.
Oh, and by the way, MOST of what you people, here, are 'TRYING TO' SAY, and MEAN, is ALREADY KNOWN, by I.''

I here Response:

LOL HOW can there be two 'I's', EXACTLY?

And, with One being 'there' AND One being 'here'?

LOL Even you WRITE and CLAIM that there is ONLY 'HERE', correct?

So does that mean there is some missing data that I here have that I there doesn't have yet.

YES. The data that EXPLAINS HOW there are, supposedly, TWO 'I's' AND A so-called 'here' AND A so-called 'there'.

Which 'you' the one here know as "fairy" SAYS and CLAIMS there IS, here.

And so only until the I here exchanges that missing data with the I there can the I there better understand the absolute totality of all data, finally knowing absolutely everything.

NOT necessarily so AT ALL.

See, to 'you', 'I' might ALREADY KNOW ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, here, but STILL, 'I' JUST QUESTION 'you' TO SHOW and PROVE other YET EXPLAINED things.

Is that even possible, to know everything?

HOW could 'the One', 'Everything', NOT ALREADY KNOW ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing?

All that's known is a finite knowing, a relative claim to know. A relative claimer claiming to know the absolute everything, is absurdity.

[Fairy]

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 3:01 pm
Is that even possible, to know everything?

HOW could 'the One', 'Everything', NOT ALREADY KNOW ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing?

You've just answered a question with another question...

[Age]

I there wrote:
''The REASON WHY I QUESTION you people, here, AS OFTEN AS I DO IS SO that I can BETTER UNDERSTAND what each of you is SAYING, and MEANING.
Oh, and by the way, MOST of what you people, here, are 'TRYING TO' SAY, and MEAN, is ALREADY KNOWN, by I.''



I here Response:

So does that mean there is some missing data that I here have that I there doesn't have yet. And so only until the I here exchanges that missing data with the I there can the I there better understand the absolute totality of all data, finally knowing absolutely everything.

Is that even possible, to know everything?

1. There is only the totality, nothing is beyond it for it where then the totality would not be the totality.

2. Comparison is necessary for distinction to occur, without distinction there is nothing.

3. The totality has no comparison thus it is nothing.

The point why I bring up this paradox is that if one knew everything they would know nothing, and those who claim to know nothing know the fullness of the experience of their subjective time and space and what it has to offer for they know how transient and empty it is, how is occurs and dissolves into nothing.

Knowing is merely a perception, guided by the act of focusing awareness, and the depth of perception reaps a depth of knowledge relative to the energy applied. In philosophy, and life for that matter, one reaps what they sow.

Age sows confusion so that is what he or she reaps for that person makes the distinction that the occurence of their perspective is the truth by the justification of existence alone. Age can be a low grade and coarse representation of how philosophy is approached generally in the current era.

I see Age as a symbol of the times and this is why, Age knows philosophy is a rhetoric game of applied meaning where the rules of how to apply meaning are chaotically subjective in many degrees thus knowledge is merely expression of what occurs within and without a person.

I concur.

And very beautifully put, if I may say so myself.

Coherent and precise.

1. There is only the totality, nothing is beyond it for it where then the totality would not be the totality.

BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

2. Comparison is necessary for distinction to occur, without distinction there is nothing.

OBVIOUSLY False.

3. The totality has no comparison thus it is nothing.

LOL The RIDICULOUS and ABSURDITY of the CONCLUSION, BELIEF, and CLAIM that the totality of Everything IS ABSOLUTELY NO thing, AT ALL, SPEAKS FOR iTSELF, here.

[Age]

I there wrote:
''The REASON WHY I QUESTION you people, here, AS OFTEN AS I DO IS SO that I can BETTER UNDERSTAND what each of you is SAYING, and MEANING.
Oh, and by the way, MOST of what you people, here, are 'TRYING TO' SAY, and MEAN, is ALREADY KNOWN, by I.''

I here Response:

LOL HOW can there be two 'I's', EXACTLY?

And, with One being 'there' AND One being 'here'?

LOL Even you WRITE and CLAIM that there is ONLY 'HERE', correct?

So does that mean there is some missing data that I here have that I there doesn't have yet.

YES. The data that EXPLAINS HOW there are, supposedly, TWO 'I's' AND A so-called 'here' AND A so-called 'there'.

Which 'you' the one here know as "fairy" SAYS and CLAIMS there IS, here.

And so only until the I here exchanges that missing data with the I there can the I there better understand the absolute totality of all data, finally knowing absolutely everything.

NOT necessarily so AT ALL.

See, to 'you', 'I' might ALREADY KNOW ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, here, but STILL, 'I' JUST QUESTION 'you' TO SHOW and PROVE other YET EXPLAINED things.

Is that even possible, to know everything?

HOW could 'the One', 'Everything', NOT ALREADY KNOW ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing?

All that's known is a finite knowing, a relative claim to know.

LOL 'All that is known is ....'.

A relative claimer claiming to know the absolute everything, is absurdity.

Has ANY so-called 'relative claimer' EVER claimed that it knew absolutely EVERY thing?

If no, then WHY say what you did, here?

But, if yes, then WHO was that, EXACTLY?

[Age]

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 3:01 pm
Is that even possible, to know everything?

HOW could 'the One', 'Everything', NOT ALREADY KNOW ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing?

You've just answered a question with another question...

VERY, VERY True

And, if 'you' are, REALLY, STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER, TO your QUESTION, BECAUSE you HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO WORK IT OUT FOR , and BY, "yourself", THEN THE ANSWER IS YES

[Fairy]

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 3:01 pm
Is that even possible, to know everything?

HOW could 'the One', 'Everything', NOT ALREADY KNOW ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing?

You've just answered a question with another question...

VERY, VERY True

And, if 'you' are, REALLY, STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER, TO your QUESTION, BECAUSE you HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO WORK IT OUT FOR , and BY, "yourself", THEN THE ANSWER IS YES

I have a question for Age.

Are 'you' who goes by the name of 'Age', a finite entity who had a beginning that will eventually end. ?

[Age]

You've just answered a question with another question...

VERY, VERY True

And, if 'you' are, REALLY, STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER, TO your QUESTION, BECAUSE you HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO WORK IT OUT FOR , and BY, "yourself", THEN THE ANSWER IS YES

I have a question for Age.

Okay.

Are 'you' who goes by the name of 'Age', a finite entity who had a beginning that will eventually end. ?

'i' was 'born', or 'came into being'. So, 'i' had a beginning, but, 'i', in a sense, will never end.

This, however, just applies to ALL people, anyway.

[Fairy]

VERY, VERY True

And, if 'you' are, REALLY, STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER, TO your QUESTION, BECAUSE you HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO WORK IT OUT FOR , and BY, "yourself", THEN THE ANSWER IS YES

I have a question for Age.

Okay.

Are 'you' who goes by the name of 'Age', a finite entity who had a beginning that will eventually end. ?

'i' was 'born', or 'came into being'. So, 'i' had a beginning, but, 'i', in a sense, will never end.

This, however, just applies to ALL people, anyway.

Another question..

Regarding the 'i' who was born, who had a beginning - how can 'i' that is born, had a beginning, will never end?

[Age]

I have a question for Age.

Okay.

Are 'you' who goes by the name of 'Age', a finite entity who had a beginning that will eventually end. ?

'i' was 'born', or 'came into being'. So, 'i' had a beginning, but, 'i', in a sense, will never end.

This, however, just applies to ALL people, anyway.

Another question..

Regarding the 'i' who was born, who had a beginning - how can 'i' that is born, had a beginning, will never end?

Because these 'i's' leave an ever-lasting effect in one way or another. So, in a sense, each and EVERY, beginning, 'i' lives on forever more.

[Fairy]

Okay.


'i' was 'born', or 'came into being'. So, 'i' had a beginning, but, 'i', in a sense, will never end.

This, however, just applies to ALL people, anyway.

Another question..

Regarding the 'i' who was born, who had a beginning - how can 'i' that is born, had a beginning, will never end?

Because these 'i's' leave an ever-lasting effect in one way or another. So, in a sense, each and EVERY, beginning, 'i' lives on forever more.

ok thanks

Another question...

Do these 'i's' that come into being, who are born, who have a beginning, who then live on forever more...are these 'i's' human? or something else?