YOU ARE NOT AN INDIVIDUAL!

[Fairy]

We are defined by what we are not. "I am not "x"" is coherent.

Yes, and we are never not. We are an infinite loop looping and twisting upon itself, and then untwisting the twist via infinite thought looping.

The variation between one loop and another, ie one symbol and another, points to a relative absence. We are the absence in ourselves and the absence of said absence in these regards.

Affirmative!

[Age]

That's not what I said. I never said the sun doesn't exist. I said the sun is unaware of it's existence as a concept known by the mind that conceives the object as a conceptualisation, ie: as a sun..

Where, exactly, did you supposedly say 'this'?

What I heard you say, and see you write, is, 'There is no sun until you say there is.'

How can you, here, say you never said the sun does not exist, when you clearly stated, 'There is no sun until ...'?

In fact you very clearly said, 'There is no sun until you say there is'. which is why I asked you, in another way, 'Why do you believe that the sun does not exist until you say there is?'

Stop making assumptions, they are the mother of all fuck ups.

Why do you assume and believe that 'assumptions' are the so-called 'mother of all fuck ups'?

Have you not yet recognized and seen the damage done by beliefs, themselves'?

The sun first has to exist before it can be conceived of, conceptualised.

I know, and that is why I was pointing out to you that your claim, 'There is no sun until you say there is', is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect from the perspective that the 'very thing', which you know as and call 'the sun' is 'there', and does and did exist way before 'until you say there is'.

One day you might get to understand what I am pointing out, explaining, and was meaning, here.

Prior to the suns label, the sun just exists without knowing.

Again, I know. I was the one explaining 'this' to you.

The very reason why I was pointing out that there is 'the sun' even before 'you say there is', is because the sun, contrary to what you were saying and writing, does just exist even if you naming and labelling human beings did not even come into Existence.

One day, instead of making assumptions and jumping to conclusions, you might consider what I might be actually meaning, and then just ask some clarifying questions, and then from 'doing this', instead, you might come to realize that what you have been assuming and/or believing has been leading you astray, here.

I'm not going to explain that to you again in any other way, if you don't understand what I've said, then tough, I don't care.

Could it be 'the case' that it has been you who has not been understanding what I have been pointing out and explaining, to you?

Or, could 'this' never be a possibility, to you?

Can you, still, not see that your belief and claim, 'There is no sun until you say there is', is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect in a few ways?

However, if instead, you said or wrote some thing like, 'There is no word 'sun' until someone says there is', or maybe better worded, 'The word 'sun' does not exist until someone says 'that word', or maybe better still, 'There is no 'sun' word until someone says 'that word' ', then 'that' would be far more true, right, accurate, and correct.

Saying, 'There is no sun, until you say there is', implies that there is no 'sun', (itself), until 'you', (a particular person), says there is.

Hopefully, you are 'now' coming to learn and see things better, here.

From my perspective you appear to have 'trouble', or 'an issue', with distinguishing between the 'very thing, itself', from, the names and labels that 'you', human beings, place and 'put upon' the 'things', themselves. For example, saying some thing like, 'There is no sun until people say there is', never ever means that there is none of the 'very thing, itself', which just some people call 'the sun', here, until people say there is'. but, and just as obvious is, there is no word, 'sun', until a species brought 'that word' in existence.

And, unlike you, I will keep going to explain that to you in many different ways, that is, if you do want to learn and understand and until you do understand what I have said, and this is because, unlike you, I do care.

[Age]

"I" is a distinction, a concept.

Yes, I concur.

The I is a distinction in this inconceivable conception.

But, lol, you use the 'you' word even when you are 'trying to' claim that there is no other. 'I' is singular, thus one. 'you' is, at least, two, thus more than one.

Now, you two, "eodnhoj7" and "fairy", explain how 'I' is a distinction, exactly.

From 'what perspective' is 'I' a distinction?

And, if either of 'you' ever get around to 'thinking' about what 'I' am asking, here, just maybe 'you' will 'see' that it is only from a very narrowed or shallow perspective that the 'I' then becomes a distinction.

Here, 'we' can clearly see just how easily and simply 'these people', in the days when this was being written, had been fooled and deceived, by the so-called 'gurus' who say and claim that there is no 'I'.

And, just like how the followers of 'science' and 'theologies' are so easily and simply convinced, fooled, and deceived into believing things, which are False and Wrong, 'these people' also 'fall into that trap', when they also just accept what they are told and do not question it.

[Fairy]

“One day you might get to understand what I am pointing out, explaining, and was meaning, here.”

That statement works both ways, moron.

[Fairy]

“I know, and that is why I was pointing out to you that your claim, 'There is no sun until you say there is', is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect from the perspective that the 'very thing', which you know as and call 'the sun' is 'there', and does and did exist way before 'until you say there is'.”

No, it’s right, I clearly said there’s no “sun” in other words there’s no label known as “sun” until that label is superimposed mentally upon the imaged unidentified object appearing within the subject seer. I never once suggested that object didn’t exist, you just assumed I meant that when I didn’t, I was referring to the label, not the actual object.

If all you’re going to do is misinterpret what you are reading, and then just continue to assume I’ve said something which I clearly haven’t, then there’s nothing I can do about that.

[Fairy]

It’s the same principle for all concepts/ labels

The concept INDIVIDUAL is no exception.

There’s no label for anything seen until that label is mentally superimposed upon the looked upon image.
Only then does the imageless imaged object become an identity. In other words an image of the imageless.

When I say imageless object I don’t mean the object isn’t there or it doesn’t exist, I mean the label isn’t there, well not until one is superimposed upon it.

[Fairy]

Same principle for the “I”

The I isn’t there until you say it it. Until you label the imageless with an image. That’s how the mind works by distinction and the process by which it is able to differentiate between concepts and absence of concepts.

[Fairy]

It’s no good just saying you are not an individual without saying you are an individual.

Because saying you are not an individual is actually creating an individual to be not.

And that’s like trying to wipe away blood using blood. You see.

[Fairy]

You are the singularity.

Individual. Indivisible. Invisible visible. Indivisible dual.

Objects don’t have existence. Existence has objects.

[Age]

“One day you might get to understand what I am pointing out, explaining, and was meaning, here.”

That statement works both ways, moron.

Why with the 'moron' word?

And, remember how many times 'you' have ended up contradicting "your" 'self'. Which when I point out when and why you have, you then go into your usual 'trying to' 'justify' "your" 'self' by saying and claiming things like, 'I am just talking to "myself" and contradictions are just what happenings'.

Also, remember that 'I' want to be critiqued, challenged, and question, whereas you do not want to be questioned, as doing so reveals your inconsistencies, contradictions, faults, and failures in your thinking, assumptions, views, and beliefs, here. In fact you so do not want to be questioned you even went by the name and label, "dontaskme".

Which is just another sign of not knowing what one is talking about and/or not even being able to back up and support their views, beliefs, and/or claims, here.

[Age]

“I know, and that is why I was pointing out to you that your claim, 'There is no sun until you say there is', is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect from the perspective that the 'very thing', which you know as and call 'the sun' is 'there', and does and did exist way before 'until you say there is'.”

No, it’s right, I clearly said there’s no “sun” in other words there’s no label known as “sun” until that label is superimposed mentally upon the imaged unidentified object appearing within the subject seer.

If what you 'meant' is the 'label', and not the 'very thing', itself, then it would help the readers, here, if you said and wrote what you 'actually meant', instead.

I never once suggested that object didn’t exist,

If you really, still, can not yet see that when one says, 'There is no 'thing', [whatever 'that' may well be], then could be taken as suggesting, 'That thing is not there or does not exist', then I am not sure when you will ever see and understand that saying, 'There is no earth, (for example), until something else', suggests, 'that 'that thing/object' did not exist until ...'.

you just assumed I meant that when I didn’t, I was referring to the label, not the actual object.

Great, 'we' finally got HERE.

Now, you are very, very Correct that i was assuming, which would have been much, much better if i never did. And, if I had just you a set of 'clarifying questions, instead, then 'we' might have got HERE, much earlier. But, besides asking you, 'What do you mean, exactly?' what sort of clarifying questions could i have asked 'you', instead?

By the time I had already worked out that you were referring to 'the label', only, it was too late to ask 'clarifying question/s'. I had already come to know what you actually meant.

Now, could have you written clearer and more succinctly from the outset? Or, was it all my fault alone, here, for assuming before I sought out and obtained and gained actual clarification and clarity, first?

If all you’re going to do is misinterpret what you are reading, and then just continue to assume I’ve said something which I clearly haven’t, then there’s nothing I can do about that.

Will you show 'us' where you 'clearly said' what you 'actually meant' above, here?

If no, then why not?

[Age]

You are the singularity.

Individual. Indivisible. Invisible visible. Indivisible dual.

Objects don’t have existence. Existence has objects.

I, 'now', do not want to assume that when you use the 'you' word that you are actually talking to 'another'. So, when you say and write 'you', 'What do you actually mean, exactly?'

[Age]

It’s the same principle for all concepts/ labels

The concept INDIVIDUAL is no exception.

There’s no label for anything seen until that label is mentally superimposed upon the looked upon image.

Well this is just a tautology. Which never needed to be pointed out and expressed.

Only then does the imageless imaged object become an identity.

Why do you call objects like 'the sun', 'the earth', or 'human bodies' image less?

In other words an image of the imageless.

When I say imageless object I don’t mean the object isn’t there or it doesn’t exist, I mean the label isn’t there, well not until one is superimposed upon it.

So, to you, when an object has not been provided with a label, then 'it' is somehow 'image less', even though 'it' can be seen, correct?

Also, and by the way, there is a 'label' for absolutely every 'thing', anyway. So, to you, does this mean that there is nothing that is what you call, 'image less'?

[Fairy]

“So, to you, when an object has not been provided with a label, then 'it' is somehow 'image less', even though 'it' can be seen, correct?”

———-
No, that’s not correct.
Image less, meaning no word for it.

In fact once the imageless is named it becomes an object conceptualised, the imageless is imaged. Which means it is known, but not seen, not seen because the seer is also a concept known. Concepts known have no reality. Reality has concepts.

The concept is never seen, only known.

[Fairy]

“Also, and by the way, there is a 'label' for absolutely every 'thing', anyway. So, to you, does this mean that there is nothing that is what you call, 'image less'?“

——-

Not quite right. A thing is the label. The label doesn’t have the label, it is the label.

Objects have no existence. Existence has objects. Objects are looked upon as known concepts, never actually seen, only known.

No thing is ever seen, only known. Because seen implies a seer which is just another concept, known, in this conception, this not knowing knowing.