YOU ARE NOT AN INDIVIDUAL!

[Age]

“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.

Okay. Thank you for informing 'us' of your completely own and distinct definition.

But, let 'us' not forget that absolutely every 'thing' has a word for 'it'.

In fact once the imageless is named it becomes an object conceptualised,

Well, again, considering that every 'thing' is named, then this would mean every 'thing' is an object conceptualized. Except the issue 'we' now have is that not every name 'thing' is an 'object'.

So, for example, 'we' could place names to 'that' what most people call 'image less', or in other words, 'that' what is just invisible, but 'that thing' will obviously not become an 'object conceptualized', like how you said and claimed, here.

the imageless is imaged.

Will you explain for 'us' how 'you' are able to so-call 'image' what is invisible?

Which means it is known,

But, things can be and were known before they are given names.

but not seen,

Like 'what', exactly, for example?

not seen because the seer is also a concept known.

So, supposedly, you human being 'seers' can not be seen, right?

Concepts known have no reality. Reality has concepts.

So, to you, concepts like, 'monkey', 'tiger', 'fish', and 'human beings' have no reality at all, right?

The concept is never seen, only known.

So, you can have a 'concept' of say, 'a building', but, to you, 'you' can never ever 'see' 'a building', right?

[Age]

“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.

What do you mean, here?

Does a 'cat' have a label, and 'cat' is or is not 'the label'?

Also, a label is the label, as well. And, the label does have the label, in fact the label, 'label', is 'the label' for 'a label'.

Objects have no existence.

So, to you, the object, 'earth', has no existence anywhere, right?

Existence has objects. Objects are looked upon as known concepts, never actually seen, only known.

If this is what you, really, want to believe is true, then okay.

No thing is ever seen, only known.

Because 'you' use the words and term, 'image less', in a very unique and distinct way, maybe 'you' would like to inform 'us' of how you define the word, 'seen', also. As to most human beings there are plenty of things that can be 'seen', and not only known.

Because seen implies a seer which is just another concept, known, in this conception, this not knowing knowing.

Are you aware that the 'only one' that you are fooling and confusing, here, is 'you'?

[Fairy]

“So, you can have a 'concept' of say, 'a building', but, to you, 'you' can never ever 'see' 'a building', right?”

———-

You can know a building, but you don’t see the building, because there’s no image of the seer of the building.

So there’s nothing actually looking at the building. So there’s nothing seeing a building.

If you say I am seeing the building. Then that I is simply known. The I is a concept known.

Seen implies a seer. So ask yourself, can that which is seeing see the seer? What would the seer look like? Can you point to the actual seer as though it existed somewhere at the end of your finger?


It’s weird, but true if you actually think deeply enough about this.

[Fairy]

“Are you aware that the 'only one' that you are fooling and confusing, here, is 'you'?”

Are you aware that you are 110% an absolute moronic idiotic imbecile?

[Fairy]

“So, for example, 'we' could place names to 'that' what most people call 'image less', or in other words, 'that' what is just invisible, but 'that thing' will obviously not become an 'object conceptualized', like how you said and claimed, here.”

——-

Invisible is a concept known. A concept is never seen for that implies a seer. That which is assumed to see, cannot be seen, only known.

How many more times would you like me to explain this to you? Will 3 million times more suffice, or shall I make it 4 million?

[Age]

“Are you aware that the 'only one' that you are fooling and confusing, here, is 'you'?”

Are you aware that you are 110% an absolute moronic idiotic imbecile?

By 'you' saying and writing, 110%, here, shows and reveals more 'about you', 'than me', here.

[Age]

“So, you can have a 'concept' of say, 'a building', but, to you, 'you' can never ever 'see' 'a building', right?”

———-

You can know a building, but you don’t see the building, because there’s no image of the seer of the building.

Nonsensical, and nothing to do with what 'I' actually asked 'you'.

So there’s nothing actually looking at the building. So there’s nothing seeing a building.

So, again, to "fairy" anyway, you human beings can not 'see' 'things', like 'buildings'.

If you say I am seeing the building. Then that I is simply known. The I is a concept known.

Once more, nonsensical, and completely off topic, here.

Seen implies a seer. So ask yourself, can that which is seeing see the seer?

1. Why would 'I' ask "myself" this?

2. It is very easy and simple to 'see' the 'seer' because the word 'see', also, means 'understand', and it is very easy and simple to 'understand' who and what the 'seer' and the 'Seer' are, exactly.

3. Why do 'you' spend so much time 'trying to' deflect and detract away from just answering the actual question/s 'I' ask 'you', for clarification and clarifying purposes.

What would the seer look like?

Exactly, like, invisible, 'thoughts'. Just like the 'Seer' looks, exactly, like the, invisible, 'Mind'.

What did 'you' envision the 'seer' looks like, exactly?

Can you point to the actual seer as though it existed somewhere at the end of your finger?

Why would you ask such a thing when you know the 'seer' is invisible? Can you point the 'wind', for example?

Why after all of our back and forth replies in this forum 'you' are, still, 'stuck' on, and in, the exact same things that 'you' were from our first conversations?

It’s weird, but true if you actually think deeply enough about this.

What is, supposedly, 'weird', but 'true', here, exactly?

Anyway, back to 'the beginning', again, 'Why can 'you' never 'see' a building, when every other human body with working eyes can?'

And, even those human bodies without working eyes can 'see', and/or understand, the concept, of 'a building' with and through the 'Mind'.

[Age]

“So, for example, 'we' could place names to 'that' what most people call 'image less', or in other words, 'that' what is just invisible, but 'that thing' will obviously not become an 'object conceptualized', like how you said and claimed, here.”

——-

Invisible is a concept known. A concept is never seen for that implies a seer. That which is assumed to see, cannot be seen, only known.

How many more times would you like me to explain this to you? Will 3 million times more suffice, or shall I make it 4 million?

I would much prefer you just answer the actual question/s 'I' ask 'you', only, instead of all of your attempts to deflect and deceive, here?

Look, "fairy" one of the many different and contradictory things that you claim is that when you place a name upon some thing, then 'it' become an 'object conceptualized'. However, and as 'I' pointed out to 'you' the invisible can not always become 'an object conceptualized', at all.

Will you explain what the 'objects conceptualized', to 'you', personally, look like with 'the names', 'Mind', 'thought', and 'feeling'?

If no, then why not?

What is 'it' that 'you' are afraid of, here, exactly?

[Fairy]

“So, for example, 'we' could place names to 'that' what most people call 'image less', or in other words, 'that' what is just invisible, but 'that thing' will obviously not become an 'object conceptualized', like how you said and claimed, here.”

——-

Invisible is a concept known. A concept is never seen for that implies a seer. That which is assumed to see, cannot be seen, only known.

How many more times would you like me to explain this to you? Will 3 million times more suffice, or shall I make it 4 million?

I would much prefer you just answer the actual question/s 'I' ask 'you', only, instead of all of your attempts to deflect and deceive, here?

Look, "fairy" one of the many different and contradictory things that you claim is that when you place a name upon some thing, then 'it' become an 'object conceptualized'. However, and as 'I' pointed out to 'you' the invisible can not always become 'an object conceptualized', at all.

Will you explain what the 'objects conceptualized', to 'you', personally, look like with 'the names', 'Mind', 'thought', and 'feeling'?

If no, then why not?

What is 'it' that 'you' are afraid of, here, exactly?

I’ve already explained.

It’s you who is afraid of the explanation.

Stop blaming me for your own failures to understand.

[Fairy]

“Anyway, back to 'the beginning', again, 'Why can 'you' never 'see' a building, when every other human body with working eyes can?'”

There’s no seer in a physical eyeball.

[Age]

“Anyway, back to 'the beginning', again, 'Why can 'you' never 'see' a building, when every other human body with working eyes can?'”

There’s no seer in a physical eyeball.

Again, your attempt at deflection only 'hinders you', and never 'helps you'.

[Age]

“So, for example, 'we' could place names to 'that' what most people call 'image less', or in other words, 'that' what is just invisible, but 'that thing' will obviously not become an 'object conceptualized', like how you said and claimed, here.”

——-

Invisible is a concept known. A concept is never seen for that implies a seer. That which is assumed to see, cannot be seen, only known.

How many more times would you like me to explain this to you? Will 3 million times more suffice, or shall I make it 4 million?

I would much prefer you just answer the actual question/s 'I' ask 'you', only, instead of all of your attempts to deflect and deceive, here?

Look, "fairy" one of the many different and contradictory things that you claim is that when you place a name upon some thing, then 'it' become an 'object conceptualized'. However, and as 'I' pointed out to 'you' the invisible can not always become 'an object conceptualized', at all.

Will you explain what the 'objects conceptualized', to 'you', personally, look like with 'the names', 'Mind', 'thought', and 'feeling'?

If no, then why not?

What is 'it' that 'you' are afraid of, here, exactly?

I’ve already explained.

It’s you who is afraid of the explanation.

Stop blaming me for your own failures to understand.

One can not understand irrationality, illogicality, nor nonsense. By definition those things, which are what you are presenting, here, are understandable.

And, your continued attempts at deflection, and of deceiving, the readers, here, shows and proves just how irrational, illogical, nonsensical, and absurd a lot of your claims, here.

[Fairy]

“One can not understand irrationality, illogicality, nor nonsense. By definition those things, which are what you are presenting, here, are understandable.

And, your continued attempts at deflection, and of deceiving, the readers, here, shows and proves just how irrational, illogical, nonsensical, and absurd a lot of your claims, here.”

——-

Sorry age, you just cannot speak for others, you can’t, nice try though.

[Fairy]

“Anyway, back to 'the beginning', again, 'Why can 'you' never 'see' a building, when every other human body with working eyes can?'”

There’s no seer in a physical eyeball.

Again, your attempt at deflection only 'hinders you', and never 'helps you'.

I’m sorry to hear you are in need of my help that doesn’t help.

[Fairy]

“Anyway, back to 'the beginning', again, 'Why can 'you' never 'see' a building, when every other human body with working eyes can?'”

There’s no seer in a physical eyeball.

Again, your attempt at deflection only 'hinders you', and never 'helps you'.

Prove me wrong, that there’s no seer in a physical eyeball.

I’m just responding to your claim that eyeballs can see.