Philosophy Now Forum

surreptitious57 wrote:

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
No progress has been made and I am none the wiser as a consequence
And so I ll leave you alone and bother you no more with this like I said

I am progressing and becoming wiser if you are not if that is any consolation

You would progress more and become more wiser by providing evidence when asked
The mental barrier your mind has erected is inhibiting this process very successfully

Well that's not entirely true is it because I can see the evidence, it's blinding me right now, even though you can't see it, the question you should be asking yourself is why you can't see it?.

surreptitious57 wrote:

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
No progress has been made and I am none the wiser as a consequence
And so I ll leave you alone and bother you no more with this like I said

I am progressing and becoming wiser if you are not if that is any consolation

You would progress more and become more wiser by providing evidence when asked

Not necessarily. I write the way I do, provoking responses in order to gain insight into others and from those responses I thus become wiser that way.

surreptitious57 wrote:The mental barrier your mind has erected is inhibiting this process very successfully

I write the way I do and wait for responses to gauge how open people are and to see how much they are really listening to what I say/write.

You unfortunately do not show much sign of being open at all. I previously wrote, "First off, there is no 'my' mind. No person, nor no one, has nor owns a mind. There is only one Mind, which is completely and truly open to ALL things. The Mind can NOT be changed. The Mind is also ALL knowing."

Yet here you write, "... your mind ...". You absolutely ignored any and ALL of what I wrote previously. You do not yet have to necessarily agree with any of it, but if you were just the slightest bit open to it, then you would have shown some sort of inquiry and/or questioned Me for clarity, or challenged Me about what I wrote. You, however, just totally rejected what I wrote and proceeded to go along with your own already held beliefs and assumptions.

If I was to question you here about how a human being or anything else could have a mind what would your response be now?

You might be unaware but the evidence that you are so wanting Me to share with you I am actually providing now. From within my writings and from within your responses proof is being revealed. I am using the human beings of this day and age to show future generations how the Mind and the brain work, together and against each other.

Dontaskme wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

ken wrote:
I am progressing and becoming wiser if you are not if that is any consolation

You would progress more and become more wiser by providing evidence when asked
The mental barrier your mind has erected is inhibiting this process very successfully

Well that is not entirely true is it because I can see the evidence its blinding me right now
even though you cant see it the question you should be asking yourself is why you cant see

The thing that is blinding you is not evidence. If it is was I would also see it. I am very sceptical about the validity of truth statements based up
on faith alone. It doesnt automatically render them false. But it does mean I require something more substantial before accepting them as true

surreptitious57 wrote: The thing that is blinding you is not evidence. If it is was I would also see it. I am very sceptical about the validity of truth statements based up
on faith alone. It doesnt automatically render them false. But it does mean I require something more substantial before accepting them as true

Is that your truth statement?

If it is, then you have no business denying others theirs.

surreptitious57 wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote: You would progress more and become more wiser by providing evidence when asked
The mental barrier your mind has erected is inhibiting this process very successfully

Well that is not entirely true is it because I can see the evidence its blinding me right now
even though you cant see it the question you should be asking yourself is why you cant see

The thing that is blinding you is not evidence. If it is was I would also see it. I am very sceptical about the validity of truth statements based up
on faith alone. It doesnt automatically render them false. But it does mean I require something more substantial before accepting them as true

Not all people see the same things. For example if a person holds a strong belief in some thing, then they are not able to see evidence of the Truth.

I am also very skeptical about the validity of truth statements based upon faith alone, that is why I responded with a completely opposing view to your "Humanistic utopian enlightenment will never happen" statement. Do you have any evidence at all to support your faith based claim?

ken wrote:
First off there is no my mind. No person nor no one has nor owns a mind. There is only
one Mind which is completely and truly open to ALL things. The Mind can NOT be changed

Yet here you write .... your mind .... You absolutely ignored any and ALL of what I wrote previously. You do not yet have to necessarily
agree with any of it but if you were just the slightest bit open to it then you would have shown some sort of inquiry and / or questioned
Me for clarity or challenged Me about what I wrote. You however just totally rejected what I wrote and proceeded to go along with your
own already held beliefs and assumptions

If I was to question you here about how a human being or anything else could have a mind what would your response be now

I am fully aware of the distinction you make between Mind and mind which is why I did not question you about it. I do not agree with you but this doesnt mean I cannot understand it from your perspective. My response to your question would be how can you function if what you claim is true
Namely that human beings dont have minds. I know that you have given an answer above but I do not accept it. I do however accept that you do

Dontaskme wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
The thing that is blinding you is not evidence. If it is was I would also see it. I am very sceptical about the
validity of truth statements based upon faith alone. It doesnt automatically render them false. But it does
mean I require something more substantial before accepting them as true

Is that your truth statement? If it is then you have no business denying others theirs

I am not at all interested in denying the truth statements of others or else I would not be here
I do not really care what anyone thinks or believes as long as they do not impose it upon others

surreptitious57 wrote:

ken wrote:
First off there is no my mind. No person nor no one has nor owns a mind. There is only
one Mind which is completely and truly open to ALL things. The Mind can NOT be changed

Yet here you write .... your mind .... You absolutely ignored any and ALL of what I wrote previously. You do not yet have to necessarily
agree with any of it but if you were just the slightest bit open to it then you would have shown some sort of inquiry and / or questioned
Me for clarity or challenged Me about what I wrote. You however just totally rejected what I wrote and proceeded to go along with your
own already held beliefs and assumptions

If I was to question you here about how a human being or anything else could have a mind what would your response be now

I am fully aware of the distinction you make between Mind and mind which is why I did not question you about it.

I am not sure you are fully aware of the distinction I make between Mind and mind, so I will question you what do you think the distinction is I make?

surreptitious57 wrote: I do not agree with you but this doesnt mean I cannot understand it from your perspective. My response to your question would be how can you function if what you claim is true

But I did not ask you a question here. And if I did, then I would much prefer an answer and then a question, rather than just a question back.

surreptitious57 wrote:Namely that human beings dont have minds.

If by 'you', you mean a person, then how a person functions without having a mind is fully understood when the definition of 'person' is fully known and fully understood.

surreptitious57 wrote:I know that you have given an answer above but I do not accept it. I do however accept that you do

What did I actually give an answer to, which you do not accept but you accept that I accept it.

surreptitious57 wrote: I am not at all interested in denying the truth statements of others or else I would not be here
I do not really care what anyone thinks or believes as long as they do not impose it upon others

No one is forcing a truth statement on another, they are simply expressing their truth statement. Of course it's up to the other to reject or accept. It's called exchanging ideas.

And just how is it possible to submit a truth statement if it's going to be rejected as a lie? how do we know what's true or lie ..until we can actively exchange ideas with others?

Dontaskme wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote: I am not at all interested in denying the truth statements of others or else I would not be here
I do not really care what anyone thinks or believes as long as they do not impose it upon others

No one is forcing a truth statement on another, they are simply expressing their truth statement. Of course it's up to the other to reject or accept. It's called exchanging ideas.

And just how is it possible to submit a truth statement if it's going to be rejected as a lie? how do we know what's true or lie ..until we can actively exchange ideas with others?

Actually, from the human being perspective, what makes some thing true or false is agreement.

ken wrote:
I am not sure you are fully aware of the distinction I make between Mind and mind

This is another mental barrier your mind has constructed and it serves no purpose at all. I say I am fully aware of the distinction you make
between Mind and mind so you have no reason to ask me. If I want clarification on something I will ask but if I know something then I have
no reason to. Doing so would be wasting time and energy that could be better spent on advancing the debate by moving on to other issues

Dontaskme wrote:
And just how is it possible to submit a truth statement if it is going to be rejected as a lie
How do we know what is truth or lie .... until we can actively exchange ideas with others

I am all for exchanging ideas. But a truth statement has to stand on its own merit. Whether it is accepted or not is a completely separate
issue. Now there can sometimes be a correlation between how sound one is and how popular it is. But correlation is not causation. Sound
truth statements may be unpopular and unsound ones may be popular and so popularity or unpopularity are not always reliable indicators
here. And why it must therefore be the actual statement itself and only the statement that can determine whether it is sound or unsound

surreptitious57 wrote:

ken wrote:
I am not sure you are fully aware of the distinction I make between Mind and mind

This is another mental barrier your mind has constructed and it serves no purpose at all.

I will have to reiterate here, there is no such thing as "your" mind.

surreptitious57 wrote: I say I am fully aware of the distinction you make
between Mind and mind so you have no reason to ask me.

Again, another example of when human beings have absolutely no clue of what they are talking about. I questioned you, and your refusal to answer the question is just more proof of this ignorance. Just for your information I make absolutely no distinction between Mind and mind. So, you can NOT know what distinction I make. Those beliefs and assumptions that you want to maintain are stopping you from seeing, and thus knowing, this Truth.

surreptitious57 wrote: If I want clarification on something I will ask but if I know something then I have
no reason to.

However, when I wanted clarification on something and I asked you for it you refused to provide it to Me. And this is even more outstanding because the actual thing you are alleging that you "know" is actually supposedly within Me. The funniest part of this is the thing you said you KNOW, has already been shown to be completely false. You say you know the distinction I make between Mind and mind, YET, I make absolutely NO distinction between Mind and mind. I have already written about this and thus have already show that I make NO distinction. I have already explained that there is no mind. That there is only One Mind, and that because there is only One there is not two. Therefore there can be NO distinction. I have already written and explained this but you want to continue to believe that I make a distinction between Mind and mind.

So, what you continued to believe and assume to be true, which were based upon your previous experiences, are so completely false that this is amusing. ALL of this could have been easily and completely clarified earlier if you just asked some clarifying questions beforehand. Instead of persisting with what you thought you already knew, and you just became open and remained open, then this, and ALL, Truth is found and discovered.

surreptitious57 wrote:Doing so would be wasting time and energy that could be better spent on advancing the debate by moving on to other issues

[/quote]

Thinking that I am going to debate anything is also so far from Truth that it is absurd.

By definition to 'debate' one person picks a "side" and another person picks another "side" and the two fight for one side or the other. This type of unnecessary and illogical way of discussing issues is part of what is creating a continuing disputed and conflicted world, which is being caused by an ill-informed education system carrying on the way it is. Teaching people to dispute about and fight for any thing is totally inappropriate.

I do not discuss in that centuries old debating formed way. Instead I look at and see (understand) what it is that we ALL can agree with. This way of looking and discussing is a far more advance and progressed way, which is how a new truly peaceful and harmonious world will begin and be created. If people want to look for, find, learn, and discover what it IS that will create a peaceful world for everyone, then I am open to discuss that. But if people want to fight for one side or another, then I am not really interested.

Humanistic utopian enlightenment will never be found and gained in and with debating. On the contrary, debating causes disagreements, which can lead to disputes, conflict, fighting, and warring.

If people want to 'argue', fight for what they believe to be true, which in truth may not actually be true, then I am not interested. However,
If people want to 'argue', logically reason peacefully to find out 'what IS' actually True, then I am all for it. Through this way of arguing, sound, valid arguments are formed, which obviously those arguments could not be disputed and thus they could only be agreed with and accepted by ALL. Through agreement is how peaceful solutions and/or enlightenment is found.

Finding what we ALL agree with, peacefully, logically creates a utopian life. The process to gaining the enlightenment to a humanistic utopia is a nine step process, which starts with adults openly and honestly admitting that they abuse children. But how many adults are truly open and honest, especially about something as deplorable as that? The reason most human beings have absolutely no idea about how a humanistic utopia enlightenment could be obtained IS because most human beings are not truly open and honest. This closing of people is another fault of an 'education system', which judges, punishes, and ridicules, which in turn teaches that judging, punishing, and ridiculing is "normal" or "all right behavior".

Just like teaching a whole population of open young children that they have to learn some particular things in order to get a job because they have to "make money" because this is the only way to live, and the only "right" thing to do. Learning greed from an education system, which teaches greediness, is just another part of a skewed and wrong 'system', which human beings are caught up in and creating, but they are yet to see and understand. Because ALL young children are open, they each fall into the trap and end up growing into and being part of the problem. The problem being, "How do i get out of this situation", the answer being, "By being truly open and honest about being part of and causing the problem". 'You' can not be free of a problem, that is have the answer to a problem, if and when you are a cause of and thus are a part of the problem.

surreptitious57 wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:
And just how is it possible to submit a truth statement if it is going to be rejected as a lie
How do we know what is truth or lie .... until we can actively exchange ideas with others

I am all for exchanging ideas. But a truth statement has to stand on its own merit. Whether it is accepted or not is a completely separate
issue. Now there can sometimes be a correlation between how sound one is and how popular it is. But correlation is not causation. Sound
truth statements may be unpopular and unsound ones may be popular and so popularity or unpopularity are not always reliable indicators
here. And why it must therefore be the actual statement itself and only the statement that can determine whether it is sound or unsound

Whilst a "sound" truth statement may no unpopular and vice-versa, a truly resounding sound truth statement would on its own merit be very popular. A completely sound and valid truth statement would not be unambiguous and thus could not be disputed nor disagreed with, so on its own merit would have to be accepted by Everyone. Thus a truly sound truth statement must be, by definition, most 'popular'. 'Popular' in the sense that it has to be accepted by Everyone.

But the most sound and most valid of truth statements like "Every adult abuses children" and "Every child is/was abused", are by definition very 'unpopular'. 'Unpopular' in the sense that although the statement is absolutely the Truth, which can not be disputed nor disagreed with by anyone, most people do not want to believe it is true. Thus these people can not see evidence, no matter how big or how much evidence is provided.

Truly sound and valid truth statements like ""What makes a statement true IS agreement" may also be one that is a very unpopular one, but even if only one person is seeing a statement is true it IS the agreement with it that makes it true. This principle applies for ALL truth statements, so in a sense what makes a statement more true is more who agree with it. Until eventually a statement is absolutely true because Every thing is agreeing with it. If no thing is disagreeing, then 'what ever it is Everything is agreeing with' must be an indisputable truth and thus ultimately thee Truth.

ken wrote:
You say you know the distinction I make between Mind and mind, YET I make absolutely NO distinction between Mind and mind. I have already written about this and thus have already show that I make NO distinction. I have already explained that there is no mind. That there is only
One Mind and that because there is only One there is not two. Therefore there can be NO distinction. I have already written and explained
this but you want to continue to believe that I make a distinction between Mind and mind

You claim no distinction between Mind and mind then say that Mind exists but mind does not so there is the distinction. Now I also make a
distinction between them. Namely that mind exists but Mind does not. There is no evidence for Mind which is why you cannot provide any