What do you think ? 💭

[Fairy]

That'd make me sound like a nicer guy, maybe, but it'd be pretending.

Pretending is such an exhausting task when it’s much easier to just be your true authentic self which effortlessly happens anyway, you don’t even have to be there when you happen.

There’s simply what’s happening and no thing in the world can make what’s happening unhappen.

Acceptance is the key. Or, there is a contraction a kind of resistance to what’s happening. But to resist anything at all is to adopt intolerance.

I say, just be yourself always, the real fictional character. Never pretend to be anyone but who you are. Never hide under a mask, rather, always show your true side, both of them. And don’t be afraid of your self. The one only you have created, because quite simply, no one else has created you, except you.

If you cannot tolerate yourself then good luck tolerating others.

[Fairy]

...so give people some slack, we all have a not so nice mean side.

Well, Age, has supposedely transcended all that.

That which appears to transcend, never transcended. You are referring to the word Age who is on your mind again, that imaginary character that appears to transcend, but cannot since imaginary characters do not exist, except in this pretentious CONception.

In this conception, that I have created, I am the greatest pretender.

Roy Dopson for all his pettiness and using others patterns, was quite humanly sloppy about all this.
Age is a pro by comparison.

Talk about human self-idolization.

You' are doing it again, aren't you, referring to the word inside your mind as being actually real. Roy Dopson is a word. words are dead things. Paradoxically, dead stuff is also aliveness. For there is no experience of non-experience. The dead words come to life as if by magic, how, through words heard as sound and light, that's how. Aliveness is a sound and light show for one. The show is a ticket for one, it admits only one


Who hears the sound? there is only sound known.
Who sees the light? there is only light known.

Who knows, who hears, who sees???. Who senses? .... Awareness is all the answers, to every one/one's question.

Awareness is the true real direct essence of all reality, being birthless/deathless, and yet knows every concept since it's the one aware of every concept of it's own creation, as both creator and creation are one in the exact moment of knowing. Knower and Known are not mutually exclusive, they are mutually inclusive.. Roy is awareness, Roy is not his name or label. And so are you, and me this same awareness as Roy, as we each one, same one, are experiencing differences in name only, in this CON-ception.



And is why Roy rocks this message like no other. I'm going to leave earth, and live with him very soon.

[Fairy]

I can be blunt with Age. I've never bought the idea that implicit cut downs, and passive aggressive attacks are somehow better. I'd rather have someone own up to their emotions rather than pretend they are not having them.

Just keep hammering in those emotional nails. For pity sake, stop doing that.

Lets just keep talking about the word Age, the word that seems to be living rent free inside your own mind here, since you are not actually in realtime with Age right now are you..( your exact words, not mine btw ) So Lets talk about this word Age who lives in your mind now instead.

Lets glorify Age for a change as an exemplary role model for what you are advocating, as you have done when you commended Harbal for being the golden child, but then do not extend that commendation to Age, and why is that, why not afford commendation to Age too? So, and here's the reason why you ought to.... Lets just all refresh our memory, oh yes, Harbal is passive aggressive too, we all know that because he told Age to ''fuck off''. And yet I have never seen Age use those exact words toward another im-poster, have you?

Has age ever told an other im-poster to fuck off? ..if he has, then go back in your time machine, and retrieve it, then show it to the readers reading. See if you can find where Age tells people to fuck off, that's assuming Age has actually told an im-poster to fuck off. If Age hasn't, then don't bother wasting your time looking for what he never said.

[Fairy]

The games that Age is playing are played all the time, probably most of us have played some of them here and there. Some are centered in them.

Then stop being played. Simple. Stop centring yourself in the game as you are doing right here on my ''there is only one of us here'' thread.
Unless you like playing with yourself of course, if you love playing with yourself, then quit complaining, just mentally masturbate away, your only making love to, or, with yourself anyway. So enjoy the ride, or get off the ride.

Leave the game, or delete it. It's really that simple, maybe too simple for some who prefer the simplicity to be more complicated than it actually is.

Kudos to Roy. He was the one who echoed the the greatest wisdom of all when he quoted the purpose of the game is to end the game.

But if you do not want the game to come to an end, then fine, keep playing it, so do you want the game to come to an end Iwannaplato?

If not, then keep playing with your self, that imaginary character you have formed in your mind to be real, the form that goes by the word AGE playing a game with Plato. It takes two to play a game, it takes a player, and the game being played.

It takes two baby, it takes awareness, and the concept that awareness is aware of, known to it only, exclusively and never exclusive, who is awareness aware of, the concept of course, namely, the con artist, of it's own mentally constructed creation.. Yes, indeed, a duality is needed for any game to become known is being played...it's take the player, and the game that the player is playing. You are the game and the player both, there is no other game in town but the one you play with yourself, the one you imagine to exist as an imaginary friend, or foe who lives inside your mind as a word.


Savvy!

[Age]

Okay, but what this has to do with any thing here I have no clue.

I know. I certainly understand that you don't agree that this example of a category of people I have also learned to generally not clariy things for, but that you cannot imagine what I meant is, actually, rather amazing.

But, I could imagine, and presume, numerous multiple things here about what you meant here. I, however, just prefer not to ever. I much prefer to seek out and obtain actual clarity, first. That is; if and when I want to. I, obviously, had no interest nor curiosity, at all, in what you said and claimed, there.

Now, why did you presume, and believe, that I could not imagine what you meant here?

Also, that I, supposedly, 'do not agree' is just 'your presumption', only, which you have then, once again, gone on to believes is absolutely true, this why you said and wrote that you certainly understand' it.

Although 'your presumption' was absolutely False, you, still, believed it to be true, while also, and laughingly, claiming that you 'certainly understood' 'it'. Which makes this even more farcical.

When will this one ever learn to seek out and obtain actual clarification, and thus clarity, first, before it begins to even presume things, and then to carry on as though its own assumptions are actually true and right?

Which of course you do.

Once again, feel absolutely free to list down, on point form, any and all of what you presume and/or believe are 'my assumptions', so that then the readers here have some thing to 'look at', and then let 'us' have a Truly honest and open discussion, to find out and see if they are 'actual assumptions', or just what you were presuming or believing them to be.

But, also feel absolutely feel free to not do this as well. I would not like you to, eventually, show and prove how your beliefs or assumptions could, actually, be absolutely or partly Wrong, and/or False. I do know that if that were to happen how much this would greatly effect 'the ego' within 'that body'.

You label things I saw with great regularity as Wrong and False without first seeing what I meant and what the definitions of my words were.

Again, if you do not provide a list of said claimed things here, then 'we', literally, have no thing/s here to 'look at', and 'discuss'.

Also, how do you know that I had not already seen what you meant and what the definitions of 'those words' were?

You assume things with great regularity; but do not notice this.

you keep making this claim and accusation, with great regularity, but, with also great regularity, you do not back up and support this claim, and accusation, of yours.

For example the assumption about what I was asserting when I pointed out you were being rude, in your use of 'poor you'.

So, what was the alleged and 'presumed' assumption, of mine, here, exactly?

Let 'us' see if your assumption is correct, and accurate, here.

Some might wonder why Age comes to a philosophy forum with such disdain when they people here might not even be the intended audience, who has so little functional memory, and has such poor conversations with people here. Some might think he is totally clueless or, at least metaphorically, missing his right brain. Some might think he is incredibly passive aggressive due to mistreatment as a child, combined with a guru complex. Some might wonder if he can manage to be aware that people may communicate with him in one way but with others, at a philosophy forum, for example, they communicate differently. Some might think there is some kind of serious cognitive malfunction in Age, which some would then consider the more charitable interpretation.

Yes, some might, and I am pretty sure some already do. But was there an actual point that you would like to express, directly, here?

Again, inability to understand context.

Why do you presume this?

One actual point is the silliness of the construction: some people might think and related structures.

But, this was 'your construct', and 'structure'. It was not mine.

Of course, I explained this in an earlier interaction in more detail, but, hey. I know you don't remember such things.

And, how do you, supposedly, 'know' this, exactly?

It's often not a matter of when will I, but when have I already explained, clarified, etc. One learns through experience that certain kinds of conversation are pointless with drunks, for example. I have learned that certain kinds of discussion with you are pointless.

Okay, and what are these now, purported, 'certain kind of discussions, exactly, which you claim are pointless, 'with me'?

In part because if something is clarified, you forget, and if I opt not to clarify again, this leads to silly statements including the phrase 'in a philosophy forum^and often 'this one.'

Again, what 'we' can clearly see here are more 'excuses', while trying to deflect, and detract.

Confusion about literal vs. metaphorical.
Hyperfocus
Control issues.
Memory problems - could be caused by the hyperfocus
Inability to take in context
Not noticing your own assumptions and doing preciely what you are critical of when others do it.
Not noticing what happens in practice with your preferred conversational approach
Projection
Confusion about what to prove something include
Confusion about causation
Imparied social reasoning
Denial of emotional reactions
Denial of judgments
Expectations that others will justify and clarify more - given that before clarifying, you expect others to clarify things, and their clarifications lead to you expecting more clarifications, and we often never get to the original request the other person made for clarification.

These issues and how they affect conversations lead to me and others opting not to do certain things in interactions with you.

You may well disagree that these are real aspects to your interpersonal and discussion style and approach or lead to any problems, but you universalize from people's reactions to you about their behavior and attitudes in general.

Of course, human beings have all sort of foibles and fallibilities, but since you think you have transcended such issues and the human and refer to others as you human beings and deny the presence of such patterns in yourself, there is an extreme imbalance in the communication. Hence most avoid you.

I wonder if 'this one' could focus on, 'look at', and 'judge me' anymore here. While all the time completely neglecting to 'look at' its own doings and habits, here.

[Fairy]

I wonder if 'this one' could focus on, 'look at', and 'judge me' anymore here. While all the time completely neglecting to 'look at' its own doings and habits, here.

It's a common mistake. To curse or judge the man in the mirror. It's all one sees.

blob.jpg

[Iwannaplato]

If you cannot tolerate yourself then good luck tolerating others.

Yup!

[Iwannaplato]

I wonder if 'this one' could focus on, 'look at', and 'judge me' anymore here. While all the time completely neglecting to 'look at' its own doings and habits, here.

I don't think the first sentence quite says what you intended. At least it seems to be missing a word or something. Oh, goodness, I look at my own doings here and elsewhere with great regularity. And I live with someone who calls me on my shit, which I appreciate. I haven't transcended the human, nor claim that I have. Many humans patterns and foibles going on in here. So, I'm afraid you assumptions was incorrect, or False and Wrong as you might say. If only you'd asked...but then you did ask before and I answered.

[Iwannaplato]

I wonder if 'this one' could focus on, 'look at', and 'judge me' anymore here. While all the time completely neglecting to 'look at' its own doings and habits, here.

It's a common mistake. To curse or judge the man in the mirror. It's all one sees.

Exactly. Does Age know who he judged in that second sentence you quoted? (and yes, I also work with the idea of reflections in relation to me.)

Still, one can ask oneself why one meets a violent man on the street. One can say, how is this a mirror of me? But it might be best to run or lift up a knapsack to put a barrier between you and him? The mulling can be on the side. The ways in which others are mirrors varies and they are not only mirrors. Best to deal with the violent man on the street in one way and the angry person you love another. What is the pattern? What exactly is the other mirroring? What facet of the self? What changes can one make so that the reflections shift and ease over time?

Sometimes what is being reflected are the last vestiges of one's self hate. Sometimes it is harsh because you don't even notice your self-hate at all. ('You' being the general you.)

That mirror model can be used in self-abuse also. And it certainly can be weaponized. Narcissists weaponize the mirror model.

But the sun is out and I just finished my work for the day, so I must go out.

[Fairy]

I wonder if 'this one' could focus on, 'look at', and 'judge me' anymore here. While all the time completely neglecting to 'look at' its own doings and habits, here.

It's a common mistake. To curse or judge the man in the mirror. It's all one sees.

Exactly. Does Age know who he judged in that second sentence you quoted? (and yes, I also work with the idea of reflections in relation to me.)

One cannot know anything until it’s already happened, by which time the happening is dead to memory. The only way the one knows what’s happened is via the memory on demand, when this unknowing becomes known to itself. When the memory informs one now.

Still, one can ask oneself why one meets a violent man on the street. One can say, how is this a mirror of me? But it might be best to run or lift up a knapsack to put a barrier between you and him?

This is irrelevant, it’s a projection that hasn’t happened. Stay present now, otherwise you’re just going to deviate from the actual point of what’s being pointed to now, it’s pointless to live in a future time that has not even happened.

[Fairy]

I live with someone who calls me on my shit, which I appreciate.

You are very fortunate to be living, being in a relationship / partnership with someone who calls you on your shit, and they are lucky to have you appreciating that. So kudos to you both.

I would love to be in a relationship with someone who calls me on my shit, I would appreciate that too. But so far I’ve never been that fortunate to meet someone like that.

I am usually ghosted when I’ve been a little shitface. It’s as though some people just can’t deal with other peoples shit, but are quite fine when it comes to their preferences. But I suppose expectation verses reality is such a bitch.

[bahman]

Without me, there is no you there that I can know exists. However, of course you still exist without me here, because the awareness you are there knows you exist there. But if there is no me here to be aware of you there, then you there who still exists is not known to me, because I don’t exist to be aware of you. I need to exist to be aware of otherness.

I cannot know you exist there, until I exist, to know you exist, otherwise you don’t exist for me. This is talking about knowledge of an I that exists. It’s about the knower and the known. It’s about the knowledge of separation, the distinction and the ability to be able to differentiate between you there and me here. It takes two things to separate infinite seamless reality. In this conception there and here are concepts known, within the dream of separation, but not in actuality.

If you don't exist then Henry exists. So, either both of you are one and you are lying to me which means that there is at least one or you are not lying to me and there are more than two.

Goodness, the fragments of me in my dream seem almost like other entities having a squabble. Why it's almost like they have separate consciousness. Of course, that's impossible.

You cannot prove that agents in your dream are not real and do not have separate consciousness. Could you? Anyway, we are not talking about dreams here.

Me Brahma, me everything.

What do you mean?

[Fairy]

If you don't exist then Henry exists. So, either both of you are one and you are lying to me which means that there is at least one or you are not lying to me and there are more than two.

Goodness, the fragments of me in my dream seem almost like other entities having a squabble. Why it's almost like they have separate consciousness. Of course, that's impossible.

You cannot prove that agents in your dream are not real and do not have separate consciousness. Could you? Anyway, we are not talking about dreams here.

Are you that is known as the label bahman conscious?

[bahman]

If you don't exist then Henry exists. So, either both of you are one and you are lying to me which means that there is at least one or you are not lying to me and there are more than two.

I have realised through relentless days spent on self introspection that there is only one of us here. By one I mean one awareness, or consciousness or whatever the action of observation is called.


This awareness is what’s knowing and seeing. And this seeing and knowing is the exact same action where what is seen is also known in the exact same moment.

Awareness is aware of every concept. Meaning every concept is known by awareness which is everywhere all at once.

Nonsense. You have to prove that there is one consciousness that can manifest itself to several entities.

Fairy is not aware, fairy is known as a concept known only by awareness.

Of course, fairy is aware.

No concept has ever been seen, concepts are only known by awareness which is one and no other.

This is about the seer isn’t it?

No, that is certainly wrong.

Can that which is looking out of every eye be seen? No, is the correct answer.
But then again, one could lie to itself by conceptualising what it thinks and believes is seeing out of every eye, but then you’d have to ask how is a concept that is already known by awareness, also be able to see as well. Awareness is the only seer, awareness is Nondual.

If you want to know what is being pointed to then you have to study Nonduality. No one else can help you understand it, only you can see what nonduality is pointing to.

Only awareness is our being, not the body, the body is known to awareness but is not the knower…if the body was the knower…

Nonduality, Solpsism, whatever you want to call it is certainly wrong. I already argue about it. You are not the cause of these written words!

[Fairy]

You have to prove that there is one consciousness that can manifest itself to several entities.

This “you”that you are talking about, is this “you” conscious?

Is this “you” a concept known only to the one alone, who is conscious of itself. Self-awareness.