Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:35 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:47 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:51 pm

OK. Then you've lost me. Feel free to clarify things.

Like I have previously said, I am looking for those who are Truly interested. These ones will explain what 'things' they WANT clarified.

Fair enough. Then, what is "thee I" and how does it differ from "the I"? Other than using an archaic spelling of the word "the" how is one distinct from the other?

'I' REMAIN the SAME, no matter what. But how my use of the words 'thee' and 'the' make the sentences differ is that the word 'thee' is to reinforce that there is One 'I' ONLY.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 4:23 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:18 am

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:30 am
How has it been proven?

By the, actual, 'irrefutable facts'.

Look, you will never see, nor understand, 'that', what you are not prepared to LOOK AT.

As usual, You or you failed to provide any proof, even after asked.

I have NEVER used the 'you' word with a capital 'Y', (except for when beginning a sentence). So, 'your' use of the words here have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with 'me'.

And, what 'you' wrote here SHOWS and PROVES just how LITTLE an understanding you have of the way I write and of what I ACTUALLY SAY and MEAN. 'you' can NOT even get see and passed your OWN ASSUMPTIONS to SEE what I ACTUALLY SAY and WRITE. Even though what I SAID has been CLEARLY WRITTEN down.

This is just MORE EVIDENCE and PROOF of how the brain becomes DISTORTED and TWISTED from the ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS held within them.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm You or you don't have any.

Again, this "You" and "you" is a FIGMENT of your OWN IMAGINATION, which has arisen BECAUSE of your OWN previous ASSUMPTIONS. This "You" and "you" is of your OWN MAKING and DOING, ALONE.

And the WORST PART is 'you' BASE the rest of your views on this PREVIOUS ASSUMPTION, which NEVER even existed.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm It's only Age's belief that the 'I' is a 'One Mind', and not something else.

"age" NOR 'I' BELIEVE ANY thing.

It is YOUR BELIEF "atla" that "age" has a belief.

In my view the 'I' is the One Mind, in the non visible, or the spiritual, sense.

Did 'you' or did 'you' not say that; Millions of people before Age had this idea in regards to 'I' being the invisible Mind?

If it was 'you', "atla", then WHY do you now propose that ONLY "age's" belief that the 'I' is a 'One Mind'?


Will you CLARIFY this apparent contradiction of yours?

Or, are you now saying that ONLY 'I' have come up with this 'new' idea?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 2:57 pm...

Seriously?

I'm not going to read through your lengthy volume of excuses, nor until your communication is less convoluted. I hope you have a therapist or someone to talk to.

And here

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:23 pm...

you've attributed things to me that I didn't say. Please correct it.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:08 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:35 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:47 pm

Like I have previously said, I am looking for those who are Truly interested. These ones will explain what 'things' they WANT clarified.

Fair enough. Then, what is "thee I" and how does it differ from "the I"? Other than using an archaic spelling of the word "the" how is one distinct from the other?

'I' REMAIN the SAME, no matter what. But how my use of the words 'thee' and 'the' make the sentences differ is that the word 'thee' is to reinforce that there is One 'I' ONLY.

I would tend to disagree. I've seen people changed by their experiences in life. People who have experienced trauma are often not the same people they were before the trauma.

As far as being "one I only", not sure what you mean by that. Obviously, you and I are different "I's" or different instances of an "I." Or else two different I's. Whatever way you want to frame it, it's debatable and there's not much in the way of evidence that can be objectively communicated about it. Even mystics seem to say that their experiences of "oneness" are ineffable. So, no, I don't think it can be irrefutably demonstrated.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:23 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 4:23 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:18 am

By the, actual, 'irrefutable facts'.

Look, you will never see, nor understand, 'that', what you are not prepared to LOOK AT.

As usual, You or you failed to provide any proof, even after asked.

I have NEVER used the 'you' word with a capital 'Y', (except for when beginning a sentence). So, 'your' use of the words here have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with 'me'.

And, what 'you' wrote here SHOWS and PROVES just how LITTLE an understanding you have of the way I write and of what I ACTUALLY SAY and MEAN. 'you' can NOT even get see and passed your OWN ASSUMPTIONS to SEE what I ACTUALLY SAY and WRITE. Even though what I SAID has been CLEARLY WRITTEN down.

This is just MORE EVIDENCE and PROOF of how the brain becomes DISTORTED and TWISTED from the ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS held within them.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm You or you don't have any.

Again, this "You" and "you" is a FIGMENT of your OWN IMAGINATION, which has arisen BECAUSE of your OWN previous ASSUMPTIONS. This "You" and "you" is of your OWN MAKING and DOING, ALONE.

And the WORST PART is 'you' BASE the rest of your views on this PREVIOUS ASSUMPTION, which NEVER even existed.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm It's only Age's belief that the 'I' is a 'One Mind', and not something else.

"age" NOR 'I' BELIEVE ANY thing.

It is YOUR BELIEF "atla" that "age" has a belief.

In my view the 'I' is the One Mind, in the non visible, or the spiritual, sense.

Did 'you' or did 'you' not say that; Millions of people before Age had this idea in regards to 'I' being the invisible Mind?

If it was 'you', "atla", then WHY do you now propose that ONLY "age's" belief that the 'I' is a 'One Mind'?


Will you CLARIFY this apparent contradiction of yours?

Or, are you now saying that ONLY 'I' have come up with this 'new' idea?

Yet another long comment full of bullshit, without a shred of the evidence that was promised. All the readers can see this.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 5:54 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:08 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:35 am

Fair enough. Then, what is "thee I" and how does it differ from "the I"? Other than using an archaic spelling of the word "the" how is one distinct from the other?

'I' REMAIN the SAME, no matter what. But how my use of the words 'thee' and 'the' make the sentences differ is that the word 'thee' is to reinforce that there is One 'I' ONLY.

I would tend to disagree. I've seen people changed by their experiences in life. People who have experienced trauma are often not the same people they were before the trauma.

As far as being "one I only", not sure what you mean by that. Obviously, you and I are different "I's" or different instances of an "I." Or else two different I's. Whatever way you want to frame it, it's debatable and there's not much in the way of evidence that can be objectively communicated about it. Even mystics seem to say that their experiences of "oneness" are ineffable. So, no, I don't think it can be irrefutably demonstrated.

Age is an autistic schizophrenic with a split mind. She/he thinks that God is speaking through her, that's the "I" in her head. And her human self is the "i" in her head. She projects this split mindedness on everyone else too, she thinks that God speaks through all of us.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 8:50 am You cannot claim to know any thing.

But ANY person CAN claim ANY thing. As evidenced and proven throughout this forum, and throughout human history.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 8:50 am To know a thing you would have to be that thing.

Well considering the FACT that the word 'I' can refer to Everything, and thus 'I' am Everything, then this One can claim to KNOW ANY thing, and by your logic here "dontaskme' would be accurate and correct.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 8:50 am To know a tree you would have to be the tree, but you are not the tree, the tree is just a concept known, but not by the tree.

Of course 'you' are not a tree. 'you' here refers to human beings, correct. So, 'you' are a human being, and thus NOT a tree.

However, and furthermore, when 'you' say "tree" here, then what EXACTLY are 'you' referring to? And, HOW does ANY one else KNOW what 'you' are referring to when 'you' say, "tree"?.

In other words, 'you' KNOW what you are talking about and referring to, EXACTLY. Therefore, 'you' do KNOW 'a tree'.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 8:50 am You cannot know any thing because you ARE the knowing.

But if 'you' ever want to LOOK AT 'things' from another perspective and break 'things' right down to thee ACTUAL Truth, then what is discovered and learned is that 'you' are NOT the 'knowing'. 'you' are, in fact, the 'thinking', which comes from the brain within a human head. 'I' am the 'Knowing', which comes from thee Mind, which is ALWAYS Truly OPEN, by the way.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 8:50 am The knowing is one, and cannot be split into knower and known.

This is from the perspective of the 'thinking' occurring to the one known as "dontaskme", here in this forum. Or, are 'you' inferring that what you say here is an absolute and irrefutable truth?

Also, do not forget that what you just said here in these last four sentences completely contradicts each other. That is; What happens if 'I' am Everything, then I could KNOW ANY and EVERY thing, correct?

And, if as you say, 'you' ARE the knowing, then 'you' would have to be that 'thing' that you KNOW OF, and so whatever 'you' KNOW, then that is what 'you' ARE, correct?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 8:50 am The observer is inseparable from what it observes.

First you would have to inform us of who and/or what is 'the observer', EXACTLY?

Also, how would this work when one is observing a tree? Would they then be the 'tree'? And, if there were, then they could KNOW the 'tree', correct?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 8:50 am The objective world is a projection of the subjective knowing, both the subjective and objective arise simultaneously together as one seamless reality. Same as it ever is, was. Nothing changes, any change is a changeless change.





.

If you say so, then it MUST BE irrefutably so, and true, correct?

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:53 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 8:50 am You cannot claim to know any thing.

To know a thing you would have to be that thing.

To know a tree you would have to be the tree, but you are not the tree, the tree is just a concept known, but not by the tree.

You cannot know any thing because you ARE the knowing. The knowing is one, and cannot be split into knower and known. The observer is inseparable from what it observes. The objective world is a projection of the subjective knowing, both the subjective and objective arise simultaneously together as one seamless reality. Same as it ever is, was. Nothing changes, any change is a changeless change.





.

Knowledge is justified belief and it's easier to have more about not-you than about yourself, as almost everyone does... and always has,

because people don't think about themselves rigorously and there's no external validation that carries weight.

'Knowledge', to 'you', "advocate" is "justified belief". But 'knowledge' to "others" is something else.

You are correct in that 'almost' everyone does.

Also, gaining the knowledge of "one's" 'self' and thus working out and KNOWING; 'Who 'I' am' is a VERY EASY and VERY SIMPLE thing to do and accomplish. But that is only AFTER learning and knowing HOW to achieve and obtain this 'knowledge'.

Some people have thought about "themselves" rigorously enough to arrive at the proper and correct answer the question; 'Who am 'I'?'.

AND, there is PLENTY of, so called, "external validation", which carries weight. As will become evidently CLEAR ENOUGH, soon enough.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 4:48 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 4:52 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm You are exaggerating. You once asked me if there was any possibility at all that there could be one ultimate reality, and I acknowledged that anything is possible. However, there is no proof, and there is nothing that would point to such a thing except man's NEED to believe he knows of something.

So, are you saying here that you now actually believe and accept the fact that there could be one Truth and/or one ultimate Reality?

Believe? No.

Fact? It's not a fact.

Since WHEN is 'fact' NOT a fact?

And, in who's "world" is a 'fact', NOT a fact?

OR, are 'you' 'trying to' imply or infer that the fact I wrote in that sentence is NOT a fact?

Because if you are, then this REVEALS FULLY YOUR BELIEFS here.

So, if you REALLY want to 'prove "yourself" ', then you WILL answer these CLARIFYING QUESTIONS Honestly.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 4:48 pm That's enough of dealing with your distortions for now.

It becomes tiring listen to 'you', people, here in this forum, saying things like; "your distortions", to "another", but NEVER actually saying NOR pointing out what the SUPPOSED and ALLEGED "distortions" are meant to be.

I could say the EXACT SAME about 'your distortions'. But it helps readers when I point out what the EXACT distortions ARE, EXACTLY.

Either list what my, supposed and alleged, 'distortions' are, to you, then explain how and why you see them as, and think of them as, 'distortions', and then REMAIN OPEN to SEE what my reply will be.

That is HOW True and Right discussions take place, in, so called, "philosophical" discussions.

If you do not do this, then what you are actually just doing is revealing and showing your OWN BELIEFS and/or ASSUMPTIONS, ONLY.

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 4:59 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 4:48 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 4:52 am So, are you saying here that you now actually believe and accept the fact that there could be one Truth and/or one ultimate Reality?

Believe? No.

Fact? It's not a fact.

That's enough of dealing with your distortions for now.

Actual Reality, aka Actuality, is the ineffable font from which new justified beliefs by way of replication spring eternal. Regular Reality is consensus experience.

When ANY one uses the word 'ineffable' in relation to what they want to say and express but can NOT, just SHOWS and REVEALS that one's OWN INABILITIES and BELIEFS.

If some 'thing' is NOT YET able to be expressed in words, by some one, then that does NOT mean that that 'thing' is ineffable. That just means that that 'one' has some more to discover and/or learn. Which is just an OBVIOUS FACT for EVERY 'one'.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:10 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:27 pm...the majority of human souls end up discarded. Is that not true?

Well, I can help you out with that. Jesus said,

What does it REALLY matter what just one human being, labelled "jesus" said?

Could a human being named "jesus" have said ANY thing which was somewhat not right or partially incorrect? Or, is this just NOT a possibility in that tiny little 'thinking' within that head?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:10 pm “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)

The question is, on which side of that line are you wanting to be?

Saying, "enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide" is an obvious contradiction. So, a more satisfying question, to me, is; WHAT 'gates' are being referred to, EXACTLY?

And, if you do NOT ALREADY KNOW, then I suggest REMAINING OPEN until you can find out, AND SEE, what thee True and Right answer ACTUALLY IS.

What you are essentially asking here is; One side of the line is 'destruction' and one side of the line is 'life', so which side of 'that line' are you wanting to be?

You ask this without EVERY explaining WHERE nor WHAT is 'that line'?

All you are really 'trying to' to do is speak like "jesus" but never really knowing what 'it' IS that you are speaking of nor about.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:36 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:16 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:10 pm
Well, I can help you out with that. Jesus said,

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)

The question is, on which side of that line are you wanting to be?

False dichotomy fallacy.

Contradicting Jesus Christ now, are we?

BELIEVING things, which have NOT YET been substantiated NOR understood FULLY, I find MORE illogical and nonsensical.

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:23 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:36 pm Contradicting Jesus Christ now, are we?

I contradict all the imaginary people except the ones who agree with me.

HOW can "imaginary people" say or do things, which you could contradict?

And, HOW could "imaginary people" agree with you?

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:52 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:36 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:23 pm I contradict all the imaginary people except the ones who agree with me.

So you don't agree with the vast quantity of historical evidence, including the many skeptical documents, that all still insist that Jesus Christ actually existed?
http://coldcasechristianity.com/writing ... the-bible/

So now, I guess, historians are also "imaginary people."

Even if a historical Jesus is granted, nothing that is contained in the bible follows.

What do you mean by "nothing" here.

From what I have observed EVERY thing in the bible, the koran, and all the other religious texts I have seen 'follow', and ARE in harmony with each other.

But, then again, 'I' do LOOK AT and SEE most things VERY DIFFERENTLY than 'you', human beings' do. But this is because 'I' KNOW who (and what) 'I' am. Whereas, the human beings I KNOW do NOT.

Now, if you would like to explain WHAT, EXACTLY, to 'you', supposedly does NOT follow, then, at least, we would have some thing to LOOK AT and DISCUSS. Until then we have NOTHING.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:00 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:10 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:27 pm...the majority of human souls end up discarded. Is that not true?

Well, I can help you out with that. Jesus said,

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)

The question is, on which side of that line are you wanting to be?

See? You answered the question, but didn't answer it -- I'm sure -- the way you were supposed to, so someone will proclaim you're bein' deceptive or cowardly.

What it comes down to is: Mannie won't cooperate and help me dismantle Christianity so he's bad.

But "christianity" does NOT 'need' help in being dismantled. "christianity" is dismantling itself.

ANY hypocritical views dismantle them self. For example, saying and expressing the view; "Love thy neighbor", but then going out and killing ones neighbor, ESPECIALLY in the name of religion and/or God, IS HYPOCRITICAL.

Fighting wars in the name of God, (or Allah), IS HYPOCRITICAL.

Saying, "Do not judge", but then judging "others", IS HYPOCRITICAL.

Some of those people who call themselves "christians" are the BIGGEST HYPOCRITES of them all.

"christianity" is dismantling itself, quite nicely, without the help of any one else.