Philosophy Now Forum

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:21 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:15 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:07 am

Okay, you are welcome to your opinion. Who am I to deny you that.

But the thing is, your opinion is not how I perceive love. So we’ll just have to agree to disagree with each other’s perceptions on what true love actually means.

And yet you claim "to seek unity of understanding".

Yes that’s right. I don’t agree with you. Have we reached a mutual understanding of this dilemma?

Does it matter?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:30 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:21 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:15 am

And yet you claim "to seek unity of understanding".

Yes that’s right. I don’t agree with you. Have we reached a mutual understanding of this dilemma?

Does it matter?

In what context?

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:32 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:30 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:21 am

Yes that’s right. I don’t agree with you. Have we reached a mutual understanding of this dilemma?

Does it matter?

In what context?

The question is unanswerable without assuming one thus relegating by question as even more necessary.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:37 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:32 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:30 am

Does it matter?

In what context?

The question is unanswerable without assuming one thus relegating by question as even more necessary.

Okay, then have you answered your own question, I can’t tell?

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:40 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:37 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:32 am

In what context?

The question is unanswerable without assuming one thus relegating by question as even more necessary.

Okay, then have you answered your own question, I can’t tell?

You see mutual understanding can't truly exist...what I provided proves it.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:46 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:40 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:37 am

The question is unanswerable without assuming one thus relegating by question as even more necessary.

Okay, then have you answered your own question, I can’t tell?

You see mutual understanding can't truly exist...what I provided proves it.

I mutually agree with you that mutual understanding can’t truly exist.

Especially when there’s nothing to understand.


“Emptiness” means empty of a separate self. It is full of everything.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 4:57 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 4:40 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 4:37 am ....and more debate...

Thus, 'my point' is proved, more.

...and the debate continues and probably will continue ad-infinitum...

LOL So, 'the debate', which absolutely no one 'knows' of, will probably continue ad-infinitum, supposedly.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 6:30 am You’re either with me or against me.

Most debaters are only in it to win you over to their side of the argument. They’re not interested in mutual understanding.

Welcome to the dog eat dog reality that is this human zoo.
Most philosophers have big fat ego heads to protect.

Notice Age never resorts to vile vicious name calling.

'Debating', and wanting to 'debate over' things, is just another unfortunate result of the so-called 'education system', which was around in the days when this was being written.

These adult human beings, when they were children, were 'taught' to 'pick a side', and 'fight for, or, against' that presumed "side". So, as 'the bodies' have gotten older, 'they' had come to believe that "sides" actually existed, and as such along with what they were 'taught', 'now' believe that it is 'normal' and 'perfectly okay' to 'pick a side', and then even 'fight to the death' of "one side" or the "other side". Unfortunately they did 'this' without ever 'learning' and realizing that there are, actually, no 'sides', in Life.

There is only what is actually True, and Right, in Life, and, then there is 'not'.

What is, actually, True, and Right, in Life, is irrefutable, and thus no one could be in disagreement of, anyway, and then there is what is, actually, not True, and not Right, in Life, or in other words just 'that', which is False, or Wrong, in Life.

Now, 'we' just wait for 'those' who want to 'catch up' to 'us', 'knowing' where the actual difference 'lies'.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 7:00 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 6:30 am You’re either with me or against me.

Most debaters are only in it to win you over to their side of the argument. They’re not interested in mutual understanding.

Welcome to the dog eat dog reality that is this human zoo.
Most philosophers have big fat ego heads to protect.

Notice Age never resorts to vile vicious name calling.

No...resorting to elevating himself above others by stating "you humans" is relatively worse. He is the one asserting division between himself and others.

Here, is another prime example of one who, once again, never ever even once just considered to seek out and obtain actual clarification, first, before making an assumption, jumping a conclusion, and then just believing that 'that assumed conclusion' is absolutely true, and right.

As can been seen, and proved, throughout this forum, it does not matter how many times 'I' suggest, do not make assumptions and do not believe things, before you seek out and obtain and gain actual clarification and clarity, first, they, still, preferred to jump to making assumptions and conclusions, and then worse still believing their own made up 'stories' are what is actually true and right.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 7:00 am People find to try common ground and common language and he diverts their efforts.

And, some people 'try to' claim that there is a geo-centric universe, which began and is expanding, which is 'common ground and common language' for 'those people, but just because 'I' am diverting completely and utterly away from 'their efforts' never means that 'I' am doing absolutely any thing Wrong, nor bad, here.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 7:00 am I have dealt with him for years and then realized ignoring is the best option.

Why did it take 'you' so long?

A lot of other people decided to ignore 'me' a long time ago.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 7:00 am It is best just to let him sit in silence.

But, 'this' does not make sense.

Just because 'you' do not want to 'listen', and 'hear', does not mean 'I' 'sit in silence'.

Have 'you' considered just stopping, for even just 'a minute', remain silent, and just 'listen'?

If 'you' ever had, then just maybe 'you' might have 'heard' what is being 'suggested to you', and just 'considered' to 'seek out' clarity, before you jumped to just making 'more False and Wrong assumptions' and to making 'more False and Wrong conclusions', first.

But, the Fact that you have never ever even considered doing 'this', here, means that 'you' have not even 'sat in silence', as some call 'it', for even just a second or two.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 9:12 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 6:30 am You’re either with me or against me.

Most debaters are only in it to win you over to their side of the argument. They’re not interested in mutual understanding.

Welcome to the dog eat dog reality that is this human zoo.
Most philosophers have big fat ego heads to protect.

Notice Age never resorts to vile vicious name calling.

'Debating', and wanting to 'debate over' things, is just another unfortunate result of the so-called 'education system', which was around in the days when this was being written.

These adult human beings, when they were children, were 'taught' to 'pick a side', and 'fight for, or, against' that presumed "side". So, as 'the bodies' have gotten older, 'they' had come to believe that "sides" actually existed, and as such along with what they were 'taught', 'now' believe that it is 'normal' and 'perfectly okay' to 'pick a side', and then even 'fight to the death' of "one side" or the "other side". Unfortunately they did 'this' without ever 'learning' and realizing that there are, actually, no 'sides', in Life.

There is only what is actually True, and Right, in Life, and, then there is 'not'.

What is, actually, True, and Right, in Life, is irrefutable, and thus no one could be in disagreement of, anyway, and then there is what is, actually, not True, and not Right, in Life, or in other words just 'that', which is False, or Wrong, in Life.

Now, 'we' just wait for 'those' who want to 'catch up' to 'us', 'knowing' where the actual difference 'lies'.

Sweet!

I think we may have to wait a long long time for this pearl of wisdom to drop into people’s pocket.

I might even have to post my Diana Ross song again.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 9:28 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 9:12 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 6:30 am You’re either with me or against me.

Most debaters are only in it to win you over to their side of the argument. They’re not interested in mutual understanding.

Welcome to the dog eat dog reality that is this human zoo.
Most philosophers have big fat ego heads to protect.

Notice Age never resorts to vile vicious name calling.

'Debating', and wanting to 'debate over' things, is just another unfortunate result of the so-called 'education system', which was around in the days when this was being written.

These adult human beings, when they were children, were 'taught' to 'pick a side', and 'fight for, or, against' that presumed "side". So, as 'the bodies' have gotten older, 'they' had come to believe that "sides" actually existed, and as such along with what they were 'taught', 'now' believe that it is 'normal' and 'perfectly okay' to 'pick a side', and then even 'fight to the death' of "one side" or the "other side". Unfortunately they did 'this' without ever 'learning' and realizing that there are, actually, no 'sides', in Life.

There is only what is actually True, and Right, in Life, and, then there is 'not'.

What is, actually, True, and Right, in Life, is irrefutable, and thus no one could be in disagreement of, anyway, and then there is what is, actually, not True, and not Right, in Life, or in other words just 'that', which is False, or Wrong, in Life.

Now, 'we' just wait for 'those' who want to 'catch up' to 'us', 'knowing' where the actual difference 'lies'.

Sweet!

I think we may have to wait a long long time for this pearl of wisdom to drop into people’s pocket.

I might even have to post my Diana Ross song again.

He is more than welcome to share his 'truth'...I opened a thread for just him in the general section. The ball is in his court.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 7:39 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 7:13 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 7:00 am

No...resorting to elevating himself above others by stating "you humans" is relatively worse. He is the one asserting division between himself and others.

People find to try common ground and common language and he diverts their efforts.

I have dealt with him for years and then realized ignoring is the best option.

It is best just to let him sit in silence.

Age has helped me enormously over the years we’ve both been interacting with each other.

I’ve hated on Age many times, and thrown wild childish tantrums many times all because of my own selfish stubborn as a mule attitude. Always believing and thinking I knew more and better than.

Age has taught me to be more patient, and things that I needed to learn. Especially to listen more and to seek out mutual understanding as opposed to hostility and opposition.

Mutual understanding? I have seen little evidence over the years as to him meeting people in the middle.

Maybe, if, and when, you 'notice' that most of the time when you, people, come, here, it is to 'try to' fight, or argue, 'for' a 'position', which you already have and are holding onto, or 'against' a 'position' another has and is holding onto.

And, if, and when, you read back over 'my writings' you might notice that 'I' have not been actually fight, nor arguing, for 'any position' at all.

But, 'we' will just have to wait, to see if 'you' do, or not.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 7:00 am I think you are blind to manipulation by men

'That' is 'one way' to, at least, get 'one person' on "your side", here.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 7:00 am because of a deep felt desire to be accepted and loved that you refuse to acknowledge....but that is an impression.

'I' do not know of one human being who does not have a 'deep felt desire to be accepted and loved'. But, then again, 'you' may well be very, very different "eodnhoj7".

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 7:00 am Age is a manipulator in many degrees,

Yet 'another claim', which when asked to provide actual proof for, 'this one' will not. As 'this one' will, once again, prove 'me' absolutely True.

So, "eodnhoj7" 'you' just make another claim 'about me' and how 'i' am, supposedly, a 'manipulator', here, so will you provide any actual proof of 'this claim' of yours, here?

If no, then why not?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 7:00 am I am aware of this as having dealt with many over the years.

And, some might well be considering that 'you' are 'aware of' "manipulators" because an impression 'you' give off is that 'you' have been 'trying' so hard to 'manipulate' others, here, for so long now, that what 'you' are expressing is more of a 'projection', and of what 'you see in others' is really just a 'reflection of you', "your" 'self'.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 7:00 am Here this is what I will do, I will open dialogue with Age for a single thread and talk to him only on that specific thread.

'This', might become quite enlightening.

But, am I allowed to 'note' that within just this 'one reply of yours' 'you' have changed from 'you realized ignoring me the best option', to, 'open dialogue with me, and, talk to me, only, in some specific thread'.

Will 'you' inform 'us' of what 'this specific thread' will be, exactly?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 7:00 am I will give him the opportunity to express his viewpoints so he has an opportunity to reveal what he is aware of.

Did I not have 'this opportunity', previously?

'I' am aware that the word, God, in the spiritual sense, is just referring to, the Mind, Itself.

'I' am aware that there is One Mind, only.

'I' am aware that it is though the One Mind, which is always Truly open, how you human beings have the ability to imagine, and have learned to create, absolutely any and every thing that you have, and will.

'I' am aware the the word, God, in the visible sense, is just referring to, the Universe, Itself.

'I' am aware that there is One Universe, only.

'I' am aware that the One Universe did not begin, and is not expanding.

'I' am aware of other things, as well.

I am waiting for Age to reveal this deep truth 'humans' are unaware of in the thread I made specifically for him to do so.

He wants to discuss? I will meet him there.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 7:51 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 7:39 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 7:13 am

Age has helped me enormously over the years we’ve both been interacting with each other.

I’ve hated on Age many times, and thrown wild childish tantrums many times all because of my own selfish stubborn as a mule attitude. Always believing and thinking I knew more and better than.

Age has taught me to be more patient, and things that I needed to learn. Especially to listen more and to seek out mutual understanding as opposed to hostility and opposition.

Mutual understanding? I have seen little evidence over the years as to him meeting people in the middle.

I think you are blind to manipulation by men because of a deep felt desire to be accepted and loved that you refuse to acknowledge....but that is an impression. Age is a manipulator in many degrees, I am aware of this as having dealt with many over the years.

Here this is what I will do, I will open dialogue with Age for a single thread and talk to him only on that specific thread. I will give him the opportunity to express his viewpoints so he has an opportunity to reveal what he is aware of.

They haven’t met in the middle because they’re too busy wanting to be on the other sides of the fence.

Thank you.

It really is very, very refreshing when the 'blatantly obvious' is noticed, recognized, and/or 'seen'.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 7:51 am I think you are absolutely totally and utterly wrong about me being blind to male manipulation. I have absolutely no idea if Age is a man or a woman.

If you were to ask, "atla", I am a 'woman'. And,
If you were to ask, "accelafine", I am a 'man'.

Which, as they both detest 'me', goes to show 'their preferences' in which 'ones', here, they detest, as well.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 7:51 am And besides that, I have no desire to be loved or accepted by anyone. I seek only the unity of understanding as to the truth of the nature of being and reality, same.

Oh and please try not to think you know someone else. You don’t know me okay.

I love love, not people. Okay.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:02 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 7:51 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 7:39 am

Mutual understanding? I have seen little evidence over the years as to him meeting people in the middle.

I think you are blind to manipulation by men because of a deep felt desire to be accepted and loved that you refuse to acknowledge....but that is an impression. Age is a manipulator in many degrees, I am aware of this as having dealt with many over the years.

Here this is what I will do, I will open dialogue with Age for a single thread and talk to him only on that specific thread. I will give him the opportunity to express his viewpoints so he has an opportunity to reveal what he is aware of.

They haven’t met in the middle because they’re too busy wanting to be on the other sides of the fence.

I think you are absolutely totally and utterly wrong about me being blind to male manipulation. I have absolutely no idea if Age is a man or a woman. And besides that, I have no desire to be loved or accepted by anyone. I seek only the unity of understanding as to the truth of the nature of being and reality, same.

Oh and please try not to think you know someone else. You don’t know me okay.

I love love, not people. Okay.

I really do not care. I am not trying to be rude, just transparent.

Unity of understanding? I see. But do you? By what degree do you measure this unity without embracing the conflict that is its nature?

1. What 'we' have, here, is another who it appears believes that human beings, 'by nature', are compete, fight, or will be 'in conflict'.

2. What does, 'without embracing 'the conflict' that is 'its' nature', mean and/or referring to, exactly?

Are you 'trying to' imply that because the 'very nature' of 'conflict', is 'to conflict', therefore, you human beings must embrace 'conflict', itself?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:02 am You love the feeling of love if you do not love people. Your absence of love for people only gives evidence to the shallowness of the love you incessantly preach.

I have seen countless people with their vision of truth be consumed and burnt away by time, all of which where so certain unto a vision that purely is a byproduct of imagining at its fundamental root.

Again, if absolutely any one understands what is being said, and meant, here, then will you please express 'that understanding'.

1. So what if you have seen, countless people, with their vision of truth, be so-called consumed and burnt away by time?

2. How does 'time', itself, actually consume and burn away people's 'vision of truth'?

3. What even is 'vision of truth' mean, exactly?

4. Would not 'people's ruth/s' be consumed, or so-called burnt' away by more convincing, to them, truths or Truths, instead of 'by time', itself?

5. Have you never had any of your so-called 'vision of truth/s' be consumed, or burnt away, by other things? Or, has your so-called 'vision of truth' never altered since your 'vision of truth' began?

6. Were you 'trying to' claim that other, countless, people have had their so-called 'vision of truth' consumed or burnt away because 'over a period' 'you' have consumed or burnt 'their vision of truth' with your own 'vision of truth'?

If no, then what are you trying to imply or claim with this first part of 'your sentence and claim', here?

7. Are you 'so certain' that your own 'vision of truth' can not be consumed, nor burnt, by absolutely any thing?

If yes, then could 'this' be because of a 'pure byproduct' of your own imagining, at imagination's fundamental root?

If no, then why are 'you' not like the other, countless, 'other people'?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:02 am Countless martyrs to their own minds. All convinced of some experience they thought was universal. And that experience? Feeling good for a moment.

Yet, here, 'you' are 'trying to' claim that some 'experience of yours' is 'universal', as well, and that it would be best for every one if they agreed with you and accept your belief and claim.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:02 am Your convictions are merely part of a vast sea of opposing viewpoints over the words "love" and "peace", words that have little to no meaning in this cycle other than spiritual self-indulgence.

Does the word, 'cycle', here, have meaning?

If yes, then how and why, exactly?