Walker wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:28 pm
ken wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:26 pm
Walker wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:48 pm
Feel free. It's your chain of logic.
But you are the one who said, "That makes the observer, the absolute." And, "The implications are boggling." If you provide examples of some of the supposed 'implications', then we can look at them and discuss, to see if they really are 'boggling' or not.
My 'chain of logic' is 'Everything is relative to the observer'. If that is right, then there is nothing that is not relative to the observer. Therefore, every thing, every example I could give, is relative to the observer. Or just as correct, every thing is dependent upon how the observer is looking. Another way of saying this is, depending from what perspective an observer is looking from, this will then affect what they actually see, and thus then understand. So, no matter what I say here it is perceived in a particular way, therefore it would be
another example of how every thing is relative to the observer. How every single thing, and, how even the collective of every thing is perceived IS proof of how Everything is relative to the observer. I do not need to provide any specific example because EVERY thing is proving what I am saying here anyway. My example, proof, and evidence is in, and with, every thing, even including how the words every thing and everything are perceived.
You said My statement 'Everything is relative to the observer' makes '
the observer, the absolute'. I had not thought about that before but when I took a look at it, observed it, after you wrote it, it appears to be true, right, and correct, to
Me,
this Observer, anyway. The implications I observe, thus see and also understand, are not boggling at all. That is WHY I asked you for examples of the implications that are boggling, to you,
that observer. The conclusions I drew from what you wrote, which were not explicitly stated, were not 'boggling' at all. Maybe you can see some 'boggling implications' that I have not yet observed, so providing some examples for us to take a look at could be quite interesting.
Completely reactionary.
And I could write, completely re-reactionary, back to you. But there is no real purpose to. Just like 'Everything is relative to the observer' is true, so is 'For every action there is a reaction' is also just as true. So, obviously ALL of what I wrote in response
to you was wholly and "completely reactionary" so is what you wrote to Me completely reactionary. So, you reacted, and then I reacted, and then you did/will react, and then My turn, and so on.
But maybe you have a different perception of what 'reactionary' means than I do, which funnily enough IS just more proof that 'Everything is relative to the observer'.
Walker wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:28 pmAll I stated was the summation of your statement, to which Dontaskme agreed.
Did dontaskme actually agree with you? If so, then why did dontaskme ask you, Why (in relation to) are the implications boggling?
Have you ever thought about that dontaskme may just observe and perceive what is written is different from what you and I observe and perceive, and that you and I observe and perceive things differently? Instead of assuming you are right here, what I found is better is to ask for clarification first. That way I can not be wrong.
Walker wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:28 pm Since you're unwilling to expound upon your own thoughts, perhaps she can explain to you what you wrote.
What I wrote is self-explanatory, to Me anyway.
No one has asked for Me to expound upon and clarify what I wrote here. So why would I have previously expound upon what I have already written? The only thing asked to be expounded upon here was what you, yourself, wrote.
You wrote, "That makes the observer, the absolute. The implications are boggling".
Dontaskme asked you, Why, are the implications boggling?
You did not respond to this clarification, so either you were unable to, you did not read that request, you forgot about it, it was actually you who was unwilling to expound upon your own thoughts, or there was another reason.
I was unclear of what you were getting at exactly so I also sought some clarification from you by just asking, "Would you like to provide some examples so that we could take a look at them and discuss?"
You obviously are unwilling to or you would not like to do that, which is fair enough, but please do not then try to turn that around and try and place it onto Me. It was
you who did not provide clarification when asked for it. NOT Me.
You never sought any clarification from Me with questions, but you have instead just expressed, "Feel free. It's your chain of logic", which I then did. I explained that absolutely everything already, is a given example of what I said, that is, Everything is relative to the observer. So, there is actually nothing I could expound upon. ALL the proof and evidence is already given. Absolutely everything around you is the proof needed.
Everything is relative to the observer IS obvious and self-explanatory.
If you unwilling to provide any examples of what boggles you, then you do not have to. There is no pressure to. In fact the only thing I did was just politely ask you,
Would you like to provide some examples ....
Now, if there is actually some thing in particular that is boggling you and you would like Me to expound upon it, for you, then provide some clue as to what it is. Obviously, if you do not provide any examples of what actually boggles you, then I would not have a clue as to what actually boggles you. Just saying things like, "The implications are boggling" provides no clue at all.