What do you think ? 💭

[Iwannaplato]

Where you made them, in what you wrote, is in, exactly, the words that you said and wrote, which I responded directly to with the words, 'Both of the assumptions that you have made here are absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

You quoting me above....

you said and wrote here, 'Again, what you said to me regarding my working out who you are, as if it is something that might happen in the future, is off

your first assumption, which is False, is that I said some thing regarding your, supposed, working out who 'you' are. I never said any thing about you saying some thing regarding you, supposedly, working any thing like this out here.

Actually, as it says there, I said something about you talking about my working out who you are, not who I am.

That was the whole point of what you were, and apparently still are, missing and misunderstanding here.

You:

If, and when, 'you' work out who 'I' am, exactly, then like "fairy" is saying here, 'you' will, literally, feel and see things differently.

me:

But I know who you are, already. I've met you many times, and not just here at PN. Don't you remember?

In your recent post you have reversed it.

Once again, you are completely and utterly missing and misunderstanding things here.

OK, you opted no to point out how the quotes support what you said as opposed to what I said.
I'll drop it here.

[henry quirk]

Bringing us back to...

Only a literate person can write.

[bahman]

I don’t know another. I only know me.

But you can make distinction between the things are caused by you and the things that are not caused by you.

I cam make distinctions yes, conceptually. Via thought here in me, as me, as consciousness here, I can only experience myself, not others. I crave zero access to anything external to my direct consciousness here.

If there was not me, you couldn't possibly have access to my writing and couldn't possibly have a concept of me.

[Fairy]

Bringing us back to...

Only a literate person can write.

No one is writing, therefore all writings are unwritten.

Within the dream of artificial separation there is the apparent belief that people write words, in this conception, known by no one.

[Fairy]

But you can make distinction between the things are caused by you and the things that are not caused by you.

I cam make distinctions yes, conceptually. Via thought here in me, as me, as consciousness here, I can only experience myself, not others. I crave zero access to anything external to my direct consciousness here.

If there was not me, you couldn't possibly have access to my writing and couldn't possibly have a concept of me.

As awareness here, I conceptually create you as an object separate from the awareness observing here. Without I here, there is no you there. You there is a conceptual projection of my mind. Since I have no direct access to objects in my awareness, you there are simply a construct of the mind here. In reality there is no KNOWN external world outside of the awareness here, because the outside world isn’t separate from that which is conceptually creating it here.

The physical world exists, it’s primary to being witnessed. But for the physical world to be conceptually known requires consciousness to create the physical world as knowledge known. Prior to being conceptually conceived the physical world is totally unaware of itself, its unconscious, unknowing nothingness.

When I talk about observation I’m referring to consciousness or awareness. When I talk about the external world I’m referring to the conceptual knowledge known here In awareness.

As awareness here, I can’t prove anything exists outside of this immediate observing. The only experience here, is never the objects of observation, the experience is only of observing.

Observing, I have no idea of what I am looking at until I conceptualise it, only then does the unknown become known to me conceptually, in other words I’ve created the objective world here in my subjectivity. Therefore All conceptualised objects, are imaginary things. Mental constructs of the imagination.

[henry quirk]

No one is writing, therefore all writings are unwritten.

I am someone. Everything I write is, well, written (or typed).

Within the dream of artificial separation there is the apparent belief that people write words, in this conception, known by no one.

The separation between, for example, you and me is obvious. We are not the same. The separation is real and quite natural. My words are real. My having written them is real.

[Fairy]

No writing ever happens without a literate person to compose then transcribe.

No writing ever happens, that can be known or read, without a witness present to observe the writing happened.

Observing images and symbols, I cannot be the written words, or images and symbols, because these things are conceptual constructs that have no awareness. Conceptual constructs exist purely as imagined things, synonymous to dreamscape within the dreaming observer awareness.

[Fairy]

No one is writing, therefore all writings are unwritten.

I am someone. Everything I write is, well, written (or typed).

Within the dream of artificial separation there is the apparent belief that people write words, in this conception, known by no one.

The separation between, for example, you and me is obvious. We are not the same. The separation is real and quite natural. My words are real. My having written them is real.

We are the same, we are conscious awareness aware of every concept we create. What we create we are not that, because we are primarily prior to the concept created, we are uncreated non conceptual awareness, aware of every concept known, in the exact moment the knowing arises, but we are not the concept because concepts have no awareness. Like I keep saying: the only direct experience for awareness is awareness, and not the object awareness is aware of….

Notice, awareness is, whether there is an object in mind or not. Like in death, or deep dreamless sleep. But there is never the existence of an object known without awareness to know it.

For you there, yes, you are a someone, writing or typing. From the perspective of you there as a someone, there is nothing else happening, because you can never be outside of your own awareness arena, for you there, only you and your projections are are known.

If you claim there is something happening outside of your awareness that you know to be happening, you are only imagining a world external to you to be happening, because you have zero access to the external world outside of your own awareness of it. In fact you have no idea what is out there except what you conceptually create in your own mind.


That is the same for all awarenesses, the same thing is happening because awareness is everywhere all at once one without a second. Just at light is everywhere at once. There is only light, everything is light. Everything is moving at the speed of light, in other words it’s completely stationary, and only relative to the observer that never moves. Only the mind moves not you the observer.

Thoughts are different. Beliefs are different. Choices are different etc etc, yes differences are real, but the awareness of all these differences is the same not different. Therefore all differences are simply illusory synonymous with dreams, dreamt by the one dreamer dreaming difference where there is none.

[Fairy]

I am someone. Everything I write is, well, written (or typed).

You can only know this because it’s knowledge known to you. It’s born of your mind that created it, and projected it as a conceptual story. But that story does not exist outside of the mind which is conceptually known to exist as a brain. The story is the brain braining, also, life in general which appears to be outside the brain appearing as an external world is a living representational model of what’s actually happening inside the unseen brain inside the skull. The brain is only known to exist as an image external to the brain itself which is unseen or known. So what’s happening here, is the known is unknown. The unknown is known. It’s the divine paradoxical oxymoron.

The saying: “ I think therefore I Am “ is pointing to the awareness of thought, but awareness is not the thought it is aware of simply because if it was, it would know what it is like to be every concept known. But for awareness, it’s only true and real direct experience is never the conceptual object it knows. There is no experience of being an object.

There is only one of us here, is a conceptual pointer, pointing to the one awareness we are. The one awareness aware of multiple concepts, beliefs, ideas, feelings, sensations, that come and go as illusory phenomena in awareness that never comes and goes, because awareness is absolute and everywhere at once one without a second.

[Age]

You quoting me above....


Actually, as it says there, I said something about you talking about my working out who you are, not who I am.

That was the whole point of what you were, and apparently still are, missing and misunderstanding here.

You:

me:


In your recent post you have reversed it.

Once again, you are completely and utterly missing and misunderstanding things here.

OK, you opted no to point out how the quotes support what you said as opposed to what I said.
I'll drop it here.

So, you have, once more, completely missed and misunderstood what the quotes were supporting, and so you have just decided to 'quit' and 'drop out' here, once again.

I pointed out how the quotes supported what I said, you have just not comprehend this here, again.

[Iwannaplato]

So, you have, once more, completely missed and misunderstood what the quotes were supporting,

Possibly I misunderstood them. You opted not to point out, in your previous post what they meant, so I made that decision regarding that issue, yes.

I pointed out how the quotes supported what I said, you have just not comprehend this here, again.

No, you did not. As is your habit, you simply stated that the other person was wrong. It's part of the Age culture of communication, adding extra steps to discussions. I am sure it works for you, given your values and goals, but....nah, at a certain point, given that you do not even notice when people try to meet your values around how to carry out a conversation, nor try to meet their way of communicating with as much flexibility, it's not worth it. I would guess you don't realize how rude you are being, but that changes the experience very little for others.

[Age]

So, you have, once more, completely missed and misunderstood what the quotes were supporting,

Possibly I misunderstood them.

From how you have responded and what you wrote you have, clearly, misunderstood them.

You opted not to point out, in your previous post what they meant, so I made that decision regarding that issue, yes.

What is 'they', exactly, which I, supposedly, did not point out what 'they' meant?

I pointed out how the quotes supported what I said, you have just not comprehend this here, again.

No, you did not.

See, how 'this one', continually, does not 'comprehend' things, but, to it, it is not it not comprehending.

As is your habit, you simply stated that the other person was wrong.

Well if they are wrong, then they are wrong. I am allowed to point out and state this, correct.

And, if absolutely any one wants the actual proof of how and why they are wrong, when I just simply state that they are wrong, then all of you here all already know what to do, right?

It's part of the Age culture of communication, adding extra steps to discussions.

And, one could just easily, and as simply, state that it is a part of "iwannaplato's" 'culture of communication', to lead down an unrecoverable hole.

As is its habit, and which it is doing, once again, right here now, in this thread, as well.

I am sure it works for you, given your values and goals,

Okay.

But, are you as sure that it words for you, also?

but....nah, at a certain point, given that you do not even notice when people try to meet your values around how to carry out a conversation, nor try to meet their way of communicating with as much flexibility, it's not worth it. I would guess you don't realize how rude you are being, but that changes the experience very little for others.

Here is another prime example of how absolutely every thing is relative to 'the observer'.

And, how 'an observer' sees and views things is, solely, dependent upon their pre-existing beliefs and presumptions.

What 'this one' 'sees' is, obviously, not what is necessarily true at all, nor even necessarily remotely what is a bit true at all.

If fact, what the actual Truth is, exactly, is the exact opposite of what "iwannaplato" is 'seeing', and 'believing', here.

[Iwannaplato]

You opted not to point out, in your previous post what they meant, so I made that decision regarding that issue, yes.

What is 'they', exactly, which I, supposedly, did not point out what 'they' meant?

And this is one of the consequences of your not explaining directly, rather than simply labeling something as false. If you do that directly, then we don't have to go back and find all the references, which you have a tendency to remember less well than other posters here. Which means that I or other interlocutors must produce more text - which can also then be questioned by you. I find this very inefficient and also not collaborative. But it is, of course, your culture of discussing and obviously I can choose to engage with it or not, so it isn't really problematic. But that's why I am choosing not to go into your culture of communication yet again. I've have dropped by original request and interest in that line.

I pointed out how the quotes supported what I said, you have just not comprehend this here, again.

No, you did not.

See, how 'this one', continually, does not 'comprehend' things, but, to it, it is not it not comprehending.

And this is rude and continues to not explain or justify.

As is your habit, you simply stated that the other person was wrong.

Well if they are wrong, then they are wrong. I am allowed to point out and state this, correct.

I'll take that as a question. Of course, you are allowed to. What an odd question. If I think you are actually doing something that is not allowed, I'll let you know. Or, perhaps the moderators, though I can't imagine what that would be.

And, if absolutely any one wants the actual proof of how and why they are wrong, when I just simply state that they are wrong, then all of you here all already know what to do, right?

1) I know how you prefer to have communication go, your taste there, yes. 2) I haven't found proof very often at the end of those dialogues. Your sense of what proof is is confused. Any text I create in the process of trying to arrive at the promised proof generally becomes the focus of the conversation. So, as said, I won't be joining your personal conversation culture any more. This was never noticed on your part, that I and others have adapted, for periods of time, to your culture of conversation, and often got insults, intended or not, for our trouble.

It's part of the Age culture of communication, adding extra steps to discussions.

And, one could just easily, and as simply, state that it is a part of "iwannaplato's" 'culture of communication', to lead down an unrecoverable hole.

To the first part, yes, it relates to my culture of communication. However, I do share this with vastly more people than your culture is shared. Now if this was not about communication, this larger amount of people sharing that culture would mean little. However given that you have stated that you would like to improve your communication and this entails improving it with the people who have a different culture, then your intransigence on these issues is odd.

In addition, the unrecoverable hole is an excellent description of most of the discussions you have had here and one of the reasons so few engage with you much. They are less curious and interested than I am, and that curiosity and interest offset, to some degree your idiosyncracies.

As is its habit, and which it is doing, once again, right here now, in this thread, as well.

I am sure it works for you, given your values and goals,

Okay.

But, are you as sure that it words for you, also?

No, yours does not work for me very well. Perhaps you meant 'Are you sure that yours works for you.' Yes, though it can always improve.

but....nah, at a certain point, given that you do not even notice when people try to meet your values around how to carry out a conversation, nor try to meet their way of communicating with as much flexibility, it's not worth it. I would guess you don't realize how rude you are being, but that changes the experience very little for others.

Here is another prime example of how absolutely every thing is relative to 'the observer'.

And, how 'an observer' sees and views things is, solely, dependent upon their pre-existing beliefs and presumptions.

What 'this one' 'sees' is, obviously, not what is necessarily true at all, nor even necessarily remotely what is a bit true at all.

If fact, what the actual Truth is, exactly, is the exact opposite of what "iwannaplato" is 'seeing', and 'believing', here.

The day you understand that this applies to you also and that you have beliefs, that day, I think is a day when we might actually be able to get somewhere together in a discussion.

So, from here on out, I will adjust even less to your idiosyncracies.

[Fairy]

I am someone. Everything I write is, well, written (or typed).

I am 'someone' is a thought, the thought 'someone' is an illusory secondary reality overlayed upon what already is the case, the absolute nondual I AM.

I AM is all you are, Am-ness is not the thought it is aware of, you are aware of the thought 'someone', but you cannot be both awareness and that which you are aware of...which is a thought, because a thought comes and goes in you, while you STAY.
For example, you are aware you have a hand that writes and types text. But you are not the hand, as you can be born without hands, and still be you the I AM.

'Thought' is the illusory story of separation, it's a conceptual fictional overlay upon the actual absolute truth of I AM-ness.
Thought is the lie which veils the apparent (hidden in plain sight) truth...truth stays hidden until there is an awakening from the illusory dream of separation when a recognition of your true self comes back to the light it's always been, which can only be revealed to you in all it's shining brilliance when you also recognise the lie to be what it truly is as well. And so at the moment of awakening, you see the actual truth for the very first time as you leave the lie for the truth.

If you say, you the I AM is also the thought you are aware of, then all you are saying is that you are your hand, you are your body. And if that were real and true, then the hand or body would also be aware.....But how can you and your body parts be both aware? ..you'd then have to ask yourself, is my hand aware of me, or am I aware of my hand?

That's another way of putting this into words, take it or leave it Henry, it's your story you are concocting..

[Fairy]

The day you understand that this applies to you also and that you have beliefs, that day, I think is a day when we might actually be able to get somewhere together in a discussion.

So, from here on out, I will adjust even less to your idiosyncracies.

Idiosyncracies are an inevitable consequence of the dual nature of the mind of conceptual constructs within the illusory dream of separation..when you attempt to be something you are not, namely, when you artificially form an attachment to the idea you are a separate identity, born of pure illusory formless thought. In other words, you base the whole of your existence as being a dream character within your own dream.

Until the day you understand that there is no one who believes anything except in this imagined conception, that day, I think is a day when you and I might actually be able to get somewhere, in fact we might even collide into infinite oneness and never be seen again, except for the memory, which is also dead.

To wit: there's two sides to every story, to which both must be listened to and accepted as being two sides of the same coin, to coin a phrase.

Iwannaplato it appears is simply not hearing the Age message that's all. This is not about getting somewhere, for we are already here now, there is nowhere else but here, there is never a place that is not here.