Philosophy Now Forum

Dontaskme wrote
All arguments made for things EXISTING or not existing are STRAW.

You're saying that anyone who argues about whether something exists or not is trying to defend an untenable position. Not true. But one does has to lay down a defensible idea as to what it means to exist, and proceed from there. Not all such things are equally valid; therefore, one argues agianst the competition. It is not a matter of definitively defending a metaphysics, but rather one of defeating the competition, as it is with all things.
Oneness has no argument with itself, who would it argue with .... a strawman?

Religion is a soothing balm applied by the mind upon itself to make the reality of it's myth more bearable.

Yes, but so it is if religious belief were in fact true as well. Being soothing means only that it's soothing, nothing beyond this.

Life is irrational and very stupid.

How so?

No word can define the word in and of itself, it's the absurdity of this conception.
No word can define 'what is', or every word defines 'it'.

Nor is anyone trying to define things like this. One does try to bring clarity, and in the process some views prove defensible, others not. The idea of God has underpinnings that take te matter far beyond the vacant denial, which is just as naive as the straw, fatuous things popular religions say.

A man willing to die for truth will get it.
A man not willing to die for truth will get it too, because this is it.

This is the opposite of clear. Truth? What is this that you so readily toss into play? It is the apprehension of existence? But you say such things are straw. This is it? WHAT is THIS?

Dontaskme wrote

No thing cares, means every thing cares. It's a reflex action and reaction in the exact same instant. Can't know action without reaction.

Arguing with yourself is a strawman argument because there is no other self.

The head is an empty mirror ball.

This needs explaining. Is it some kind of haiku? Do tell.

odysseus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:43 pm

This needs explaining. Is it some kind of haiku? Do tell.

I can tell you anything you want, but would you believe it is another story.

Find your own truth, in other words, smell your own shit.

The story is inseparable from the book.

Who wrote the FIRST book

Now that's another story. One with no copyright.

The mind if full of Copy Cats...selling fake fables to no one.


Get your plagiarism checker out .. it's the highest form of wisdom.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:53 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:10 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:27 am

I'm defining the words from the exact same place that you are defining the words below in bold.

What?

I asked you; How do you define some 'words'? I did NOT ask you; What place are you defining words from?

How does that which only exists as a word define itself? ...

But 'that', which ONLY exists as A WORD, obviously, does NOT define itself.

This is because, OBVIOUSLY, words do NOT define themselves.

ONLY human beings DEFINE 'things'. 'Words' are a 'thing'.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:53 am oh I know, I don't know what I am so I'll just make something up in the form of a word. . then hey presto I know the definition of the I / You

Do 'you', "dontaskme", YET KNOW WHY 'you' twist and distort what I actually say, and what 'I' actually mean, into nonsensical and illogical things?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:53 am I know that you like playing with words Age...yep yep yep, and so do I ..that is what's happening here in you and I

Okay. But 'we' are STILL at the stage where 'I' can EXPLAIN ALL-OF-THIS, in VERY simple and easy terms, and 'you' can NOT explain ANY of this AT ALL. Well this is what 'you' tell 'us' here.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:53 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:27 amDo you have any examples of a 'non-visible visible'? OR put another way a 'visible non-visible'?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:10 amNO. One reason I do NOT is because I do NOT speak that way, NOR in those terms.

Yes that right, you there spoke in a different way to the I here.

So, WHY ask 'me' if i have ANY examples of some thing that I NEVER said, NEVER even thought, NOR would have even contemplated of thinking and saying?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:53 am I here just said same thing in a different way.

NOT from my perspective.

From my perspective you said some thing completely different, and it was some thing that I would NEVER say.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:53 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:10 am'I', in the visible sense, am thee, physically seen, Universe, Itself.

'I', in the non visible sense, am thee Mind, Itself.

Who who who, who let the straw dogs out..who who?

'I' do NOT understand 'your' question here.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:53 am Oh I know, I've got no idea, so I guess any idea will do spoke another useful idiot.


.

Okay, but it is ONLY 'you' here speaking, and ONLY 'you' here answering 'your' OWN question.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:55 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:28 am

But there is NO ACTUAL 'problem' ANYWHERE.

Yes there is, it's here in black and white PROBLEM

Did 'you' NOT read 'my' following sentence?

If you did, then you would have SEEN that I ALSO stated: Other than OBVIOUSLY ONLY those 'problems', which human beings make up and create.

The word PROBLEM, which 'you' place here in BLACK, on a WHITE screen, (on this computer) was MADE and CREATED by 'you' - A human being. Therefore, EXACTLY as I said AND stated, there is NO ACTUAL 'problem' ANYWHERE, other than OBVIOUSLY ONLY those 'problems', which ('you') human beings make up and create.

Maybe if you spent more time concentrating on the ACTUAL EXACT words that I use, then you would NOT make as many mistakes, and as many WRONG assumptions, that you keep making here.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:55 am Are you blind? maybe you should have gone to specsavers.

This may well be the EXACT RIGHT QUESTION, to ask THY 'self'.

Did 'you', "dontaskme", actually SEE my second sentence following my sentence, which you have copied and quoted here?

If 'you' DID, then WHY did you write what you have here? What can be CLEARLY SEEN in what I wrote is:
There are 'problems', but ONLY because 'you' human beings create them.

This has, ONCE AGAIN, been EVIDENCED and PROVEN above, by 'you'.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 10:08 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:28 am
Were you previously AWARE that 'amen' can also mean 'It is so. So be it'?

It's different that's all, same difference.

'What', EXACTLY, is different?

Did you comprehend my question?

If no, then I am just asking 'you', "dontaskme", whether you were previously AWARE of some 'thing'. The Correct and Right answer is just either a Yes or a No.

But if yes, you did comprehend my question, then WHY did you answer the way you did?

To me, your response/answer does NOT answer the ACTUAL clarifying question asked.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:55 am

Age wrote:
'I', in the visible sense, am thee, physically seen, Universe, Itself.

'I', in the non visible sense, am thee Mind, Itself.

Do you have any examples of a 'visible sense' and a 'non-visible sense'?

Yes.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 10:08 am If yes, then will you provide it/them.

My pleasure.

Those things that can be seen with the human eyes ARE visible things, which ARE in the 'visible sense'. AND, those things that can NOT be seen with the human eyes are NOT visible things, which ARE in the 'non visible sense'.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 10:08 am You are the one who claims it is writing a book, the onus is on you the author to make sense to the reader.

Okay.

Were you ASSUMING that I was NOT YET AWARE of this?

Also, the onus being on the author to make sense to the reader ONLY applies IF, and ONLY IF, the author wants to make sense to the reader.

See, some times an author writes to APPEAR as to NOT make sense, to readers/posters, to SHOW and REVEAL to OTHER readers just how much the former readers ASSUME things without EVER CLARIFYING. This can be and will be EVIDENCED and PROVEN by the responses this author gets.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 10:08 am The one here,is not burdening itself with such nonsense. This one here does not have to write a book about a story that is already known. I have no copyright to imitate myself.

Okay.

But that one here, known as "dontaskme", appears to have a VERY STRONG NEED to be heard and to write things down, and to tell THEIR OWN story as though it is ACTUALLY thee Truth of things, here in this forum.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:26 am'I', in the visible sense, am thee, physically seen, Universe, Itself.

'I', in the non visible sense, am thee Mind, Itself.



Those things that can be seen with the human eyes ARE visible things, which ARE in the 'visible sense'. AND, those things that can NOT be seen with the human eyes are NOT visible things, which ARE in the 'non visible sense'.

I asked you who is writing the book, and you replied the physically seen universe is writing the book.

So if that is correct, but correct me if I'm wrong, that means anything that is physically seen aka the universe itself is writing the book.

You did say that Age, you said the physically seen, Universe, Itself is writing the book.

The problem you have though is that although it is a very easy and simple thing to say, to just come out and say something like that because even a 3 year old child would come up with the same answer, so all you are doing is you are just speculating a theory. You do not really know the answer.


Who still haven't said WHO is writing the book, all you have said is the visible seen is writing the book. That's like saying '' the hand'' is writing the book. And that all the ideas for the story is coming from ''the hand'' ....and that is why you never make any sense of explaining this to the reader.

And I have told you umpteen times before that this can never be explained...but you will not listen, because you have a desperate need to know what you can NEVER know. And that's your problem, which is a VERY STRONG NEED to be heard and to write things down, and to tell THEIR OWN story as though it is ACTUALLY thee Truth of things..when you are only speculating a theory.


.

You see whenever you claim to know something, that knowledge is the story itself, it is not the writer.

The writer can only exist as a character within the actual story itself, which is a fictional character. Like I've been saying all along.

You really need to get off that God throne of yours and stop patronising other people as if they were stupid. Everyone already knows what you are so pompously attempting to tell them.

Nothing SEEN can see.

Nothing KNOWN can know.


Any 'eye' seen (whether seen in an 'apparent nightly dream' or in the 'apparent waking state') cannot see... it is an object of seeing.

It is impossible to see the source of seeing.


Try to locate seeing. 'You' cannot... every object seen is 'in the seeing', the seeing is not in it.

'You' cannot even locate 'your apparent physical eye'.

Yes, 'you' can see an image in the mirror... but that image is not the source of seeing... it is seen.


.

Yes, 'you' can 'feel your eye'. But the 'feeling' is not the source of seeing... it is just a feeling, which is named 'the feeling of my eye'.

Yes, 'you' can cover your eyes, or just close your lids, and there is no image.


To take an analogy from a human perspective is a (pointing only).

Pointing to a Reality so simple: there is only One. And that One is called CONSCIOUSNESS

Only Consciousness can appear to be other than it is.

So who am I talking to?

The short answer is (my) Self.

The only certainty is Consciousness here now. This needs no proof… it is 'self evident'.

I have no COPYRIGHT

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:18 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:26 am'I', in the visible sense, am thee, physically seen, Universe, Itself.

'I', in the non visible sense, am thee Mind, Itself.



Those things that can be seen with the human eyes ARE visible things, which ARE in the 'visible sense'. AND, those things that can NOT be seen with the human eyes are NOT visible things, which ARE in the 'non visible sense'.

I asked you who is writing the book, and you replied the physically seen universe is writing the book.

Look, if you want to get to thee actual Truth of things, then you have to at least start by speaking thee actual Truth.

You did NOT ask me, "who is writing the book". You asked me, "So who or what is writing their BOOK ?".

To which I replied,
Who is writing their book, is thee one and ONLY One.

This One writes their book through the what is commonly known as 'human being'.

'Who' is writing their BOOK is thee one and ONLY, non visible, Mind, Itself.

'What' is writing their BOOK is thee one and ONLY, visible, Universe, Itself.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:18 am So if that is correct, but correct me if I'm wrong, that means anything that is physically seen aka the universe itself is writing the book.

You are incorrect. So what you said here does NOT mean what I said. The reason you are WRONG was just provided. That is; you replace the actual words that I do write with your OWN misinterpreted of words.

You are ALSO WRONG because you are misconstruing my use of the word 'Universe', with 'things'.

Look, the 'Universe' is just One Thing. Therefore, what this ACTUALLY MEANS is that NOT "anything that is physically seen" is writing the book. All you are doing here is misconstruing my ACTUAL words with say, "A lawnmower is writing the book". See, the 'Universe' as a WHOLE is an EXTREMELY DIFFERENT THING than ALL of the labeled parts of Itself.

I even, specifically, stated; The One that writes their book does this through THE HUMAN BEING.

Lawnmowers do NOT and can NOT write books.

Through the human body, however, books ARE written.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:18 am You did say that Age, you said the physically seen, Universe, Itself is writing the book.

What I did ACTUALLY say IS:

'Who' is writing their BOOK is thee one and ONLY, non visible, Mind, Itself.

'What' is writing their BOOK is thee one and ONLY, visible, Universe, Itself.


So, although you were CLOSE you were NOT EXACTLY RIGHT.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:18 am The problem you have though is that although it is a very easy and simple thing to say, to just come out and say something like that because even a 3 year old child would come up with the same answer, so all you are doing is you are just speculating a theory.

But 'I' do NOT have a, so called, "problem" ANYWHERE.

What IS the 'that' in the "something like that", which you stated and claimed I "just come out and say"?

Also, I am NOT "speculating a theory" AT ALL.

See,
1. I do NOT do 'theory'.
2. What I say has ALREADY been PROVEN True, Right, and Correct.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:18 am You do not really know the answer.

If this is what you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE, then so be it. As I have said many time previous;

'you' are COMPLETELY FREE to think, assume, and/or believe whatever you like.

But whether you can actually able to back up and support your CLAIMS is YET to be SEEN.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:18 am Who still haven't said WHO is writing the book, all you have said is the visible seen is writing the book.

But this is OBVIOUSLY NOT "all I have said", as can be CLEARLY SEEN above, and thus has ALREADY been EVIDENCED and PROVEN true, right, and correct.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:18 am That's like saying '' the hand'' is writing the book.

Yes this might be EXACTLY like saying what 'YOU' have said. But as can be CLEARLY SEEN this is NOT what 'I' have said.

Have 'you' EVER thought about just CLARIFYING with 'me' FIRST about what 'I' am ACTUALLY saying, and what 'I' am ACTUALLY meaning, BEFORE you make your OWN ASSUMPTIONS and jump to your OWN CONCLUSIONS?

Or, have you NEVER thought about doing this?

Or, have you thought about doing this but just DISREGARDED that idea?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:18 am And that all the ideas for the story is coming from ''the hand'' ....and that is why you never make any sense of explaining this to the reader.

What 'I' have ALREADY said is self-explanatory. BUT if ANY one does NOT YET UNDERSTAND FULLY what I have ALREADY said, then I just suggest they ask me some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, or just CHALLENGE me. Either or both from a Truly OPEN perspective I will add here now.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:18 am And I have told you umpteen times before that this can never be explained...

And I have told 'you', probably the same amount of times, that 'this' CAN BE EXPLAINED, and VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY I have added.

See, what is OBVIOUSLY going to happen is 'you' are NEVER going to allow 'this' to be EXPLAINED TO 'YOU' because if 'this' was EXPLAINED to 'you', then that means that YOUR BELIEF is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, and Incorrect. And, NO one will do ANY thing that goes against what they BELIEVE is true.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:18 am but you will not listen, because you have a desperate need to know what you can NEVER know.

LOL Okay.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:18 am And that's your problem, which is a VERY STRONG NEED to be heard and to write things down, and to tell THEIR OWN story as though it is ACTUALLY thee Truth of things..when you are only speculating a theory.

And how many posts has the one known as "dontaskme" written down?

By the way, what EXACTLY is this "theory", which 'you' BELIEVE 'I' am "speculating on"?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:18 am
You see whenever you claim to know something, that knowledge is the story itself, it is not the writer.

Is this what 'you' are CLAIMING to KNOW?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:18 am The writer can only exist as a character within the actual story itself, which is a fictional character. Like I've been saying all along.

And HOW EXACTLY is that ANY different from what I have been ACTUALLY SAYING?

See, for quite some time now actually, you have NOT been looking to SEE if what I have been saying, and meaning, could actually be the SAME as 'you', but just with different words/language. What you have been doing instead is just looking to SEE that 'you' are RIGHT and "others" are WRONG.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:18 am You really need to get off that God throne of yours and stop patronising other people as if they were stupid.

If that is how 'I' and "them" come across, then could there be a VERY GOOD AND VERY LOGICAL reason for this?

By the way, will you provide an EXAMPLE of where I have ACTUALLY done what 'you' have CLAIMED here?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:18 am Everyone already knows what you are so pompously attempting to tell them.

Do they? ALL of "them"?

And, what do 'you' propose is 'that', EXACTLY, which 'you' CLAIM 'I' "so pompously attempt to tell them"?

By the way, IF EVERY one ALREADY KNOWS what I am telling them, then this would imply that what I am telling them would actually be EXTREMELY EASY and SIMPLE to EXPLAIN, correct?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:50 am Nothing SEEN can see.

'you' keep FORGETTING that the words 'seen' and 'see' have TWO VERY DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS/MEANINGS.

So, EXPLAINING 'That', which can SEE, can be SEEN (or in other words, can be UNDERSTOOD).

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:18 am Nothing KNOWN can know.

EXCEPT FOR 'thee Knower', Itself.

Once the Knower is KNOWN, then KNOWING the Knower can be done, OBVIOUSLY.
Therefore, KNOWING who and/or what the Knower ACTUALLY IS means that One 'Thing' can be KNOWN, and that is by the Knower, Itself.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:18 am Any 'eye' seen (whether seen in an 'apparent nightly dream' or in the 'apparent waking state') cannot see... it is an object of seeing.

EXCEPT FOR 'thee Mind's Eye'.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:18 am It is impossible to see the source of seeing.

But SEEING/UNDERSTANDING who and what the SEER IS, (the source of SEEING), is an EXTREMELY VERY SIMPLE and EASY thing to do. That is; for the Knower AND Seer, anyway.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:18 am Try to locate seeing.

Been HERE, doing this NOW.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:18 am 'You' cannot... every object seen is 'in the seeing', the seeing is not in it.

If this is what 'you' BELIEVE is true, then this is ONLY what 'you' will see. Or, in 'your' case NOT see.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:18 am 'You' cannot even locate 'your apparent physical eye'.

Again, if this is what the 'you' BELIEVES is true, then this MUST BE TRUE, correct?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:18 am Yes, 'you' can see an image in the mirror... but that image is not the source of seeing... it is seen.


.

OBVIOUSLY.

This is what I HAVE BEEN SAYING, and MEANING. That is; IF 'you' had EVER wanted to CLARIFY with 'me' BEFORE.