Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

[Age]

Just to be clear, I am here in this forum to learn how to communicate BETTER. NOT just to learn how to communicate.

How can LEARNING even be factually challenged?

Either I am learning some thing or I am not. End of story.

Because if you were becoming BETTER at communication we would notice.

There's no improvement.

But my intention is NOT to become better for "you", which are responding to me here in this forum.

You can just say; "You are NOT becoming better at communicating". As this is an OBVIOUS FACT, and so does NOT need to be "challenged" at all.

I will NOT disagree with you that i am NOT becoming better at communicating with any one in this forum, when this is being written.

There is NOTHING to be "challenged" in this regard.

HOW would you KNOW what I am learning, and/or NOT learning?

Because there's no improvement in your communication skills.

GOOD.

My intention is NOT to become a better communicator in this forum at all. But, as I have continually pointed out, I am only here, in this forum, to LEARN 'how to communicate better'. If you ASSUMED that this means my intention was to communicate better in this forum, then I am sorry to inform you that your ASSUMPTION is once again WRONG.

When, and if, I ever use this LEARNING I will decide.

And, as has already been explained, my intention was NEVER to use that learning within this forum.

In fact producing deterioration in communication skills can be, and has been, of great assistance in my LEARNING.

I am NOT in this forum to communicate any thing with any one here. I am in this forum to LEARN; HOW TO COMMUNICATE BETTER.

If you have learned anything - you are not applying it.

etc. etc. etc.

IF the Truth be KNOWN I actually intended some times to cause and create MORE confusion through my communications in this forum, in order for me to LEARN; 'how to communicate better'.

You aren't learning. You are repeating the same behaviour over and over.

This is WHAT 'you' SEE. I acknowledge this, and thank you for the feedback.

Would you like to explain WHAT 'behavior' "you" SEE, which I am doing repeatedly, EXACTLY?


Also, you propose to KNOW that I am NOT learning. I will ask you AGAIN NOW to clarify HOW you would KNOW what I am learning and/or NOT learning? Can you explain WHAT insight you have into what thoughts/thinking is going on inside this body? And, HOW you obtained this 'insight'?

Also, are you under some sort of illusion that I was going to express what I am learning and/or have learned within this forum, or anywhere else for that matter?

Just because I am behaving, or misbehaving, in a certain way, within this forum, that does NOT mean that I am NOT learning. "you" "logik", after all, have TAUGHT me a great deal about how strong a brain can actually BELIEVE that its own thoughts are wholeheartedly RIGHT, when the Truth is actually the very opposite.

[Age]

Surely there is NO SINGLE PATH to get anywhere.

Are you proposing this as an ABSOLUTE SURETY?

I didn't think or say anything about some kind of "absolute surety".

But that does NOT answer my question.

Let us TRY again.

What does the word 'surely' mean/imply/infer to you?

When you think AND say or use the word 'Surely', as in 'Surely there is NO SINGLE PATH to get anywhere'. WHAT did you actually mean?

What are you TRYING TO instill into the thinking of the reader when you say 'Surely'?

Are you proposing that there is as an ABSOLUTE SURETY that there COULD NOT BE A SINGLE PATH or that there is an ABSOLUTE SURETY that there MIGHT, actually, BE A SINGLE PATH?

Inform us IF, to you, there COULD BE A SINGLE PATH to get some where, or, there COULD NOT BE A SINGLE PATH to get ANY where?

If you answer this question OPENLY and HONESTLY, then we will SEE if you were proposing your statement with ABSOLUTE SURETY or NOT.

I'm simply expressing my perspective that a Universe of seemingly endless possibilities and manifestations does not seem limited to single paths for anything.

Well what SEEMS, to you, may NOT be the case at all. Could this be true?

Could there be ONE SINGLE PATH to get somewhere?

There are only three simple answers you could provide here.

Do you disagree?

How could I disagree with what you are simply "expressing"? If, however, what you are "expressing" SEEMS to be a BELIEF and/or an ASSUMPTION, from my perspective, then I will just question you about this, for clarification.

Also, a Universe of seemingly endless possibilities, obviously, does NOT rule out the FACT that there COULD BE just ONE SINGLE PATH, to get somewhere. Or, does that 'possibility' NOT fit in with YOUR "seemingly endless possibilities"?

Please explain why. Do you think there is a single path? If so, please explain what it is.

If there is a Universe of endless possibilities, then obviously there could be one single path to get somewhere.

Agree? Or, do you disagree?

You may feel that ALL IS WELL and complete, but this is certainly NOT my VIEW, nor how i feel at all.

Do you think your view and how you feel are representative of ultimate truth that applies to all?

Yes.

If I did not, then I would NOT be here, in this forum, wanting to learn how to communicate better.

Do you think your view and how you feel are representative of ultimate truth that applies to all?

If yes, then so be it.
If no, then WHY express WHAT you think and HOW you feel?

[Lacewing]

If there is a Universe of endless possibilities, then obviously there could be one single path to get somewhere.

I suppose so. But then might it be that there is NOT a single path to get somewhere -- if that is a possibility?

When you obsess over words as you do, any meaning beyond those words becomes muddied. So we end up playing games with words, yes? I'm really not interested in going through all of your gyrations with you. It's tedious and boring. Also, I think you have a mental disorder. (Which, by the way, if you do and you know it...you should be upfront about it so that people know what else they're dealing with.)

Do you think your view and how you feel are representative of ultimate truth that applies to all?

No.

If no, then WHY express WHAT you think and HOW you feel?

Why not? It's fun and it might be useful to someone. Do you think there's something wrong with doing so?

[Age]

But, as I have stated, I can EXPLAIN ALL of this, in great detail.

Then please do so!

In regards to WHAT parts EXACTLY?

Without ANY reference whatsoever I do NOT know WHERE to begin with 'you'.

Also, if you are serious about wanting to learn and/or understand "another's" perspective, then asking specific questions in relation to WHAT EXACTLY that you want to learn or understand HELPS considerably.

[Logik]

But my intention is NOT to become better for "you", which are responding to me here in this forum.
My intention is NOT to become a better communicator in this forum at all. But, as I have continually pointed out, I am only here, in this forum, to LEARN 'how to communicate better'. If you ASSUMED that this means my intention was to communicate better in this forum, then I am sorry to inform you that your ASSUMPTION is once again WRONG.

When, and if, I ever use this LEARNING I will decide.
And, as has already been explained, my intention was NEVER to use that learning within this forum.

In fact producing deterioration in communication skills can be, and has been, of great assistance in my LEARNING.

Observe the lengths you are going to, just to rationalize your bullshit.

If you are unable to apply that which you have "learned" and observe your own improvement over time (that which humans call "growth") then how do you know that you have "learned" anything?

And if you are not learning about communication, then what are you learning about? As noted multiple times by people who question you deceitful intentions.

Communication goes A LOT easier when both parties state their intentions.

[AlexW]

But, as I have stated, I can EXPLAIN ALL of this, in great detail.

Then please do so!

In regards to WHAT parts EXACTLY?

Without ANY reference whatsoever I do NOT know WHERE to begin with 'you'.

Also, if you are serious about wanting to learn and/or understand "another's" perspective, then asking specific questions in relation to WHAT EXACTLY that you want to learn or understand HELPS considerably.

Simply “EXPLAIN ALL of this, in great detail.” within the context that we have been discussing, that would be great, thanks.

[Dontaskme]

"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."

All knowledge informs the illusory nature of existence.

.

Ego is made of the knower it is couched in. The knower is made of out of the exact same space in which it is known.


.

[Justintruth]

Do you think suppressing the survival instinct is a moral thing to do?

Do you think it is harmful to optimise for survival?

Looks like some people do....

https://blog.startwithwhy.com/refocus/2 ... death.html

Amazing how deep a fish can swallow a propaganda hook....aw shucks...I am so humble....

[roydop]

The still calm centre of being is always calm even amid surrounding chaos

It’s neither happy or content because it’s without preference...preference is chaos...if there is contentment it’s because of none contentment..if there is happiness it’s because of unhappiness...and viceversa.

.

I disagree. Stillness/peace is not the opposite of anything; it is the natural/absolute state.

Movement/karma requires stillness/absolute, but stillness/absolute requires nothing relative.

[Age]

DAM: People are genuinely being honest,

Does this count for ALL people, for ALL of the time, or, only for some of the people, some of the time? Or, for some thing else?

I think most people want to be honest people most of the time,

I would go as far and say that ALL people start out wanting to be honest people ALL of the time. Unfortunately though because ALL people are abused as children, they grow up to be dishonest people as adults, but still MOST of these older people still WANT to be honest people. Unfortunately though, WANTING to be honest people and BEING honest people can be two completely opposing things.

unless they know they're being dishonest and will try to hide it by denying it from fear of shame.

As well as fear of punishment and judging.

Also people would NOT have the fear of shame if they were NOT ridiculed by people.

If adult human beings just STOPPED ridiculing and judging, then there would be NO shame, and children would grow up without any fear of shame.

they can only communicate what they personally know and understand from their own experience, even when they are throwing insults and what-nots at each other in a two way discussion, they are still being their true genuine self,

Are you absolutely SURE that that is the real and genuine True Self, that One IS (or could be)?

I think so, in the context that the subject ( I ) is projecting the image of itself in the form of words and actions. I don't think in any event things could have been any different to how events originally appear.

To me the subject of (I) and (i) would need to be addressed first here.

To me;
The i is NOT the True Self. This i is the one that human beings personally identify themselves with, of which there are as many as there are human beings, which are just an "illusion", false, not real, fake, or just the one, which human beings THINK they are.

The I IS the True Self, of which there is only One, and which KNOWS who/what the 'i' is, and, Who/What 'I' am.

I agree that at any given moment of NOW, things could NOT be any different, but HOW things appear to the i can be and usually IS far different from how they appear to I.

how could they be any different than how they in the moment present their view?

By being dishonest.

OBVIOUSLY no one could be different from the PRESENT, in THE PRESENT, but surely adult human beings on a whole, and individually, could STOP and change their present view, from when this is written, and present a much BETTER VIEW, of themselves, in the so called "future"?

Or do you BELIEVE that this is impossible?

I believe it's possible to change ones ways ..

The personal i self CAN, and DOES, change their ways.

The Truth is they cannot NOT change their ways. But i admit that the way some human beings mis/behave it appears like they can NOT change.

but only when the flow of the present is temporally stopped via reflection of what way one wants to look at a certain situation..if they didn't like one way, they can change it to another way.

Yes I agree.

STOPPING and LOOKING, from "another" Truer perspective, allows the small self to change in ways, which are far better ways, to behave.

The True Self, however, there is NO need to change. Although this Self also cannot NOT change. (But this is some thing to LOOK AT later).

so how would you know who is being honest or not

Through clarifying questioning, helps, AND, by remaining completely OPEN.

Yes, I agree, by having the other person clarify whether they are being honest or dishonest to you..but then that person has to be telling the truth, or you won't get the proper clairifcation you seek.

Whatever "clarification" they give it is the proper one. Because I KNOW the reason WHY they are being dishonest in the first place.

If, however, the "clarification" is an honest one or NOT, this is another matter.

As you have pointed out, "it" could NOT be any other way, so in this sense whatever answer is given is 'proper', although that answer might NOT be the 'proper' one in the sense of being Truly Honest.

A person would NOT give an honest response/clarification if they are TRYING TO hide some thing. It also takes just as much Trust on the part of the one being questioned, as it does on the one questioning, for the one being questioned to be honest about being previously dishonest.

To KNOW 100% that "another" is telling the Truth, then 100% Trust in the "other" has to be gained. That kind of Trust can, and will, only be gained when human beings are brought up in "world" without fear of being judged, ridiculed, and/or punished. (Greed also NEEDS to be eliminated from society first as well but that is an adult issue not an issue for children regarding this).

By the way, when you asked, "so how would I know who is being honest or not" and I said "Through clarifying questioning, helps, and by remaining completely OPEN, I did NOT mean to just ask them a question clarifying if they are being honest or not. I meant by asking them a serious of clarifying questions, from a completely OPEN standpoint, then I could decipher who is being honest or not.

Usually, if one is asked to clarify if they have been honest or not, then what that answer could be considered in advance. So, some times it is best to NOT even ask such a clarifying question. But when I do, I still remain OPEN.

or whether they would be right or wrong about what they are presenting as a view point

Again, through clarifying questioning helps here, AND AGAIN, by remaining completely OPEN.

Yes, I agree, by being OPEN and not hiding anything, just being totally honest without fear of shame.

To HAVE, NO fear of shame, requires a Trust that NO judging is/will come from the "other".

without there being a belief involved on your part to be able to SEE the difference?

Are you saying that one HAS TO HAVE a BELIEF to be able to SEE when "another" person is being dishonest and/or right?

If yes, then I find that VERY contradictory.

It's not contradictory because from your centre of being,

Is "my" 'center of being', some thing like the True Self?

If yes, then I can find out and SEE when a human being is being dishonest, without EVER having a BELIEF. In fact by having a BELIEF this will distort my ability to discover and learn if a human being is being dishonest.
If no, then 'what is' the 'my' and the 'center of being' (of that 'my')?

you can't tell if someone is being dishonest or not, they may say they are being honest but are really lying about it. So a belief will have to enter the scenario, do I believe the persons claim or not?

Again I NEVER have to either believe nor disbelieve a person's claim, as I can still REMAIN completely OPEN. Whether I VIEW or THINK the "other" is lying is another matter. But if I was to BELIEVE either way, then I would NOT be OPEN to just maybe the other is True.

I can very easily and quickly form a VIEW that "another" may or may not be lying. But that is just my VIEW, which obviously could be WRONG, or partly wrong. Because my VIEWS can be WRONG I would be "WRONG" to base my next VIEWS on any past VIEWS. I find it much better to just LOOK AT what IS NOW, in the present moment, without any distortions from assuming nor believing, then I found I can SEE a clear and True picture of things.

As you have pointed out here, people can say that they are being honest but really be just lying. And adult human beings have become "experts" at doing this. If i were to add my beliefs and assumptions to this mix, then things just become far more clouded.

I would suggest that being OPEN to absolutely ALL things, allows one to SEE the difference between right and wrong, honest and dishonest, much quicker, simpler, and easier, rather than having a BELIEF, of ANY thing would.

But maybe you could SHOW me to be WRONG here.

You're not wrong here, I agree with what you have said...but the belief would have to be there in the one wanting the clarification not the one clarifying...

WHY "would" the BELIEF be there in the one wanting clarification?

I can seek clarification from you without ANY belief whatsoever.

Maybe if you gave an example of clarifying some thing with me AND providing the belief that you say supposedly 'would have to be there', and I will see if I can show you how I could turn that around, and ask you the exact same clarifying question, but this time WITHOUT the belief having to be there at all.

Maybe if we try that, and just see what happens?

I can NOT provide you with any one particular thing that I want clarified without a belief having to be there because absolutely EVERY thing I want clarified comes from an OPEN perspective, of which obviously there is NO belief at all.

Maybe if you do NOT want to provide an example of what you suggest 'must be the case', you could pick absolutely any thing I have written in this forum regarding wanting clarification (or any thing else for that matter) and then SHOW where the BELIEF that you say "must be there", instead, if you like?

because only the one clarifying knows the truth...

Just because the one clarifying "knows" the truth, WHY then MUST there be a BELIEF in the "other"?

By the way, some people have become so "good" at lying that they some times do NOT even know that they are lying (the truth). That is from that little self because obviously the True Self, within, KNOWS the actual and real Truth.

not the one receiving the clarification...

I am still NOT sure WHY you are saying that 'a belief would have to be there' in the one receiving the clarification

the one receiving still needs a belief present to believe what the person is saying...

Ah I see where the confusion might lay. OF COURSE one NEEDS a BELIEF if they say either; "I BELIEVE you", or, "I do NOT BELIEVE you".

But from my perspective I can still ask for clarification and NO matter what response I receive I still do NOT have to either believe nor disbelieve any thing they say.

If I CHOOSE to believe or not is another matter. I always CHOOSE to neither believe nor disbelieve, (because of the obvious results these two cause).

they cannot know absolutely if they have been truthful.

If one asking for clarification can NOT know ABSOLUTELY if the one asked for clarification is being truthful or not, then would it just be BEST to remain OPEN, especially considering they could NOT ABSOLUTELY KNOW either way?

This scenario seems, to me, like more EVIDENCE to neither believe nor disbelieve, and just remain OPEN.

Do you have any actual examples of HOW having or holding a BELIEF, of some thing in particular, will help people to SEE the difference between honest and dishonesty in "another" and/or the difference between right and wrong, in any thing?

As soon as any information is claimed. A belief must enter the arena,

This is difference:

Information claimed CAN be LOOKED AT, without a belief ever entering.
Or,
Information claimed can ONLY be LOOKED AT, with a belief entering.

Now;

This can be LOOKED AT from the perspective, that the first one is ABSOLUTELY NOT true, while the second one is ABSOLUTELY true. Could this be SEEN in any other way than this, from "your" perspective? Is there an ALREADY held BELIEF, within that body, which is actually STOPPING you from SEEING any thing else here?

This can also be LOOKED AT from another perspective, the first one MIGHT be true or it MIGHT NOT be true AND the second one also MIGHT be true or it MIGHT NOT be true.

NOW, I am saying I can LOOK AT things from a completely OPEN perspective and neither believe nor disbelieve any thing I SEE. Until I am SHOWN otherwise what I SEE is that information claimed CAN be LOOKED AT, without a belief ever entering. What I SEE could be WRONG, or partly wrong, so I will just remain OPEN till I am SHOWN otherwise. AND then I will still NOT start believing, nor disbelieving, any thing.

because only the subject can know truth from fiction as it objectifies that truth or fiction,

'But KNOWING something' does NOT mean that 'that' HAS TO BE believed, nor disbelieved.

The very reason for NOT believing any thing is so that one is OPEN to ALL things.

if there is no belief present then there is no knowing if something is true or fiction.

I can KNOW if some thing is true, like the sun will most likely shine on parts of the earth, in 12 hours from when this is written, but there does NOT have to be a BELIEF present. If I was to BELIEVE that this is true, then I would NOT be OPEN to being informed if this is NOT true at all. Some one might have discovered that the sun is actually going to explode in the next six hours, but if I BELIEVED that this is NOT true, then I would NOT listen to them at all. If, however, I was OPEN, and asked a clarifying question like; Really? Then I WOULD listen to what they had to say, at least.

If you were NOT SURE if some thing was true, then would you BELIEVE that it is true?

Am I correct in saying that you would ONLY BELIEVE in some thing that was true?

If yes, then that thing could NOT be any thing else correct?
If no, then WHY NOT?

There's just simple not-knowing presence.

There is a KNOWING presence, WHEN ALL are in agreement.

The 'not-knowing presence' is just the 'NOT absolutely sure knowing', which is just about what ALL VIEWS are.

To announce a particular view has the capacity to be right or wrong is another matter would require a belief also.

And WHAT 'BELIEF' do you propose that one would need EXACTLY, in order to be able to announce a particular view has the capacity to be right or wrong?

To announce anything right or wrong would require a belief in what has been announced to be able to discern the difference.

But to announce anything right or wrong is a lot different than announcing that any thing (a particular view) has the CAPACITY to be right or wrong.

I could announce, for example, This view that I am about to share has the 'CAPACITY TO' show how a truly peaceful world can be created for everyone, which is a lot different from, This view that I am about to share, which shows how a truly peaceful world can be created for everyone, 'IS RIGHT'.

Another example of the difference is;
Information claimed can ONLY be LOOKED AT, with a belief entering, HAS THE CAPACITY TO BE RIGHT.
And,
Information claimed can ONLY be LOOKED AT, with a belief entering, IS RIGHT.

To me the first statement is a true statement, as it is an OPEN statement. While the second statement although may be a true or a false statement, the way it is written it is NOT at all open to any thing other than its self.

Now if we are talking about announcing of the CAPACITY of a statement or if we are talking about announcing of the RIGHT of a statement, then these are two separate issues. One issue has just been brought into the discussion AFTER the issue that WAS being discussed.

Or else renounce everything announced back to not-knowing by default.

If a statement, like the first statement in the above example, is AGREED by ALL, then it is a KNOWING statement. But I still do NOT see how a BELIEF is "needed" anywhere.

I do NOT have a BELIEF, but I can and WILL announce that ANY particular view has the CAPACITY to be right or wrong.

The I doesn't need a belief to be what it is...but as soon as I announces a knowledge of itself then a belief enters the equation else how would I know I was announcing a particular point of view unless I believed I was ?

You are FREE to BELIEVE that you are announcing a particular point of view, if you so wish to, and if that is what you do and want to do, then that is perfectly fine with me, BUT this is completely different from BELIEVING what you ARE announcing.

If you now want to discuss about BELIEVING that what you are announcing, and are now questioning how would you "know" that you were announcing a particular point of view unless you BELIEVED that you were announcing a particular point of view, then you could do like what I do.

I neither believe nor disbelieve that I am announcing a particular point of view, for example; here on this forum, but how I "know" that I am announcing a particular point of view, here in this forum, is by if i get a response or not. If I do NOT get a response, then just maybe I am NOT announcing a particular point of view, or that particular point of view did NOT interest any one, or that particular point of view go "lost", or that particular point of view, just has NOT been read yet, or many of the other reasons WHY I did not get a response.

The reason I do NOT believe that I am announcing particular points of views, here in this forum, is because maybe I am NOT actually doing this at all, as this is just a dream, or this is any of the other countless possibilities that mean that I am NOT actually announcing any particular view at all. But how I KNOW I am announcing particular points of views is because i sometimes get responses back, and of agreement. If people agree that there are particular points of views being announced, here in this forum, then the more 'evidence', 'weight', 'support', 'proof', et cetera that I have to know that I am announcing particular points of views, here in this forum.

If there was NO agreement, however, then there is, to me, less truth and thus less knowing, and, conversely if there is FULL agreement, then that is thee Truth, and HOW I KNOW, for sure, that I am announcing points of views, here in this forum.

Is there some thing WRONG that I just did NOW or said? If yes, then WHAT BELIEF do you HAVE, AND, WHAT is the WRONG I just did or say?

The only thing wrong, missing part here is knowing to announce anything is to open the curtain of fictional story telling which needs a belief present else the story would have no grounding, validitity, the story would by defalt be meaningless and would be nothing more than a renonnounced announcment.

Just out of curiosity;

COULD this just be an explanation to back up and support a BELIEF, which is being already held within that body?
Or,
IS this an explanation of what is an actual FACT, which could NOT be refuted, and/or IS in agreement with ALL?

[Dontaskme]

To me the subject of (I) and (i) would need to be addressed first here.

To me;
The i is NOT the True Self. This i is the one that human beings personally identify themselves with, of which there are as many as there are human beings, which are just an "illusion", false, not real, fake, or just the one, which human beings THINK they are.

The I IS the True Self, of which there is only One, and which KNOWS who/what the 'i' is, and, Who/What 'I' am.

I agree that at any given moment of NOW, things could NOT be any different, but HOW things appear to the i can be and usually IS far different from how they appear to I.

I concur with everything you have stated here Age.

We both understand the empty principle that is associated with the ( i ) and that only the true ( I ) is what remains after that understanding.

Everything else is just an interpretation, a false represention of the true Self I

.

[Dontaskme]

Is there some thing WRONG that I just did NOW or said? If yes, then WHAT BELIEF do you HAVE, AND, WHAT is the WRONG I just did or say?

The only thing wrong, missing part here is knowing to announce anything is to open the curtain of fictional story telling which needs a belief present else the story would have no grounding, validitity, the story would by default be meaningless and would be nothing more than a renonnounced announcment.

Just out of curiosity;

COULD this just be an explanation to back up and support a BELIEF, which is being already held within that body?
Or,
IS this an explanation of what is an actual FACT, which could NOT be refuted, and/or IS in agreement with ALL?

In actual FACT Age...truth is stranger than fiction.

To know you know you know... requires a belief. Actual being (direct experience) (pure being) doesn't require a belief to be. It just is Pure Being.

So to announce you are being is to know you know which can only be known as a belief. To claim a 'knower' exists ..is within the mind of belief which is separation...(split mind)
Paradoxically, the mind of belief can reverse the belief to reach a place of clarity by renouncing any announced held belief back to it's original source, and see it for what is it, which is just a belief, a fiction so to speak. Once Removed.. the obstruction (belief) and what remains is the true Self I ...perfect clarity.

.

[Dontaskme]

You are FREE to BELIEVE that you are announcing a particular point of view, if you so wish to, and if that is what you do and want to do, then that is perfectly fine with me, BUT this is completely different from BELIEVING what you ARE announcing.

If you now want to discuss about BELIEVING that what you are announcing, and are now questioning how would you "know" that you were announcing a particular point of view unless you BELIEVED that you were announcing a particular point of view, then you could do like what I do.

I neither believe nor disbelieve that I am announcing a particular point of view, for example; here on this forum, but how I "know" that I am announcing a particular point of view, here in this forum, is by if i get a response or not. If I do NOT get a response, then just maybe I am NOT announcing a particular point of view, or that particular point of view did NOT interest any one, or that particular point of view go "lost", or that particular point of view, just has NOT been read yet, or many of the other reasons WHY I did not get a response.

The reason I do NOT believe that I am announcing particular points of views, here in this forum, is because maybe I am NOT actually doing this at all, as this is just a dream, or this is any of the other countless possibilities that mean that I am NOT actually announcing any particular view at all. But how I KNOW I am announcing particular points of views is because i sometimes get responses back, and of agreement. If people agree that there are particular points of views being announced, here in this forum, then the more 'evidence', 'weight', 'support', 'proof', et cetera that I have to know that I am announcing particular points of views, here in this forum.

If there was NO agreement, however, then there is, to me, less truth and thus less knowing, and, conversely if there is FULL agreement, then that is thee Truth, and HOW I KNOW, for sure, that I am announcing points of views, here in this forum.

I totally understand what you are stating here Age. And I concur with your view, and how you present and deliver it.

Another spin on the view already concurred with...could be interpreted as such in the following...

True Self for example: a new-born baby coming into the world...cannot know anything until it is informed by ''another'' (i)...

And that is how all belief is formed. Belief is when not-knowing true Self becomes aware of itself as a known object (other)aka (i)
Incidently the belief in ''other'' is not (out-there) separate from (in-here)...because (out-there)is only the projection of (in-here) the projection is only ever occuring HERE NOW within the first person appearance I, there really is nothing outside of a first person appearance that is not already couched within it first. The True Self of I is everywhere and nowhere. NOW infinitely for eternity.

So the True Self cannot experience itself as an (i) because the (i) is only ever an object of it's own desire. It's subject objectifying itself, the ''experience'' is purely within I only...not within the object. Here is it seen that both subject and object are one and the same Self. Not two. Self is Self Sourcing as a mirror image of itself, for it has no image of it's own except what it projects in it's own empty mirror. The mirror, just another word for SELF which is just another word for I ..is emptiness appearing full in the same instantaneous moment.

ONE cannot know something and hold onto that knowing without believing it to be true or real, that's how the dream world of separation is formed by the belief in other aka another source...other being the source of all your knowledge that you didn't know previously and so you have taken on secondary knowledge as being reality...when in truth, there is only ignorance aka real source and you are THAT.
Source doesn't need secondary knowledge to BE...secondary knowledge is the world of make-belief...a mental construction upon original ignorance the stateless state of not-knowing...the state you were in prior to you being given a name that you then believed to be who you are.

In truth, Source aka real reality has no knowledge of it's own, except what it makes-up by inventing other, it's mirror reflection. Reality is ignorant of knowledge and only ignorance is the original state of being. Everything else is just a made-up belief, an interpretation...already sourced within it's not-knowing Self the only knowing there is.

.

In a nutshell Age...I totally get what you are saying...I resonate with your own understanding.

.

[Age]

But, as I have stated, I can EXPLAIN ALL of this, in great detail.

Then please do so!

OH GOD NO!!

What exactly is it that is feared and/or not want to be heard here?

[Age]

If there is a Universe of endless possibilities, then obviously there could be one single path to get somewhere.

I suppose so.

Finally. But a, "I suppose so", comes across, to me anyway, as a very strong resistance to thee Truth.

Anyway, now that you ADMIT that there could be ONE SINGLE PATH to get somewhere, then we can finally start MOVE FORWARD, (along that path?).

But then might it be that there is NOT a single path to get somewhere -- if that is a possibility?

OF COURSE. That is what I have been saying all along.

When you obsess over words as you do, any meaning beyond those words becomes muddied.

Do I "obsess over words" or is that your perception?

Also, If any meaning beyond those words, which to you I supposedly "obsess over", then can you explain how this actually happens?

WHAT words to you SEE that I "obsess over", and when does 'any meaning' become muddied by 'you'?

So we end up playing games with words, yes?

I call using words back and forth with "another" 'a discussion'. However, if "you" want to call that "playing", then that is fine with me.

I'm really not interested in going through all of your gyrations with you.

Could this be partly because I asked you a series of clarifying questions about the abuse "you" do to "others", and this does NOT want to be LOOKED AT at all?

It's tedious and boring.

If that is what you find when discussing, or playing, with me, then I suggest just STOP doing it.

Also, I think you have a mental disorder. (Which, by the way, if you do and you know it...you should be upfront about it so that people know what else they're dealing with.)

I was upfront with it previously. In fact I was up front with it with the very first post I made in this forum. If I recall correctly "you" have even commented on this before. But I must be mistaken.

I HAVE A MENTAL DISORDER.

Was that UPFRONT enough, for "you"?

Do "you" have a mental disorder also?

By the way, 'WHAT ELSE' do I HAVE, which "you" say "you people" have been 'dealing with'?

Do you think your view and how you feel are representative of ultimate truth that applies to all?

No.

If no, then WHY express WHAT you think and HOW you feel?

Why not? It's fun and it might be useful to someone.

What is "fun" to "you" might NOT be to "another".

It might actually be harmful and damage to some one.

"you" might actually be passing on very abusive views to "others", who will then keep doing the harm and damage that "you" yourself are doing now.

Do you think there's something wrong with doing so?

If you THINK your views are NOT representative of the real Truth, then instead of propagating those view to "others", would it NOT be better to LOOK FOR what is the actual real Truth, BEFORE you start spreading non-truths?

By the way have you noticed how "you" say that "another" talks from one perspective, but then when they are questioned/challenged on that, and they want to disregard that and dismiss it, that then they change to talk from another perspective?

If yes, then have you also noticed that from one perspective you say that this is all fun and play, but when you are questioned/challenged and you want to disregard that and dismiss it, then you also change perspective and say that this is just tedious and boring?

If yes, then great.
If no, then so be it.