Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

Walker wrote: Just read about daleks. They're all the same.

We do aim for uniformity.

Daleks have only one goal, Exterminate!

Well, yeah, I suppose.

Here’s another thing I find perplexing...

When a speaker comes onto this forum to tell everyone what the speaker assumes that no one else here has any experience or awareness of. Why would they assume such a thing? Is it because they were so self-enamored with one of their own shifts of consciousness, and their particular methodology, that they can't fathom that there might be other awareness (and people) already "THERE" or beyond them STILL?

These speakers seem to fancy themselves as some special explorer who went to the far reaches of awareness, and who has come here to enlighten all others. Many of them insist that no one else knows what they know. Some seem to view the rest of us as just sitting here in a stupor waiting for someone to say something to GUIDE us. Is it not one of the most idiotic stances to take with people? Such a controlling position of authority is oblivious to, and missing out on, the vast awareness shared by the collective.

Naturally, one doesn't have to share an identical language and methodology to be full of the same basic awareness, and even more. Being vastly open-minded and greatly aware of love and connection is not dependent on any particular methodology... yet there are those who foolishly place such limitations on universal possibilities.

Lacewing wrote:Here’s another thing I find perplexing...

When a speaker comes onto this forum to tell everyone what the speaker assumes that no one else here has any experience or awareness of. Why would they assume such a thing? Is it because they were so self-enamored with one of their own shifts of consciousness, and their particular methodology, that they can't fathom that there might be other awareness (and people) already "THERE" or beyond them STILL?

These speakers seem to fancy themselves as some special explorer who went to the far reaches of awareness, and who has come here to enlighten all others. Many of them insist that no one else knows what they know. Some seem to view the rest of us as just sitting here in a stupor waiting for someone to say something to GUIDE us. Is it not one of the most idiotic stances to take with people? Such a controlling position of authority is oblivious to, and missing out on, the vast awareness shared by the collective.

Naturally, one doesn't have to share an identical language and methodology to be full of the same basic awareness, and even more. Being vastly open-minded and greatly aware of love and connection is not dependent on any particular methodology... yet there are those who foolishly place such limitations on universal possibilities.

If the speaker/speakers that this was directed at were named, then those of us named could answer for themselves, and thus answer your questions better.

ken wrote:If the speaker/speakers that this was directed at were named, then those of us named could answer for themselves, and thus answer your questions better.

There have been too many speakers like this to name... it seems to be a common affliction. Which is why I find it so perplexing.

I tried to provide enough explanation in my post so that we could speak to it without calling out names. What is this drive (apparently felt by so many) to be an authority above all others? I would say, if one feels that this might describe them or how they "appear", it would be interesting to hear some explanation for "that one's" thinking and approaching others in such a way. How does it respect or even consider the vast awareness and creative manifestations contained in all?

Why would so many people think there is only one way to be ("their way")? And how does this make any sense at all within such a vast landscape of possibilities?

I happen to like inside jokes, and it's refreshing to find out just who gets the inside joke. Sometimes (quite often) someone will post something that I just don't get, and I just let it go.

Lacewing wrote:.

Well, antinatalism is an uncomonnon philosophy, so I have to assume that most know very little of the arguments for it. So yes, I'm one that Lacewing is referring to, inadvertently or not. But I do accept there is philosophy other than which I accept, if one is keen on furthering or bettering life as it is. And I can discuss it. But in the back of my head, it's not ringing with importance, because ultimately I reject existence of mind as necessary. The rest of philosophy just passes the time for me as something stimulating to my brain, just as much as a good piece of literature.

Lacewing wrote:

ken wrote:If the speaker/speakers that this was directed at were named, then those of us named could answer for themselves, and thus answer your questions better.

There have been too many speakers like this to name... it seems to be a common affliction. Which is why I find it so perplexing.

OK, fair enough but let us presume that I am one of those speakers, after all I have said that 'I' am God, and this obviously could be so easily misconstrued, in so many ways. For example saying that 'I' am God could be seen as being in a controlling position of authority, which to tell you it is certainly not.The opposite could actually be more accurate. I just WAIT patiently for collective agreement before 'I' am revealed. 'I' certainly do NOT force anything to happen. Now to answer your questions and respond to your statements:

"When a speaker comes onto this forum to tell everyone what the speaker assumes that no one else here has any experience or awareness of. Why would they assume such a thing?"

Because there is not too many people I know that are in agreement on self-awareness and collective Self-awareness, the meaning of Life, the purpose for human beings being here, how the Mind and the brain works, the reason 'i' and 'I' exist, who/what 'i' and 'I' actually am/are, etc., etc., Besides the fact that there is not much agreement at all, if any, there are some people who actually insist that these answers could never be found. When people insist these things then others are to "assume" that they have not had any conscious experience or awareness of them yet. Conscious being the main word here. Although the Truth is every body has experienced and every person has had awareness of Enlightening situations, some, not all, people have yet to recognize those situations yet.

"Is it because they were so self-enamored with one of their own shifts of consciousness, and their particular methodology, that they can't fathom that there might be other awareness (and people) already "THERE" or beyond them STILL?"

For 'me', ken, there is far more self-loathing than there is self-enamoring, but with collective Self-awareness/consciousness and knowing, then Self-enamoring is totally acceptable because there is NO other. EVERY thing is on equal par as One.

'i', ken, only stumbled onto a particular methodology, which is often expressed as not being a right or a wrong way but the only way i know of, yet. That way is also only being expressed as one of the multitude of ways (as many ways as their are human beings) that could be tried, AND, if after attempting the way that i accidentally discovered and other people end up uncovering the exact same results and answers, then i will know that it does work. If, however, every person at least just tries that way and ALL of us collectively come to the same conclusion and answers and we are ALL in agreement, then that way will be the RIGHT way, which i only "think" it is for now. Obviously there might be as many other awareness/ess as their are human beings and at the moment this is the most likely scenario.

Actually I would even go as far to say that EVERY person is already "THERE", which is a place no person could ever go beyond, but most are NOT conscious of this fact yet. Every thing that is to be revealed, i found anyway, is actually knowledge already known, but just was not consciously known. Truth lays deep with-in un-consciousness. Unfortunately consciously known knowledge can confuse and/or prevent from un-covering and dis-covering the Truth. What is already known can stop people from seeing what is already un-consciously-known.

"These speakers seem to fancy themselves as some special explorer who went to the far reaches of awareness, and who has come here to enlighten all others."

Some might but my main goal here as previously explained is just to learn how to express Thee (collective) Self and 'My' self better. One little forum like this is not the place to enlighten ALL others, i think. That will be done in another way. My other goal here in this forum, as also explained earlier, is to show and prove to other "future" people how the Mind and the brain actually works. This is done directly through My writings with others here.

"Many of them insist that no one else knows what they know."

Others might but I do not insist that no one else knows what 'I' know, I just ask questions to find out if people do or not. I have not found one that "likes" to give answers to awareness, or what I like to call meaningful, questions. But as I have already stated I KNOW that ALL human beings instinctively already KNOW what 'I' KNOW. We are ALL One, and the same, deep down.

" Some seem to view the rest of us as just sitting here in a stupor waiting for someone to say something to GUIDE us."

I would go as far to say that no one 'likes' to be "guided", because no one likes to be a follower. Every one instinctively KNOWS what path they are on, but sadly because of the amazing ability of the brain to capture, hold and maintain certain knowledge most people are led astray. The ONLY thing people want to be guided by is by Thee Self. This is the only One that knows what is right and what is wrong after all.

"Is it not one of the most idiotic stances to take with people?"

Waiting to be guided by one's own Self may be idiotic and it certainly is extremely absurd. But is not most of human beings' behaviors in the "times" of when this is written, very stupid?

" Such a controlling position of authority is oblivious to, and missing out on, the vast awareness shared by the collective."

The whole point of self and Self-awareness is that it is ONLY discovered by the collective.

"Naturally, one doesn't have to share an identical language and methodology to be full of the same basic awareness, and even more."

I personally do not think there is "more" to the same basic awareness, of the collective.

"Being vastly open-minded and greatly aware of love and connection is not dependent on any particular methodology..."

I might suggest that just being born, i.e., coming into existence, is one particular methodology. At this particular point in every person's life I found is when all human beings are truly and fully open-minded and they are greatly aware of love and connection. This is when they are most feeling wanted and loved, and thus connected. This moment in ALL of our lives is a particular methodology of common or shared connectedness, which is about the only time we can ALL relate to "it".

" yet there are those who foolishly place such limitations on universal possibilities."

Apologies but i am a culprit of this type of foolishness sometimes. I have just done it.

By the way why did you use the word 'vastly' in relation to being open-minded?

Why not just use the word 'open-minded' without the word 'vastly'?

This would then imply a fully and truly open-mind, which I think you will find is a better option.

Lacewing wrote:I tried to provide enough explanation in my post so that we could speak to it without calling out names.

Does "...so that "we" could speak to 'it'.." imply "we" any or all people want to speak to "it", which is a person AND/OR the thing that appears to be an authority figure?

Either 'i', ken, or 'I' God, will be "it" and are more than happy to be spoken to, by any or all of 'you'.

Lacewing wrote: What is this drive (apparently felt by so many) to be an authority above all others?

Thee Self is this drive. The collective One Self actually does have authority above and over all others and IS the driver with-in each and every one of us human beings. Although this Self has the authority, It is the ALL-knowing wisdom It Self, It actually does NOT use that authority at all. Individual people mistakenly take this drive and use it to promote their own personally gained knowledge and "wisdom".

Lacewing wrote: I would say, if one feels that this might describe them or how they "appear", it would be interesting to hear some explanation for "that one's" thinking and approaching others in such a way.

I hope My explanations here are somewhat interesting. But I must reiterate that if I appear to becoming across as arrogant or above others in any way shape or form or in any other negative way whatsoever, then that is totally unintended and the complete opposite of what I am wanting to learn and gain from this forum. But these things need to be directly pointed out in order to learn and grow.

Obviously what "appears" to others may not be what was intended at all by the writer. What actually "APPEARS" in words needs to be "mirrored" back to the write and clarified by the reader first for both the reader to understand more and the writer to learn more.

Lacewing wrote: How does it respect or even consider the vast awareness and creative manifestations contained in all?

'I', for lack of better word right now God, am the awareness and creative manifestation contained in ALL, (without the usage of the word 'vast' nor the 's' on manifestations).

'i', ken, on the other hand, is the it who is NOT showing respect when i revert back to my own personal views and 'look at', read, and write from that perspective only.

So, how does 'it', the personal self, respect the One collective Self, well that is done by remaining fully and truly open so as to be able to look from and see from EVERYTHING's perspective, always and in all ways. To become and remain fully and truly open is to be able to disregard any and all previously obtained beliefs and assumptions.

Lacewing wrote:Why would so many people think there is only one way to be ("their way")?

Because if one way is the only way one knows, then "that way" is literally "their (one and only) way". If a person has found or has become more enlightened "that way" and they feel love or rewarded from "that way", then they want to share "that" (way) with others. And obviously if they do not know of any other way, then they think "their way" is the only way.

Again it just comes down to beliefs, and how beliefs close people off to (learning, understanding and knowing) other things, and ways.

Lacewing wrote:And how does this make any sense at all within such a vast landscape of possibilities?

That is the beauty of such a vast landscape of possibilities, there can always be as many vast variety of "ways" as there are people traversing.

'i' think i have that way, but then again so do most, if not ALL, of the other seven billion or so of us, living now, AND, ALL of the countless others that were living previously.

The beauty of having an endless amount of possibilities is that "one-day" One way will come along that is Thee Way.

The One and ONLY way that is the true, right, and correct way IS the one that ALL of us agree upon.

I guess it all comes down to who can formulate a (or "their") way, which will best be suited for every One first.

I hope this helped a bit. I KNOW this has certainly enlightened me a lot more. It really is truly refreshing having open questions and open-ended statements to reply to.

ken wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote: Here are two things I find perplexing:
Why do some people talk about lord or god when they completely reject and disbelieve 'it' wholeheartedly?
They talk about "it" as though 'it' is true and real. Why not just ignore "it" completely? If "it" is not real, then there really is nothing to discuss.
Why do these same people even spell lord with a capitol L or god with a capitol G sometimes?
It is like they are subconsciously giving this absolutely false and unreal thing some authority over them selves.

Because it is a con job of horrific proportions. Religion is the single biggest business in the world. By far. If you accounted all the money that religious institutions have managed to con off people, you would be dumbfounded. I know of a single temple in India which is worth 10 billion dollars. And there are probably a million temples in India.

I was subliminally directing this post to you sthitapragya, and others.

I was hoping you would look at WHY you, in particular, actually persist in talking about things that are obviously completely false, to you.

sthitapragya wrote: Then there are people like you who want to reject reason.

When AND where have I ever shown anything that led you to jump to this conclusion?

Bring out and paste the quote, then we can look deeper into what I actually said and meant.

sthitapragya wrote:There are others who want to teach Intelligent design in schools. You guys have no respect for evidence or scientific thought.

Was the word 'you' in 'you guys' in any reference at all to Me or ken? If so, we really do have a long way to go here.

sthitapragya wrote: Religion has been and will always be an impediment to science. Religion, after global warming, is the single biggest threat to humanity. That is why we bother.

"One-day" the equal importance of "religion" and "science" together will be dis-covered. They both compliment each other. For one of countless examples religion will prove evolution and science will prove creation. This has happened for Me already, anyway.

sthitapragya wrote:However, while we understand what a big pollutant religion is, most religious people are too caught up in it to understand. So out of respect for their belief, we refer to their god as God with a capital 'G'. It is not out of any respect for the God. We have none for we are sure he does not exist.

So you write capital G for god not out of respect for something that you are sure does not exist, (and which you are now calling a "he" for some unknown reason to me), but out of respect in a belief of the that non-exist "male". Your views are appearing more and more confusing to others, i think, the more I delve deeper.

sthitapragya wrote:It is out of respect for the person who believes very firmly in that God and has emotional attachments to Him. It is out of consideration for a fellow human being.

Does your logic work for ALL human beings and ALL of their beliefs?

For example if a person who believes very firmly in a god and has emotional attachments to "him" that are so strong that then allows them to let us say kill other people who firmly believe in other things besides "that" god, then do you still say that out of consideration for a fellow human being you would act the same way?

I will not go into the fact that probably just as many "christian" followers want "others" dead as much as "muslim" followers want "others" dead. Or will I mention any of the other multitude of absolutely ridiculous things beliefs can cause, here.

I do not have respect for any belief, other than a belief in the ability of Self to create and achieve anything that It truly wants, without harming nor hurting anything.

I certainly do not have respect nor any consideration in beliefs that are in non-existant things and beliefs that will cause any harm and damage to anything. Actually, all beliefs described will prevent people from learning so they all cause harm and damage in some way or another.

I am very sorry. For some reason, I thought this post was written by Nick_A. The reply was formed keeping him in mind and not you. Oh, and there is nothing false about my statement. In fact I understated the figures. The padmanabhaswamy Temple has discovered secret cellars where valuables worth 22.3 billion dollars was found.

Ken, thank you for your thoughtful and honest reply! I paid close attention to all of it... but in the interest of time and energy, I will respond to the things that are pulling at me to respond.

ken wrote:I have said that 'I' am God, and this obviously could be so easily misconstrued

Yes, it is tricky to step outside of conventions without seeming to be arrogantly "above" them, but I think you've done a good job of representing the balance/dynamic in your response.

ken wrote:I just WAIT patiently for collective agreement before 'I' am revealed.

I understand this -- although I describe it a little differently for myself. I wait for the flow to show me the way to go. I try to stay out of the way, and not impose my will in a way that obstructs the larger flow. I observe "myself" in the flow. I am not attached to a specific identity of "who I am", rather I see myself as one potential manifestation of countless... and all are equally part of the greater flow. Just like no drop is more ultimately significant in the ocean than another drop.

ken wrote:there is not too many people I know that are in agreement on self-awareness and collective Self-awareness, the meaning of Life, the purpose for human beings being here, how the Mind and the brain works, the reason 'i' and 'I' exist, who/what 'i' and 'I' actually am/are, etc., etc.

At the same time, there seem to be many who are "plugged into" an unknown that is greater than themselves, even if they describe it in many different ways. I, personally, do not think that there are absolute answers for any of these things -- so it makes no sense to me when someone tries to seriously tell me their version of answers. I, too, have spent many years exploring all sorts of angles, deep and wide, personally and collectively. I think each person's experience is sacred for them -- and each person should not mistake that with knowing and telling another person which path is right to take.

ken wrote:If, however, every person at least just tries that way and ALL of us collectively come to the same conclusion and answers and we are ALL in agreement, then that way will be the RIGHT way, which i only "think" it is for now. Obviously there might be as many other awareness/ess as their are human beings and at the moment this is the most likely scenario.

Yes, why does there need to be a "right" way. Why would an infinite universe, so far beyond our fathoming on so many levels, have a right way? And what are the odds that all the people who want everyone else to see "their right way" are going to succeed in doing so, when there are so many different ones? Might it be that such is perfect without narrowing it down to some human definition of "right"?

ken wrote:Actually I would even go as far to say that EVERY person is already "THERE", which is a place no person could ever go beyond, but most are NOT conscious of this fact yet.

This assumes that there is ONE ultimate "there". Again... narrowing it down to a certain "rightness" based on human understanding. Why not many many "there's", all interwoven like notes in a symphony? Many different "there's" to experience... and no ultimate "there". Why do humans think there needs to be an "end point"... a climax... a pinnacle... a single point of perfection? Can we conceive of an explosion of perfection?

ken wrote:I would go as far to say that no one 'likes' to be "guided", because no one likes to be a follower.

It's sort of like "god" insulting "god". Or parts of "all that is" trying to oppress/direct other parts of "all that is".

ken wrote:By the way why did you use the word 'vastly' in relation to being open-minded?

I was trying to suggest that there are degrees to being open-minded. Some people may think they are open-minded to a greater degree than they actually are, not realizing that there's always more, more, more beyond where we are and what we see at any given time. So many want to "be there now"... be at the pinnacle... know the answers -- and I don't think any of that exists beyond our thinking.

ken wrote:Does "...so that "we" could speak to 'it'.." imply "we" any or all people want to speak to "it", which is a person AND/OR the thing that appears to be an authority figure?

I just meant to offer some thoughts for discussion by those who feel pulled to do so... and to hopefully get people to notice what might apply to them and how they feel about that.

ken wrote:So, how does 'it', the personal self, respect the One collective Self, well that is done by remaining fully and truly open so as to be able to look from and see from EVERYTHING's perspective, always and in all ways. To become and remain fully and truly open is to be able to disregard any and all previously obtained beliefs and assumptions.

Makes sense to me! I would just add that "playing along" seems like a form of openness and acceptance too. Let's have fun! Why would it be so serious and specific?

ken wrote:

Lacewing wrote:Why would so many people think there is only one way to be ("their way")?

Because if one way is the only way one knows, then "that way" is literally "their (one and only) way". If a person has found or has become more enlightened "that way" and they feel love or rewarded from "that way", then they want to share "that" (way) with others. And obviously if they do not know of any other way, then they think "their way" is the only way.

But we can all look at our own histories... and realize how what we know today, is not what we thought we knew 20 years ago... and at each point along the path, did we not think "this is it"... "I've reached the pinnacle of understanding and rightness". Can we not step out of that loop and consider that it might/probably never end... there will always be MORE to realize... new understandings gained... more superstitions and fears to let go of? Why would we not welcome this? Can we see how our ego resists this?

ken wrote:The One and ONLY way that is the true, right, and correct way IS the one that ALL of us agree upon.

I guess it all comes down to who can formulate a (or "their") way, which will best be suited for every One first.

This doesn't ring true for me. It sounds like a pointless race to an imaginary pinnacle by a bunch of drops in the ocean. When we take away all of the human "thinking"... with its agendas and fears and desires and judgments and definitions and measurements... then none of that remains to assign or declare anything at all.

Thanks again for your response. I enjoyed exploring these concepts with you.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: Because it is a con job of horrific proportions. Religion is the single biggest business in the world. By far. If you accounted all the money that religious institutions have managed to con off people, you would be dumbfounded. I know of a single temple in India which is worth 10 billion dollars. And there are probably a million temples in India.

I was subliminally directing this post to you sthitapragya, and others.

I was hoping you would look at WHY you, in particular, actually persist in talking about things that are obviously completely false, to you.

sthitapragya wrote: Then there are people like you who want to reject reason.

When AND where have I ever shown anything that led you to jump to this conclusion?

Bring out and paste the quote, then we can look deeper into what I actually said and meant.

sthitapragya wrote:There are others who want to teach Intelligent design in schools. You guys have no respect for evidence or scientific thought.

Was the word 'you' in 'you guys' in any reference at all to Me or ken? If so, we really do have a long way to go here.

sthitapragya wrote: Religion has been and will always be an impediment to science. Religion, after global warming, is the single biggest threat to humanity. That is why we bother.

"One-day" the equal importance of "religion" and "science" together will be dis-covered. They both compliment each other. For one of countless examples religion will prove evolution and science will prove creation. This has happened for Me already, anyway.

sthitapragya wrote:However, while we understand what a big pollutant religion is, most religious people are too caught up in it to understand. So out of respect for their belief, we refer to their god as God with a capital 'G'. It is not out of any respect for the God. We have none for we are sure he does not exist.

So you write capital G for god not out of respect for something that you are sure does not exist, (and which you are now calling a "he" for some unknown reason to me), but out of respect in a belief of the that non-exist "male". Your views are appearing more and more confusing to others, i think, the more I delve deeper.

sthitapragya wrote:It is out of respect for the person who believes very firmly in that God and has emotional attachments to Him. It is out of consideration for a fellow human being.

Does your logic work for ALL human beings and ALL of their beliefs?

For example if a person who believes very firmly in a god and has emotional attachments to "him" that are so strong that then allows them to let us say kill other people who firmly believe in other things besides "that" god, then do you still say that out of consideration for a fellow human being you would act the same way?

I will not go into the fact that probably just as many "christian" followers want "others" dead as much as "muslim" followers want "others" dead. Or will I mention any of the other multitude of absolutely ridiculous things beliefs can cause, here.

I do not have respect for any belief, other than a belief in the ability of Self to create and achieve anything that It truly wants, without harming nor hurting anything.

I certainly do not have respect nor any consideration in beliefs that are in non-existant things and beliefs that will cause any harm and damage to anything. Actually, all beliefs described will prevent people from learning so they all cause harm and damage in some way or another.

I am very sorry. For some reason, I thought this post was written by Nick_A. The reply was formed keeping him in mind and not you.

Oh, and there is nothing false about my statement. In fact I understated the figures.

Two things here:

1. When and where did i ever say your statement was false?
2. If you in fact understated the figures as you say you did, then that by itself means your original statement WAS false. Though i really do not care at all.

ken wrote: Two things here:

1. When and where did i ever say your statement was false?
2. If you in fact understated the figures as you say you did, then that by itself means your original statement WAS false. Though i really do not care at all.

ken wrote:I was hoping you would look at WHY you, in particular, actually persist in talking about things that are obviously completely false, to you.

The fact that I understated the amount does not make my statement false unless you take the figures as a standalone.

I also feel that you meant that my whole statement was completely false to ME. If that is the case, it is presumptuous of you to assume that you know what I think is true and what I think is false. I actually think that religion is a con job of mindboggling proportions. So your presumption that you know how I think is false.

Also if you do not care at all, you should not have bothered to point it out to me.

ken wrote:So you write capital G for god not out of respect for something that you are sure does not exist, (and which you are now calling a "he" for some unknown reason to me), but out of respect in a belief of the that non-exist "male". Your views are appearing more and more confusing to others, i think, the more I delve deeper.

Out of respect for the belief of the human in God because the belief is emotional. There is nothing to get confused about here. You are new to this forum so you have not encountered the various forms of God people believe in. And he or He is a conventional way to refer to God by believers. If you find that calling god 'he' is a novelty, it might be because you have not interacted much with other people here.

ken wrote:For example if a person who believes very firmly in a god and has emotional attachments to "him" that are so strong that then allows them to let us say kill other people who firmly believe in other things besides "that" god, then do you still say that out of consideration for a fellow human being you would act the same way?

That is a pointless question. The answer is an obvious no.

ken wrote:"One-day" the equal importance of "religion" and "science" together will be dis-covered. They both compliment each other. For one of countless examples religion will prove evolution and science will prove creation. This has happened for Me already, anyway.

This is a declaration with no reasoning or evidence to back it. Unless you explain what you mean with reasons and evidence, the declaration has no meaning. And you should have the necessary evidence since you claim it has happened to you already.

Stick around long enough and you're no longer new.

I'm from out of town
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXpx21Uf7hs

ken wrote: You have misconstrued and/or taken almost everything I have said out of context.

Get used to it, ken. Such ignorance being projected is par for the course, as you experienced when the Projector of Prejudice changed your name for you (in this instance, in the dialogue that preceded your comment.)

Excessive flow in the conceptual "other direction" is illustrated by the axiom: She who licks can bite.

The scientific purpose of par is to provide a standard, the purpose of which is to aim for birdies, eagles, the extremely rare double-eagle, and finally the Theory of Everything which shall remain undiscovered until science says what happens outside the brackets of beginning and end.

Dalek Prime wrote:We do aim for uniformity.

Humans and time lords aim for the exceptional and are often satisfied with mud, dalek.

Walker wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:We do aim for uniformity.

Humans and time lords aim for the exceptional and are often satisfied with mud, dalek.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, mud to mud.

Walker wrote:
The scientific purpose of par is to provide a standard, the purpose of which is to aim for birdies, eagles, the extremely rare double-eagle, and finally the Theory of Everything which shall remain undiscovered until science says what happens outside the brackets of beginning and end.

I would like to have a go at this because there is no beginning nor was there an end. Everything has an opposite sitting/resting in equilibrium, right HERE and right NOW, i.e., TOE.