time to take the finger off the ignition switch

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: time to take the finger off the ignition switch

Post by ken »

sthitapragya wrote:
ken wrote:
sthitapragya wrote: Absolutely. But then you would have to show proof of your work-in-progress.
WHY from sth's perspectives things HAVE TO or WOULD HAVE TO happen. In what world and WHY would I have to show anything at all? And, WHO exactly do I supposedly have to show it to?

This is like sth's belief that a person can not keep existing if they DO NOT HAVE a belief. WHY does sth believe so strongly that people HAVE TO do things?

Sth was the very one who insisted to Me something about hypothesis are a work-in-progress that COULD NEVER be commented on UNTIL the conclusion was given. BUT now I am expected to show proof of My work-in-progress. I decide what I show and when I show it. I decide. Always has been this way and always will be this way.

Tell me something, has sth done much debating at all?
sthitapragya wrote: And why do you believe that what you want to say will not even be close to being understood for quite a few years?
Quite simply because I have not yet formulated the language that is necessary for it to be fully understood yet.
sthitapragya wrote:If you are worried about your definitions and language,there are a lot of language experts who can decode what you say so there is no worry on that count.
LOL, so called "language experts" could not and would not be able decode anything if the code for what is written is never disclosed. sth statement here i find so amusing. The very fact that a person NEEDS a, so called, language expert, to decode for them what they them self have actually written sounds so beyond ridiculous i can not stop laughing here. For example if a person is using new definitions and language, then there is no other person who could know, for sure, what is being said without asking clarifying questions to the writer. And, if a writer needs someone to tell them what they themselves wrote, then how could that not be anything but illogical? Most people do not just scribble letters down in some scrambled way and then go to other people and ask them can you decode this for me, please?

Thanks sth a smile will not leave this face now.

By the way I am not worried about My definitions and language. I am just learning a way to use definitions and language in a way that can and WILL be fully understood by every person. I do not want again My definitions and language to be taken out of context, misunderstood, misconstrued, nor misinterpreted ever again. No one has offered any help and only on very, very rare occasions a question of me is asked for clarification, so I am in no particular rush and will take as much "time" as I want to take
sthitapragya wrote:So show me the proof and I will start work on it.
Show sth the proof of what exactly?
sthitapragya wrote:And, what 'work' will sth actually start on?
By the very thoughts within that head, which have shone brightly here and appear very clearly here there is no thing absolutely whatsoever in the whole Universe that could show sth proof of something that is believed not possible or not possibly true by sth.

This has already been evidenced and proven by sth already.
sthitapragya wrote:But you must understand that by definition, if you don't have ready proof, what you have is a belief. It is not my insistence. It is the definition of the word in the english language.
Again, why MUST I MUST understand anything at all?

I will, especially, will NOT understand that does not make logical sense nor could be soundly and validly argued.

What sth said here all depends on what dictionary is being used, from what context that word is being looked at, and from what definition is being looked at and used. So, by My count there are at least three different and separate situations that have to be taken into context and clarified before I could and would even begin to even think about that I MUST have to understand. There are so many things that could refute this belief here, I will not even bother now.

Here is another question to think about: Would sth believe something if it were not true?

I could just as easy argue that, by definition, given by any dictionary a 'belief' is totally unnecessary and also what i have found is a totally irrational thing to maintain.

One minute sth INSISTS that beliefs are soo strong that people and human bodies will literally stop existing and dying without them, then sth wanted Me to start assuming that sth believes that we do not actually need beliefs in order to stay alive, but now it appears sth wants to revert back to believing that beliefs still exist when a person does not have ready proof of something, which is so totally unreasonable to Me. The very fact I have less proof or no proof at all MEANS, by definition, that I would NOT believe (in) it.

WHY do you continually (want to) persist with the notion that I MUST believe (in) something?

If sth does not want to accept My word that I neither believe or disbelieve, then just move on and accept that I am lying and/or that I lying to Thee Self. sth can talk about what sth does do and/or does not do, but really sth is in no position at all to talk about what I do and/or do not do. If sth thinks that I am in blind self denial, then just show some evidence of this. Otherwise accept what I say about the Self and what I do do.
sthitapragya wrote:Unless you are implying that what you have written is way ahead of its time and humans don't have the capacity to understand. Which do you mean?
LOL if by definition 'you', are a human being, and i am a human being who wants to write write something, then it can not be ahead of its time, in any logical sense, in that human beings do not have the capacity to understand it yet. If i, a human being, wants to write something "now", which i think science will verify and prove true "one day", then that certainly DOES NOT mean human beings do not have the capacity to understand. In fact the truth is human beings are the only ones who can very easily learn, understand, and reason, what I want to write, BUT, only if they are open to it, which means that they do not have and maintain preconceived ideas, beliefs, and/or assumptions, etc., etc., etc.

Also, if and when i write something that i can understand, and i am a human being, then obviously human beings already have the capacity to understand it. If i, a very, very slow and simple person, especially, has the capacity to and can understand, then any other person can and will also.
sthitapragya wrote:Oh, and just for your information, the concept of the 'i' and 'I' being independent is something that was propounded by Adi Sankaracharya in his theory of Advait. It is something which every Hindu has grown up believing. That includes me.
Thanks very much for that information. It never ceases to amaze me how many times when I talk to people, they say something like, that is what such-and-such said, you should read what they have to say, or that is not new that is what was said previously by such-and-such, or that is what it says in such-and-such book. Just when i read what is written I can see where they are or where it is coming from, but I am seeing it from another perspective, which by the way appears to be a collective perspective of Every(as)One, not just from one individual personal perspective.

By the way sth I await the reply to the question in relation to debating so then I will also have more evidence of something else I want to express, which is in relation to human beings and the way they learn, and not learn, i.e., education.
Well, there is nothing left to say, is there?
What do you mean? There is plenty more to say.

One thing to say is it is great you did not answer any of my simple straight forward questions yet again. This is of great help to both of us, and the readers here. sth can take that to mean anything sth wants.
sthitapragya wrote: If you are going to reject a dictionary definition to claim you are right, then I cannot argue against that.
When did I supposedly ever reject a dictionary definition?

I think you may be reading into what you are actually hoping I would do.

AGAIN, you have mis-taken what I have actually said and taken it to mean what you want it to mean, whatever that may be.
sthitapragya wrote:That to me is just pure stubborn dogmatic belief.
But I thought you were trying to make a clear distinction between dogma and belief. You even asked Me if I could see the difference, which I replied with a Yes, and gave My view of the difference.



sthitapragya wrote:Oh and again for your information, advait is from the perspective of Every(as)One, and not just from one individual personal perspective. You just don't know about it.
But I NEVER said anything like that. I said when I read what others suggest that I take a look at, I said, When I am reading I am it from the perspective of Every(as)One, and not just from one individual personal perspective. I was just saying what 'I' did and do.

sth is really going to hate Me saying this but just maybe there is far more in common between advait and I, then sth would ever like to even consider.

And, by the way you are right in that I do not know anything at all about advait, only what has been said here.
Post Reply