The Meaning of Life

[Rhodnar]

Is there really actually a form of happiness that is not dependent upon something else. Are not ALL emotions dependent upon something else? I think it would be near impossible to just feel an emotion without absolutely nothing else in play. Even the ability to not feel an emotion at all is only achievable by something else, that is only done with and by thoughts.

The happiness is dependent upon something else, becoming "truly just". The happiness cannot be removed because the "truly just" cannot be removed. If the justness could be removed it wasn't "true justness". In literal terms the "true justness" could be removed by suffering an injury to the brain, but in that situation, it could be argued that the resultant being was no longer the same being. In terms of truly just creators, I would have to speculate that they were beyond traumatic brain injury, and they don't even "need" to exist anyway. What I mean by that is:

If I die tomorrow and there is nothing else, I don't care. It's not relevant. I enjoyed my life and then I was gone.
If I die tomorrow and there is a god, morally I'm its superior, so why would I wish to bow down before it?
If I die tomorrow and there are truly just creators, I'm prepared for what comes next. I'm home.
If I die tomorrow and "ALL is one" then I'm still a part of the "one" and I enjoyed my life.
Etc:

There are probably countless variations, but by being truly just I have reached life's apex. I have won the race. More power, longer life, greater knowledge, etc: are all just add-ons, not requirements. However; in the possession of those who are not truly just, they could be disastrous.

Could you, and would you, really be in a state of true happiness if others are being harmed and damaged, and thus in pain and suffering all around you? Could you really sit there in any real state of happiness, let alone true happiness, while witnessing children, for example, being abused and dying of starvation around you?

Happiness, no, true happiness, yes. It is a confusing distinction, but still true. Like yourself I can see how the world could put an end to all suffering, and unlike one of your earlier comments would suggest, like you I would do what I could to alleviate suffering if I witnessed it and was able to do so.

It all relates to the thought exercise that I tried to get you to engage in earlier. I am a human being, my helping others in my scope is not only permissible to the truly just, it is "a calling" if you will. However; if I were a "truly just creator", intervening in the affairs of human beings would be unjust. Therefore; I would not be a "truly just creator", I'd be a god.

This whole oneness thing although possible would fall into the unacceptable outcome region of my philosophy, because I do not see it as being truly just. Telling me that I'm part of a thing, that is all things, isn't very satisfactory to me. It's a condition imposed upon me by another, from which, there is no escape. If the Universe is (for the sake of brevity) God, and I am a part of God, presumably I'm either trapped in time for eternity, or I return to "God the whole" at some point. However; I'm me, I like being me, and I don't want to be just a thought in the mind of something else. If it is, and it can create a universe, allowing me to continue being me, should be a doddle. In short I think that I'd be happier just having been, than being just a part of God.

If there is a god, it's a being, and so am I. If it's of greater significance than me, it's not truly just.

Perhaps I don't understand your point about oneness though.

[surreptitious57]

I might be a very slow and simple one but did understand that it was figurative language. I replied with literal language especially in this type
of forum because philosophy is sometimes known as looking for truth or becoming wiser. We know how hard it is to derive meaning especially
from the written word and how much more open the written word is to mis / interpretation than the spoken word is with visual cues. I try my hardest here to be best understood so that I am not misinterpreted at all. It rarely works by the way. I try to literally use every word in the way
that it literally means. This is hard enough to do because some words can have two very distinctly different meanings and some words even have two completely opposite meanings which makes the written words that are absent of physical cues even harder to interpret the readers intention

You are not slow and simple at all ken. You are very logical and clear thinking and just what a philosophy forum needs. Now you do have a rather idealistic approach which at times seems positively Utopian but I can look beyond that and focus on what you are trying to say. You are very good at exposing flaws in the arguments of others. A couple of posters here have found you too intense but I do not share that opinion. You are intense but just not unnecessarily so. So you just carry on maintaining the high degree of quality posting that you have been providing here since day one

[Rhodnar]

I might be a very slow and simple one but did understand that it was figurative language. I replied with literal language especially in this type
of forum because philosophy is sometimes known as looking for truth or becoming wiser. We know how hard it is to derive meaning especially
from the written word and how much more open the written word is to mis / interpretation than the spoken word is with visual cues. I try my hardest here to be best understood so that I am not misinterpreted at all. It rarely works by the way. I try to literally use every word in the way
that it literally means. This is hard enough to do because some words can have two very distinctly different meanings and some words even have two completely opposite meanings which makes the written words that are absent of physical cues even harder to interpret the readers intention

You are not slow and simple at all ken. You are very logical and clear thinking and just what a philosophy forum needs. Now you do have a rather idealistic approach which at times seems positively Utopian but I can look beyond that and focus on what you are trying to say. You are very good at exposing flaws in the arguments of others. A couple of posters here have found you too intense but I do not share that opinion. You are intense but just not unnecessarily so. So you just carry on maintaining the high degree of quality posting that you have been providing here since day one

Hopefully it's unnecessary, but I'd like to echo that post. It was not my intent to imply to you, that I thought you "slow and simple", I don't. You intrigue me. We have a lot in common, you and I. Our differences are not major, but you still have unresolved questions. Whereas I do not. I may not have all the answers, but those that I do not have, I do not need to have. I can want to have the answers, without needing to have them.

e.g. Saying that the Universe was created by the truly just, would be a leap of faith. I have no proof, and the system would become unjust if I did.

The point is that the Universe may or may not have been created by the truly just, and it makes no difference to me (personally) now. I have found true happiness by becoming truly just. I think that you have too, but that you just haven't "unlocked all of the doors yet". As I said, you intrigue me.

[ken]

Is there really actually a form of happiness that is not dependent upon something else. Are not ALL emotions dependent upon something else? I think it would be near impossible to just feel an emotion without absolutely nothing else in play. Even the ability to not feel an emotion at all is only achievable by something else, that is only done with and by thoughts.

The happiness is dependent upon something else, becoming "truly just". The happiness cannot be removed because the "truly just" cannot be removed. If the justness could be removed it wasn't "true justness". In literal terms the "true justness" could be removed by suffering an injury to the brain, but in that situation, it could be argued that the resultant being was no longer the same being. In terms of truly just creators, I would have to speculate that they were beyond traumatic brain injury, and they don't even "need" to exist anyway. What I mean by that is:

If I die tomorrow and there is nothing else, I don't care. It's not relevant. I enjoyed my life and then I was gone.
If I die tomorrow and there is a god, morally I'm its superior, so why would I wish to bow down before it?
If I die tomorrow and there are truly just creators, I'm prepared for what comes next. I'm home.
If I die tomorrow and "ALL is one" then I'm still a part of the "one" and I enjoyed my life.
Etc:

There are probably countless variations, but by being truly just I have reached life's apex. I have won the race. More power, longer life, greater knowledge, etc: are all just add-ons, not requirements. However; in the possession of those who are not truly just, they could be disastrous.

Honestly I am more confused now of what it is that you are actually trying to say, than I was before.

Why can happiness and truly just not be removed?

Where can they not be removed from?

You wrote "If I die tomorrow and ...", Who/what is the 'I'?

Why did you write, "I'm God's superior"?

What/who, do you say, are 'truly just creators'?

What defines 'being truly just'?

How exactly did you reach life's apex?

When do you allege that you won the race?

Could you, and would you, really be in a state of true happiness if others are being harmed and damaged, and thus in pain and suffering all around you? Could you really sit there in any real state of happiness, let alone true happiness, while witnessing children, for example, being abused and dying of starvation around you?

Happiness, no, true happiness, yes. It is a confusing distinction, but still true. Like yourself I can see how the world could put an end to all suffering, and unlike one of your earlier comments would suggest, like you I would do what I could to alleviate suffering if I witnessed it and was able to do so.

This is very confusing to Me;
1. You can sit in true happiness witnessing children being abuse and dying of starvation around you. But,
2. You can see how to put an end to all of the abuse and the starvation. And,
3. You misinterpreted or mistook an earlier comment of mine completely, I think. But,
4. You would do what you could to alleviate suffering but only if you witnessed it and was able to so.

If you can really see how to put an end to all suffering, as you say you do, then you must have the knowledge of how to do it. So, you could do it, and you said you would do what you could to alleviate suffering. If I was you I would use the knowledge that you have. But maybe you believe that you do not witness the abuse and starvation of others that is continually happening around you, or maybe because you can ONLY see how the "world" could put an end to all suffering, so you believe that you are not able to alleviate suffering, and/or that it is not really your responsibility to do anything but rather the "world's" responsibility to alleviate the suffering of human children. Just maybe these are some of the reasons that may be stopping you from truly alleviating suffering.

If there can be true happiness, then can there also be true suffering?

By the way I do NOT want to alleviate suffering. I want to STOP ALL suffering, and then prevent ALL suffering from ever happening again, so that ALL can live in peace and harmony together in true happiness. I already know how to do this, I just truly do not yet know how to express all of what is needed for this to happen. I am truly just in the process of learning how to show how this is just truly possible.

It all relates to the thought exercise that I tried to get you to engage in earlier.

What was that thought exercise exactly, which you allege I did NOT engage in earlier?

I am a human being, my helping others in my scope is not only permissible to the truly just, it is "a calling" if you will.

What is a 'human being', to you?

How many have you actually helped, and how many more are in actual need of help?

However; if I were a "truly just creator", intervening in the affairs of human beings would be unjust. Therefore; I would not be a "truly just creator", I'd be a god.

Excuse my forgetfulness, what is the difference between a 'truly just creator' and 'god'?

And, do you think god intervenes in the affairs of human beings? If so, then how is that unjust exactly?

I am truly just trying to understand what it is that you are truly trying to express here.

This whole oneness thing although possible would fall into the unacceptable outcome region of my philosophy, because I do not see it as being truly just.

What do you mean by 'philosophy'?

I see 'philosophy' to mean 'love-of-wisdom', or in other words having the love-of-learning.

So, there could NEVER be an unacceptable outcome region of 'my philosophy' because 'my philosophy' is just my love of learning and my love of becoming wiser. To Me, there is no acceptable nor unacceptable outcome. Whatever becomes, be-comes. Or, what is IS what is. I do NOT have an outcome before there is one, nor do I look for any type of outcome. I just look at 'what is'.

What do you see as 'being truly just', and, how can 'being truly just' be outside or beyond or above or whatever separate from the whole oneness thing? How could any thing be apart from or separate from a whole One thing?

Telling me that I'm part of a thing, that is all things, isn't very satisfactory to me. It's a condition imposed upon me by another, from which, there is no escape.

Why do you mean that there is no escape? Escape from what exactly? If as you imply there are things separate from the whole One, then just express what they are AND how they are separate.

By the way telling you that you are a part of the One whole thing is NOT a condition imposed upon by an-other because there is NO other to the One whole.

If the Universe is (for the sake of brevity) God, and I am a part of God, presumably I'm either trapped in time for eternity, or I return to "God the whole" at some point.

What is wrong with be "trapped" in time for eternity?

You can NOT return to, from that what you have NOT left. If you are a part of God, then you can NOT return, so you would be and are HERE as a part of God.

However; I'm me, I like being me, and I don't want to be just a thought in the mind of something else.

There is NO mind of something else. As I explained before there is One and only One Mind, which by the way is always truly OPEN.

Saying, "I'm me", invites Me to ask, who/what am 'I' and/or who/what is 'me'?

And, if you like being me or do not like being me, what difference would that make? What is it like being me? And, what is it that you like about being me?

Is not absolutely everything could just be seen as being just a thought in some thing, like in human beings?

If it is, and it can create a universe, allowing me to continue being me, should be a doddle. In short I think that I'd be happier just having been, than being just a part of God.

Who says allowing you to be you is not a very easy task? I certainly allow you to think and do whatever you want. I do this with ALL human beings.

Even if you are a part of God, then you will still always just have been.

If there is a god, it's a being, and so am I. If it's of greater significance than me, it's not truly just.

Why would you think God is a greater significance than any of It's parts. God is only the sum of ALL of It's parts. No part is less nor more significant than another part is.

Perhaps I don't understand your point about oneness though.

Very understandable. I would propose that I am not even a third of the way yet learning just how to express this point fully. I am only here, in this forum, to learn how to express better.

[Rhodnar]

Why can happiness and truly just not be removed?

Because you become truly just for yourself, you are truly just, it is who you are. It is a state of being. It cannot be removed from you and you would never "want" to remove it from yourself. If you could "slide back", then you were never there.

Where can they not be removed from?

The being that possesses them.

You wrote "If I die tomorrow and ...", Who/what is the 'I'?

Me, the being from a species that has evolved to the point that it can write this, here and now.

Why did you write, "I'm God's superior"?

I didn't, I wrote that I am God's moral superior. I am morally superior to a God.
Any being worthy of being called a god must be truly just. The truly just have no desire to be called gods.
Therefore; if it's a god, it's not truly just. Therefore; I am morally superior to it.

What/who, do you say, are 'truly just creators'?

I don't, it's pure conjecture. Simply put, it's the only truly acceptable source of the Universe.
If the Universe was created by a being or beings, or is a being or beings, and they are less than truly just, they are less than they could be.
If the Universe was not "created" at all, and it just "is", then life has no meaning. We may find our own meanings, but they are our meanings, not the meaning.

What defines 'being truly just'?

Very simplistically, universal unconditional love and "wanting" to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

How exactly did you reach life's apex?

By becoming truly just.

When do you allege that you won the race?

When I became truly just.

Could you, and would you, really be in a state of true happiness if others are being harmed and damaged, and thus in pain and suffering all around you? Could you really sit there in any real state of happiness, let alone true happiness, while witnessing children, for example, being abused and dying of starvation around you?

Yes, because you understand.

What is a 'human being', to you?

The dictionary definition.

Excuse my forgetfulness, what is the difference between a 'truly just creator' and 'god'?
And, do you think god intervenes in the affairs of human beings? If so, then how is that unjust exactly?

Any being worthy of being called a god must be truly just. The truly just have no desire to be called gods.
I don't even know if there is a god, but if there is and it did intervene in the affairs of human beings the likelihood is that it would be unjust. Humanity's problems are humanity's problems.

What do you mean by 'philosophy'?
I see 'philosophy' to mean 'love-of-wisdom', or in other words having the love-of-learning.

That is the root of the word, but it also refers to a set of beliefs or a belief system. Christianity is a religious philosophy for example.

I think the quickest way to sum up the difference between your philosophy and mine would be pregnancy.
In your philosophy, mother and child are two parts of the same being.
Whereas, in mine, we're all waiting to be born.

If you can really see how to put an end to all suffering, as you say you do, then you must have the knowledge of how to do it. So, you could do it, and you said you would do what you could to alleviate suffering.

That's exactly what I am doing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCorJG9mubk

[ken]

I might be a very slow and simple one but did understand that it was figurative language. I replied with literal language especially in this type
of forum because philosophy is sometimes known as looking for truth or becoming wiser. We know how hard it is to derive meaning especially
from the written word and how much more open the written word is to mis / interpretation than the spoken word is with visual cues. I try my hardest here to be best understood so that I am not misinterpreted at all. It rarely works by the way. I try to literally use every word in the way
that it literally means. This is hard enough to do because some words can have two very distinctly different meanings and some words even have two completely opposite meanings which makes the written words that are absent of physical cues even harder to interpret the readers intention

You are not slow and simple at all ken. You are very logical and clear thinking and just what a philosophy forum needs.

But maybe being slow and simple is what allows more logical and/or clearer thinking to come to light, or maybe it is that slowness and simpleness combined with being more open than others are allows a clearer perspective of things to appear and form. Anyway I have no qualms with being slow and simple. To Me this view is NOT derogatory in any way, shape, or form. In fact I prefer to be seen as a very slow and simple being, than in other ways.

Thanks for the encouragement by the way. There are some threads that I really want to just give up replying in, but with support like this it makes me think twice about stopping. Although, stopping, I am pretty sure, is what some wish I would do.

Now you do have a rather idealistic approach which at times seems positively Utopian but I can look beyond that and focus on what you are trying to say.

When you say "idealistic approach" do you mean that my approach is 'idealistic', and thus not reachable, of were you just meant to mean that what I am trying to achieve, by this approach, is 'idealistic', and thus not reachable?

You did mean 'idealistic', as unreachable, right?

Or did you mean something else?

Anyway, I may have a view that is positively Utopian, or way of life, but I see this way of life not just accessible but very easily achievable thus reached. Based on knowledge that I stumbled upon and/or that was revealed to Me, of which I have not shared much of it yet, however, Utopia, Heaven, Nirvana, or any of the other names given for roughly the same thing is not a place of absolute perfection where everyone is emotionless and stuck in, dare I say it "true", happiness or bliss always. The "perfection" aspect of them is in the heading towards that way of life. To Me, when we are all heading towards that way of life IS when we are living that way of life.

Of course, even if how to create and thus obtain this way of life is understood and known, and while we are heading towards this life there will still be, for example, human bodies that stop breathing and pumping blood, and others who will feel sadness, upset, loss, et cetera when this happens, but the way people will look at this absolutely very naturally occurring "dying" thing will be different. That is just of multiple examples of how a "Utopian" way of life is different to the one we are living in now. Another example is in the heading towards a place where no one will be hurt, harmed, damaged, or abused by others and where there is no authority figures at all, and no policing, no crime, no punishment, no ridicule, no belittling, and no NOT providing of support to each and all equally. Utopia, Heaven, Nirvana, et cetera are just different ways of living, which causes or creates a different way of life. They are just another one than the one we are living in and creating now. They are obviously also not some thing that happens or is created instantly without any mistakes and further learning along the way. The real beauty in the learning of how this way of life is not just truly possible but also a very easy and simple thing to achieve, is in the actual further learning and discoveries that will continue to take place everyday, whilst heading towards this way of life. To be able to learn how this way of life is possible one must become far more open than they are now, and if and when that happens, then they can also learn how to be truly open, and if and when that occurs what is then learned and discovered will far outweigh what has been learned and discovered by human beings so far.

Getting past the it is impossible stage is the hardest part, the next stage "is all down hill" or "smooth sailing", as they say. The progress towards a truly better way and truly wanted way of life will be exponential because it is;
What everyone wants and desires anyway, (at least what ALL did want in their younger years).
A major part of being human is being loving and caring towards others. If we were not, then we would not have existed for as long as we have. If we really did not care about each we would have wiped ourselves out a long time ago.

Although it has taken us hundreds of generations to get to this war-mongering, pollution-riddling, greedy way of life we are living in now, this is really NOT what human beings want, so moving towards a truly peaceful, pollution-free, harmonious way of life may only take a generation or two. We managed to create the former against our wishes and desires, over a long period of time, so imagine how quick it would be to create what we ALL truly wish for and desire. The speed at which we actually could create a goal that we all want and working together as One towards will be exponential in the extreme. Obviously, if we are working towards what we all want, then the speed of achieving this will be very quick indeed. Just getting past BELIEFS, themselves, or what people BELIEVE is true is what I have found is so hard that is appears nearly impossible, at times.

You are very good at exposing flaws in the arguments of others. A couple of posters here have found you too intense but I do not share that opinion. You are intense but just not unnecessarily so. So you just carry on maintaining the high degree of quality posting that you have been providing here since day one

Again, thanks.

[ken]

I might be a very slow and simple one but did understand that it was figurative language. I replied with literal language especially in this type
of forum because philosophy is sometimes known as looking for truth or becoming wiser. We know how hard it is to derive meaning especially
from the written word and how much more open the written word is to mis / interpretation than the spoken word is with visual cues. I try my hardest here to be best understood so that I am not misinterpreted at all. It rarely works by the way. I try to literally use every word in the way
that it literally means. This is hard enough to do because some words can have two very distinctly different meanings and some words even have two completely opposite meanings which makes the written words that are absent of physical cues even harder to interpret the readers intention

You are not slow and simple at all ken. You are very logical and clear thinking and just what a philosophy forum needs. Now you do have a rather idealistic approach which at times seems positively Utopian but I can look beyond that and focus on what you are trying to say. You are very good at exposing flaws in the arguments of others. A couple of posters here have found you too intense but I do not share that opinion. You are intense but just not unnecessarily so. So you just carry on maintaining the high degree of quality posting that you have been providing here since day one

Hopefully it's unnecessary, but I'd like to echo that post. It was not my intent to imply to you, that I thought you "slow and simple", I don't.

I NEVER thought you did and if you did, then it really is of no concern to Me. In fact I like this slow and simple view of Me anyway.

You intrigue me. We have a lot in common, you and I. Our differences are not major, but you still have unresolved questions. Whereas I do not. I may not have all the answers, but those that I do not have, I do not need to have. I can want to have the answers, without needing to have them.

First things first, you allege that I still have unresolved questions. What are those questions, and what are the actual answers to those unresolved questions?

By the way how would you actually know if I have unresolved questions or not. About the only thing I have alluded to is that you say the meaning life is true happiness, whereas, I suggested that the meaning of 'life', is living, being alive.

The rest seems a bit and rather contradictory to Me, you allege that you do not have any unresolved questions but that you also do not have all the answers, therefore that would imply that actually you do have unresolved questions. However, you resolved this by suggesting that the answers that you do not have, you do not need, and that you can want answers, without actually needing them.

Just to clarify, for a while now I have been saying that I can answer ALL meaningful or metaphysical questions, and that all of those answers, which I stumbled upon, fitted together like a puzzle perfectly to form a true and/or big picture of Life. So, to Me, I am unsure how you jumped to the conclusion that I have unresolved questions. I would have thought to be able to say about another then ALL of what the other has to say would have to be heard, and fully understood first. You and I, have had at the very most, just a small few responses to each other.

I would also suggest that human beings only NEED four things to live, and to keep existing, that is clean enough air, clean enough water, enough nutrients, and attention, everything else are just wants, including answers. The word 'need', means expresses necessity or implies some thing is essential is required, without stipulating the necessary or essential thing required, then I take the word 'need' when in relation to human beings as meaning what is needed or required to live and or keep existing. The four things that human beings need to live and keep living are stored within the DNA, and thus are not answers to questions. Therefore, ALL answers to any and all questions are just wants, they are NOT needed.

On a further note if, for example and however, human beings want to learn a better way to live, than they are currently living now, then they need to find answers, which obviously can only come from questioning. If the more that is questioned and the more answers can then be gained, then this would infer if we question everything, then everything could be answered.

e.g. Saying that the Universe was created by the truly just, would be a leap of faith. I have no proof, and the system would become unjust if I did.

Are you sure the "system", whatever that is, becomes unjust just because we, human beings, say some thing or not?

The point is that the Universe may or may not have been created by the truly just, and it makes no difference to me (personally) now. I have found true happiness by becoming truly just. I think that you have too, but that you just haven't "unlocked all of the doors yet". As I said, you intrigue me.

[/quote]

Did you notice before that I said that the Universe was NOT created, in the sense that It was created ALL at once. I suggest that the Universe is IN Creation, NOW. Always has been and always will be. This obviously is depended upon the 'Universe', which is 'ALL there is' being infinite and eternal, which to Me is the most logical of views. I have not been able to see how It could be anything else. But obviously I still remain open to any thing else.

[surreptitious57]

When I said you were idealistic I meant in the sense that you do not appear to accept the limitations of human capability in
regard to bias. You seem to think that humans can if they so wish remove all subjective and emotional biases. I do not think
that is possible for bias will always exist in one form or another. Now I do not wish to get into all this with you again. And so
only mention it because you wanted to know what I meant by idealistic in relation to you. So I hope this explanation suffices

[ken]

When I said you were idealistic I meant in the sense that you do not appear to accept the limitations of human capability in
regard to bias.

I would like to reiterate that whilst beings make assumptions based solely on previous experiences, jump to conclusions before asking clarifying questions, not challenge others points of view, have subjective and emotional biases, have beliefs, and/or not look from the truly open Mind, then they are doing what is just naturally human. These beings are being limited human beings, with ALL of their limitations showing.

However, if and when ALL of these limitations are lifted, removed, let go, gotten rid of, or whatever else we want to call it, then these beings, who just reside within human bodies, will become limitless, and thus could be come more like thee Spirit, Allah, God, or thee Enlightened One. Or in other words if and when human beings stop being separate, selfish, greedy, and only doing for their own self, or a select few, and stop being really only interest in themselves, then they can be come more like the one and only true Self, which is a collective Self, that has ALL at Its heart and Everyone as One in Its interest.

Sure it may be seen as a very idealistic view of things. But, to Me, this is not some thing that I just made up and is unrealistically aiming for perfection. This was just some thing that was revealed to Me, which from My perspective appears to be an ideal way of reaching perfection. To Me, this is just an idea of a possible course of action to take. If human beings do not want to listen to it, believe it is even possible, nor will ever try any thing, then that is fine. I can not do any thing other than just continue learning how to express better.

You seem to think that humans can if they so wish remove all subjective and emotional biases. I do not think
that is possible for bias will always exist in one form or another. Now I do not wish to get into all this with you again. And so
only mention it because you wanted to know what I meant by idealistic in relation to you. So I hope this explanation suffices

Yes that explanation does suffice thanks.

I know you do not wish to get into the removing or not of subjective and emotional biases, but I would just like to mention that I am in the exact same predicament of explaining how it is possible to remove all subjective and emotional biases, to you, as I have in explaining how it is also possible to remove all beliefs, to those who believe that beliefs will always exist in one form or another.

I can only express what I KNOW. the only thing I truly KNOW are the thoughts (and feelings) within this body. The thoughts within this body, at times, do NOT now have nor hold any biases nor beliefs, thus I was able to rid them. Like some one else has alluded to, If others believe Me or not is another thing. All human beings can choose to think and do whatever they want. I can NOT make them listen to Me, and I certainly can NOT make them believe or disbelieve any thing also. The only real thing I can do is just learn how to express, and be heard, better.

[ken]

Why can happiness and truly just not be removed?

Because you become truly just for yourself, you are truly just, it is who you are.

So, truly just can not be removed because truly just is who we really are, is this nearly right?

Also, are you saying that I am truly just now because it is who I am already? If not, then when do I actually become truly just, for myself?

Further to this could I already be the truly just Creator, but you are just unaware of this yet? And if you think I could not be yet because I am asking questions, then remember I might just be asking you for clarification to see just how close or not you are to being the truly just Creator and/or knowing who/what the truly just Creator actually IS.

It is a state of being. It cannot be removed from you and you would never "want" to remove it from yourself. If you could "slide back", then you were never there.

Okay. You are already "there" right? If so, then when will I or others know we are there also, with you?

You wrote "If I die tomorrow and ...", Who/what is the 'I'?

Me, the being from a species that has evolved to the point that it can write this, here and now.

Is that the best or most informative answer you can give to the question, Who am 'I'?

You did not tell Me much.

Is the 'I' solely and only related to the human species.

How do 'you' know 'I' die? 'I' might just keep on existing, and from the species that has evolved to the point that its body can write thing down, HERE and NOW, I just continue on writing and TRYING to express Who or what 'I' really am. Being able to write is one thing, but being able to truly listen is another.

Why did you write, "I'm God's superior"?

I didn't, I wrote that I am God's moral superior. I am morally superior to a God.

My apologies, yes I did not write, "morally I'm Gods superior".

You have not really told us Who/what 'I' am yet, so are you able to tell us Who/what 'God' really is?

Any being worthy of being called a god must be truly just. The truly just have no desire to be called gods.

Okay fair enough. But what do the beings that are truly just want to be called if they have no desire to be called gods?

Therefore; if it's a god, it's not truly just. Therefore; I am morally superior to it.

But neither of these follow on logically from the first two.

What a being is called by human beings has no reflection on what it actually is. Human beings have been known to be wrong before, on a couple of occasions. Neither does if the being has no desire to be called some thing or not have any reflection on what it actually is. If a being worthy of being called a god MUST BE truly just, then, if that being is worthy of being called a god, then that being MUST BE truly just, no matter what it is called by any one, or what itself desires to be called or not.

None of this by the way showed Me how nor WHY you are morally God's superior in any ways, shape, nor form.

What/who, do you say, are 'truly just creators'?

I don't, it's pure conjecture. Simply put, it's the only truly acceptable source of the Universe.

HOW could it be the only truly acceptable source of the Universe if it is pure conjecture.

In My opinion, formed on the basis of incomplete information supplied by you, I conclude that there is only One Creator who is Truly Just, and that Creator is the Universe, Itself.

If the Universe was created by a being or beings, or is a being or beings, and they are less than truly just, they are less than they could be.

Fair enough and I agree.

If the Universe was not "created" at all, and it just "is", then life has no meaning.

But YOU are the one who said the meaning of life IS "true happiness".

We may find our own meanings, but they are our meanings, not the meaning.

This speaks for itself.

But there is also the case that the Universe is being created, right HERE, right NOW, and being created by Its Self. This being 'ALL there is' must be truly just, because there obviously is no other being nor thing. So, if this is the case, then the Universe is being CREATED, and by your logic then life has meaning. Like I do with all words that I do not know, for sure, their meaning or definition I go and look it up in a dictionary. The dictionary I looked in for the definition or the meaning of 'life', said, living, being alive. That definition was perfect as it fitted in perfectly together with all the other answers that I came to also.

What defines 'being truly just'?

Very simplistically, universal unconditional love and "wanting" to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

I agree wholeheartedly with this response, except I think you need to explain a lot more than that, and a lot more objectively, if you want others to truly understand you better.

How exactly did you reach life's apex?

By becoming truly just.

When do you allege that you won the race?

When I became truly just.

When exactly did you become truly just, and how did you get there?

Could you explain more so that others will know how to get there, themselves, and when that will be for them also?

Could you, and would you, really be in a state of true happiness if others are being harmed and damaged, and thus in pain and suffering all around you? Could you really sit there in any real state of happiness, let alone true happiness, while witnessing children, for example, being abused and dying of starvation around you?

Yes, because you understand.

I could say, "Thanks for clearing that up for Me", but I will not because that would be to much like sarcasm.

So, instead My next question will be, so you are really truly happy witnessing others, even children being abused and dying of starvation?

I am sure you could better explain how to reach and be in a state of true happiness but also not really be happy with the abuse of others that is going on around you at the exact same time.

I know I could quite easily, but that is because My true happiness is only so slightly different than your version is.

What is a 'human being', to you?

The dictionary definition.

Different dictionaries have different meanings so I am not sure which dictionary you meant.

Excuse my forgetfulness, what is the difference between a 'truly just creator' and 'god'?
And, do you think god intervenes in the affairs of human beings? If so, then how is that unjust exactly?

Any being worthy of being called a god must be truly just. The truly just have no desire to be called gods.
I don't even know if there is a god, but if there is and it did intervene in the affairs of human beings the likelihood is that it would be unjust.

Okay you have said some of that before but none of that cleared anything up for Me. I still do not know what the actual difference is.

Humanity's problems are humanity's problems.

I agree wholeheartedly.

What do you mean by 'philosophy'?
I see 'philosophy' to mean 'love-of-wisdom', or in other words having the love-of-learning.

That is the root of the word, but it also refers to a set of beliefs or a belief system. Christianity is a religious philosophy for example.

I think the quickest way to sum up the difference between your philosophy and mine would be pregnancy.
In your philosophy, mother and child are two parts of the same being.
Whereas, in mine, we're all waiting to be born.

Okay, good and fair enough summary. But how can 'you' still be waiting to be born if, as you allege you are, are already a truly just creator, who has already reached the apex of life?

If you can really see how to put an end to all suffering, as you say you do, then you must have the knowledge of how to do it. So, you could do it, and you said you would do what you could to alleviate suffering.

That's exactly what I am doing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCorJG9mubk

Again I really am a slow and simple one, what may be obvious to you in that film clip was certainly NOT obvious to Me. I do NOT like to assume any thing and prefer to just ask for clarity? Are you saying that we are all fools and that you love us all, and, that we should come and join the joy ride that you are on because you have no unresolved questions and because you have already become a truly just creator who has already reached life's apex?

If so, then like Me you need to learn how to express yourself much better. You will also need to be able to ask ALL challenging and/or clarifying questions much better than you are doing here right now.

However, if that is not what you are saying, then what exactly does that film clip have to do with, 'What exactly are you doing' in regards to alleviating the suffering of human beings, especially the suffering that is being done to children?

[Rhodnar]

Contentment is an individual thing rather than a collective one so will vary from person to person
Now I myself am very content as I accept everything as it is. I do not expect reality to conform to
my expectations of it because that is beyond my control. Hence why I choose to accept it instead

I do not think true happiness is a natural consequence of true contentment. Because true contentment entails accepting reality as
it is. But that does not imply one can be happy with it. One merely has to acknowledge it.

Happiness and contentment are almost synonymous in this regard. I could use them "almost" interchangeably, because "true happiness" the term that I choose to use (for distinction) could be said to be both, and neither. Like I said, describing true happiness is like describing blue to a being that doesn't possess the power of sight.
You can neither be happy nor content to witness suffering, but you can understand, and you can do what you can to alleviate suffering, within the bounds of being truly just.

However happiness is not what reality is about. If it was then every one would be happy but this obviously is not true. So contentment is therefore the most practical option

All life strives to be happy/content at all times. Happiness/contentment drive evolution and keep the living alive. In the absence of a central nervous system happiness/contentment are merely drives to be in the sun, reproduce, feed, attaining that which is conducive to continued life - Moving towards a better state of being. Higher life, has a more complex system, but the origin is the same.

Clear as mud, right?

[Rhodnar]

So, truly just can not be removed because truly just is who we really are, is this nearly right?
Also, are you saying that I am truly just now because it is who I am already? If not, then when do I actually become truly just, for myself?
Further to this could I already be the truly just Creator, but you are just unaware of this yet? And if you think I could not be yet because I am asking questions, then remember I might just be asking you for clarification to see just how close or not you are to being the truly just Creator and/or knowing who/what the truly just Creator actually IS.

Truly just is what we're meant to be, not what we are, unless we are already truly just. It's not a riddle. We are a species of life on the planet Earth by the way. You seem to think that others use pronouns in the same way that you do. When I say "me" or "I", I mean just that, there is no other meaning. I am me. Given that I have no proof that I'm not just an avatar or any other form of being external to my present form, I am content to be me. It's the only me that I know, and I like me. Proof to me is in no way subjective, it's an absolute. "Visions of Gods" and "Feeling the presence of Gods" etc: are all subjective, they can all just be products of our own minds. There is no proof.
It is entirely possible that you or anybody else could be an avatar of a truly just creator. It would actually be just for a truly just creator to be born into this world, to see if it could find its way back. To ensure that the system was functioning correctly.

From what do you draw the conclusion, that there is only one? I know that it's your theory/belief, but what proof do you have?

Okay. You are already "there" right? If so, then when will I or others know we are there also, with you?

When I was young, I went on holiday to meet my grandparents. Over the course of the three weeks we went jigging for cod multiple times and caught nothing. On the day before we were to return home, we went jigging for cod one last time. By this point I had thought that I'd caught something, and hauled my line all the way up from the bottom, countless times. Finally out of boredom/frustration/curiosity, I asked my grandfather, "How will I know when I've caught one?", "Oh, you'll know." came his reply. No sooner had the words left his lips than I caught one. He was absolutely right, "Oh, you'll know.".

How do 'you' know 'I' die? 'I' might just keep on existing, and from the species that has evolved to the point that its body can write thing down, HERE and NOW, I just continue on writing and TRYING to express Who or what 'I' really am. Being able to write is one thing, but being able to truly listen is another.

I don't.

My apologies, yes I did not write, "morally I'm Gods superior".
You have not really told us Who/what 'I' am yet, so are you able to tell us Who/what 'God' really is?
Okay fair enough. But what do the beings that are truly just want to be called if they have no desire to be called gods?
But neither of these follow on logically from the first two.

What a being is called by human beings has no reflection on what it actually is. Human beings have been known to be wrong before, on a couple of occasions. Neither does if the being has no desire to be called some thing or not have any reflection on what it actually is. If a being worthy of being called a god MUST BE truly just, then, if that being is worthy of being called a god, then that being MUST BE truly just, no matter what it is called by any one, or what itself desires to be called or not.
None of this by the way showed Me how nor WHY you are morally God's superior in any ways, shape, nor form.

A god:
- the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
- a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

A truly just being is just a being. Everybody reading this is a being, everything aware of its own existence is a being. Every living thing is a being, where there is life there is being. I know you like to be precise, so everything that exists is in a state of being, but if it isn't alive, for my purposes here it isn't a being.
A god is something to be worshiped, something that is better than lesser beings. The following quotation might help you understand the distinction:

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.” - Steven Weinberg

A truly just being is not a god.

HOW could it be the only truly acceptable source of the Universe if it is pure conjecture.

That's a bit like asking "How could telepathy be a better means of communication than the cellphone?".
It's an hypothesis. People willingly accept all sorts of hypotheses about the origin of the Universe (religions), and they too are pure conjecture.
This is the only truly just one. Therefore; the only truly acceptable one.

In My opinion, formed on the basis of incomplete information supplied by you, I conclude that there is only One Creator who is Truly Just, and that Creator is the Universe, Itself.

Perfectly reasonable conclusion, I have no evidence to suggest to you that you are wrong. I'm still not sure where you're getting the "one" from though. I see no reason to concluded a "one" over a "two"...a "billion"...etc.

If the Universe was not "created" at all, and it just "is", then life has no meaning.

But YOU are the one who said the meaning of life IS "true happiness".

Because it is. If the Universe was not created for a reason, there is no actual "meaning", but life itself is a continual search for happiness, and true happiness is continual happiness. Again, describing blue...

But there is also the case that the Universe is being created, right HERE, right NOW, and being created by Its Self. This being 'ALL there is' must be truly just, because there obviously is no other being nor thing. So, if this is the case, then the Universe is being CREATED, and by your logic then life has meaning. Like I do with all words that I do not know, for sure, their meaning or definition I go and look it up in a dictionary. The dictionary I looked in for the definition or the meaning of 'life', said, living, being alive. That definition was perfect as it fitted in perfectly together with all the other answers that I came to also.

If the Universe was not created, then it is truly just. How could it not be? What I mean by that is, we are products of nature, we "make our own beds" as it were. That is truly just to the beings within a non-created universe. Cause and effect.
For clarification- A universe not specifically brought into existence by a being or beings.

When exactly did you become truly just, and how did you get there?
Could you explain more so that others will know how to get there, themselves, and when that will be for them also?

In 2008, and by resolving to change, then doing so.
It is a journey of the mind. A re-examination of self to find true self. A child is born into this world, and made into what it becomes, by this world. There are genetic differences, that cause us all to be fundamentally different from each other, regardless of external stimuli, but we all still have a true self.
Unfortunately, we are subject to evolution, and genetic differences can express themselves in ways that would make finding a true self that is truly just, impossible for some. However; any such anomalies can be explained away simply by assuming that the creator(s) of the Universe are truly just.
e.g. We could postulate that we in fact live in a multiverse (in this case), and anybody incapable of finding a truly just true self in this Universe will find it in another.

I'm only using that as an example, there may be many other possibilities. Without all of the information I cannot tell you what would be truly just or what would not be. However; if the Universe was created by the truly just, then the solution to any apparent anomaly will be truly just.

Okay, good and fair enough summary. But how can 'you' still be waiting to be born if, as you allege you are, are already a truly just creator, who has already reached the apex of life?

I never said anything about me creating anything. I'm waiting to be born in the sense, that I am now in a place that I could be trusted to be a creator. If the Universe was created by the truly just, for the purposes of reproduction, I am now ready to be born.

Again I really am a slow and simple one, what may be obvious to you in that film clip was certainly NOT obvious to Me. I do NOT like to assume any thing and prefer to just ask for clarity? Are you saying that we are all fools and that you love us all, and, that we should come and join the joy ride that you are on because you have no unresolved questions and because you have already become a truly just creator who has already reached life's apex?

'I'm' not saying that, no. I didn't write the song or produce/shoot/edit the video.
By the way, "Hello, you fool I love you." doesn't strike me as insulting. It is akin to a parent saying to its child "Come here you little scamp you." and giving the child a hug. So, no I wouldn't say that anybody is being called a "fool".
If you're in the right place and time, you'll see it. If not...It's a nice happy song anyway.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCorJG9mubk

[ken]

Like I said, describing true happiness is like describing blue to a being that doesn't possess the power of sight.

Why is describing true happiness like describing blue to a being that does not possess the power of sight? Are you suggesting that the rest of us human beings do not possess the power of emotions, and therefore could not feel true happiness? Or, that because we do not yet possess the power of true happiness so we would not or could not understand what you are trying to describe here?

For what it is worth I am pretty sure I have always KNOWN what it is that you are trying to describe. I have just been asking questions in the hope that by answering them that that will help you describe better what you are trying to explain.

All life strives to be happy/content at all times.

All life? Does that include trees, planets, et cetera? If so, then how can they strive to be happy/content at any time?

Also, if any thing is "striving" to be happy/content, then I think they will never reach it. For example, if I am making great efforts or struggling or fighting vigorously to be happy/content, then by definition "striving" to be happy/content just does not fit right.

Happiness/contentment drive evolution and keep the living alive.

I think you will find happiness/contentment are emotions, of which that not many things really have emotions, it could even be argued that human beings might be the only things that have these two emotions, and I am pretty sure evolution was around way before human beings came into the picture.

[surreptitious57]

Happiness / contentment drive evolution and keep the living alive

I think you will find happiness / contentment are emotions

Happiness is an emotion and contentment is a state of mind

[Rhodnar]

Happiness / contentment drive evolution and keep the living alive

I think you will find happiness / contentment are emotions

Happiness is an emotion and contentment is a state of mind

In that case I would add "and true happiness is a state of being".

Emotions are argued about amongst people who make the study of emotions their life's work, so we'd get nowhere, and neither position would be wrong.

Wikipedia - "Contentment is a mental or emotional state of satisfaction maybe drawn from being at ease in one's situation, body and mind. Colloquially speaking, contentment could be a state of having accepted one's situation and is a milder and more tentative form of happiness."
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Contentment