Public, Immutable, Decentralized, Open, Ledger

[Dontaskme]

Fair enough. Like I said now you know how others feel when they read your words.

I don't give a shit how others feel, I'm not here to save peoples self inflicted feelings from themselves.


If people are reading my posts or any posts ...it means they are looking for something...they are seeking knowledge.

The problem is they won't find anything in my posts...and that pisses you off for some reason.

If people continue to read or reply when all I do is give nothing...then what can I do about that? no one is forced to read anything.

No one can teach you what you already know, they can only remind you what you have only forgotten.

And that is why Ken's comments are nothing but insecure and immature projections of your own making... making this one here bored to death, stop being a deluded idiot...and grow up.



.

[ken]

Fair enough. Like I said now you know how others feel when they read your words.

I don't give a shit how others feel, I'm not here to save peoples self inflicted feelings from themselves.

Fair enough. But what are you actually here for?

If people are reading my posts or any posts ...it means they are looking for something...they are seeking knowledge.

So, based on that logic, if 'you' are a person and you are reading My posts, then that means you are looking for some thing. You are seeking knowledge.

This, however, seems rather strange because to you knowledge is illusory, and why you are seeking that which is illusory only you could answer and explain.

Also, what is it that you are looking for?

The problem is they won't find anything in my posts...and that pisses you off for some reason.

The only thing in your posts that pisses me off is when you say absolute statements about others, especially when they are completely false.

If people continue to read or reply when all I do is give nothing...then what can I do about that? no one is forced to read anything.

I never mentioned any thing regarding any thing here.

No one can teach you what you already know, they can only remind you what you have only forgotten.

Is that real reality or illusory knowledge?

And that is why Ken's comments are nothing but insecure and immature projections of your own making... making this one here bored to death, stop being a deluded idiot...and grow up.



.

Okay I will try to follow your advice. What is it that I am deluded about?

Also, I am not sure how all the previous sentences of yours somehow are meant to logically follow on to form this last sentence of yours.

[Dontaskme]

Fair enough. But what are you actually here for?

I'm never not here.

Why are birds here?

Birds do not ask themselves why they are here.

Why do birds chirp? ..no one knows, they just do.

So, based on that logic, if 'you' are a person and you are reading My posts, then that means you are looking for some thing. You are seeking knowledge.

This, however, seems rather strange because to you knowledge is illusory, and why you are seeking that which is illusory only you could answer and explain.

Also, what is it that you are looking for?

Nothing.

I'm looking for nothing, reading nothing, wanting nothing, sharing nothing, in fact nothing is really happening...it just appears as though it is.
Here, there is just what's appearing, happening and not happening...including this...and your stuff too...like birds chirping.

There is here...the seeker of knowledge, and then there is the one who is through with knowledge...sometimes, these two happen to cross paths in the attempt to show each other their opposite view points.

The only thing in your posts that pisses me off is when you say absolute statements about others, especially when they are completely false.

You are false ...anyone who thinks they can cross over the horizon to reach the absolute is a fake.

Is that real reality or illusory knowledge?

Who wants to know?

Okay I will try to follow your advice. What is it that I am deluded about?

Don't follow what I know, follow your own knowing.
You are deluded to think you can cross the horizon of knowledge into the unknown and know that.

Also, I am not sure how all the previous sentences of yours somehow are meant to logically follow on to form this last sentence of yours.

Stop trying to be someone...just be.

[ken]

Fair enough. But what are you actually here for?

I'm never not here.

My apologies I obviously did not spell it out sufficiently enough. What are you actually here IN THIS FORUM for?

Why are birds here?

Because of the same reason dontaskme is here.

Birds do not ask themselves why they are here.

How do you KNOW this?

i have absolutely no idea if they ask that or not, but going down this path is only attempting to divert from the question posed to you.

Why do birds chirp? ..no one knows, they just do.

'Chirping' might be a form of language for birds. But what has this got at all to do with the question that I asked you?

And again, this is just a diversion from My question.

Are you also aware that if you just answered the question only, then we could move on much quicker. See I do KNOW all of what you are trying to explain. But until you accept that you are not doing such a great job of explaining this and only after you also stop believing that dontaskme has the 'real reality' knowledge, while at the same time insisting that other people have the false and illusory knowledge, then you will continue on the way you are now, and will NOT be able to learn how to better express what it is that you are really wanting to and desperately trying to express.

Back to the first answer dontaskme gave, this answer came from the Oneness. The I, that is the capital I, which is the united and collective One of all of us. That One is real, infinite, eternal and IS always HERE, NOW. Whereas, the one I asked you to speak from was 'you', which is the one labeled dontaskeme, which is just one of 'us' who are the separate ones and who have been given labels like dontaskme, ken, et cetera, or any other name given to the uniquely separate and different persons. Now these personal ones are the ones dontaskme refers to as the false ones. I am the only real One, which by the way does KNOW what IS real. I also am the Knower of Who 'I' am, which is exact opposite of what dontaskme says is possible.

As I have already qualified, I am never not here. But dontaskme, ken, et cetera, were not always here. If you are prepared to question and challenge this, then dontaskme might actually learn more than what dontaskme thinks they know now.

So, based on that logic, if 'you' are a person and you are reading My posts, then that means you are looking for some thing. You are seeking knowledge.

This, however, seems rather strange because to you knowledge is illusory, and why you are seeking that which is illusory only you could answer and explain.

Also, what is it that you are looking for?

Nothing.

But dontaskme was the very one who stated that "If people are reading my posts or any posts ...it means they are looking for something...they are seeking knowledge."

Yet when dontaskme reads My posts, or any posts, that does NOT mean dontaskme is looking for some thing.

WHY is it on so many occasions that when dontaskme says others do things, yet when I clarify this with dontaskme that it is expressed in the way that dontaskme does not do it ONLY others do it.

Dontaskme made the very strong and absolute statement that If people are reading any posts, then that means they are looking for some thing. Yet when I ask dontaskme, What is it that you are looking for? The answer given is "Nothing". Is dontaskme purposely trying to be very contradictory and extremely confusing? Or, is dontaskme just purely unsure of them self?

I'm looking for nothing, reading nothing, wanting nothing, sharing nothing, in fact nothing is really happening...it just appears as though it is.

Who and/or what is the 'I' that dontaskme says is doing (not doing) this?

Is dontaskme even remotely able to begin to describe or define who or what the 'I' actually IS?

Here, there is just what's appearing, happening and not happening...including this...and your stuff too...like birds chirping.

One minute dontaskme says there is only oneness but now dontaskme uses the word "your", which indicates there is another or separatedeness. Is dontaskme able to clarify why they speak very much contradictory?

There is here...the seeker of knowledge, and then there is the one who is through with knowledge...sometimes, these two happen to cross paths in the attempt to show each other their opposite view points.

Is dontaskme at all able to define the difference between the seeker of knowledge from the one who is through with knowledge?

What does dontaskme actually mean when they use the word "through" here?

The only thing in your posts that pisses me off is when you say absolute statements about others, especially when they are completely false.

You are false ...anyone who thinks they can cross over the horizon to reach the absolute is a fake.

After a 'you' has, in dontaskme language, "crossed over the horizon to reach the absolute", then they will discover, find, and KNOW what IS, real and fake.

Dontaskme just needs to gain the disciple to be able to learn HOW to reach that KNOWING.

Is that real reality or illusory knowledge?

Who wants to know?

Is this just another one of those very "mature" responses you give when you are NOT able to back up and support what it is that you think you know?

Why did you just not answer the question?

By the way I ALREADY KNOW the answer. I just want to show others how and whereabouts when dontaskme is unable to clarify their own statements. Dontaskme speaks in such self-contradictory language that dontaskme is even baffled by what dontaskme says, and thus unable to answer the most simplest of questions.

The answer to dontaskme's question is dontaskme wants to know because dontaskme says all knowledge is illusory so that means even dontaskme is unsure if what knowledge dontaskme "knows" is real or illusory.

Okay I will try to follow your advice. What is it that I am deluded about?

Don't follow what I know, follow your own knowing.

I did not say I would follow what dontaskme thinks they know. I said I will try to follow your advice, which means exactly what it says. What dontaskme says as advice IS very different from what dontaskme thinks, they know.

Once again dontaskme has contradicted them self.

You are deluded to think you can cross the horizon of knowledge into the unknown and know that.

How many times do I have to say and explain to you that just because you do NOT know some thing, then that does NOT mean others can not and/or do not already know that thing? What is unknown to you is NOT necessarily unknown to others. When are you ever going to understand that straight-forward, very simple FACT?

The fact IS I already KNOW what is unknown to dontaskme. Now dontaskme can either challenge that fact and prove Me wrong, or dontaskme can continue repeating and saying the exact things AND believing them to be true. But as we all KNOW just because a person believes some thing to be true that does not make it a fact.

Also, I am not sure how all the previous sentences of yours somehow are meant to logically follow on to form this last sentence of yours.

Stop trying to be someone...just be.

REMEMBER it is I who says I am able to answer the question Who am I? So, I KNOW who I am, and thus am not trying to be some one. I have already be-come and come to Be who I am.

It is dontaskme who does NOT know who they are, yet, and thus IS trying to be some thing, which they are NOT.

[surreptitious57]

It is obvious that language is sound because a foreign language appears as sound

Not absolutely so as language also appears visually in the form of the written word

[surreptitious57]

Now you know how all the other people feel when you go on the way you do

I understand her better than you apparently do which renders this absolute statement of yours false
It is not a good idea to speak on behalf of others ken unless you actually know what their position is

[surreptitious57]

Albert Einstein discovered that as an atom appears as a light wave and a particle

The double slit experiment originally performed by Davisson and Germer [ not Einstein ] showed electrons
[ not atoms ] displaying wave or particle like behaviour but they were still just electrons and nothing else

[Dontaskme]

It is obvious that language is sound because a foreign language appears as sound

Not absolutely so as language also appears visually in the form of the written word

Yes, but sound had to exist first, words as written are presentations in symbolic form appearing as words...that are sourced from sound.

A foreign word lets say in French would make no sense to someone who only knows English...so language is basically meaningless until meaning is put there via thoughts, and beliefs, which are invisible. Rendering the whole idea of language an illusion...however much the illusion appear to look and feel real, it is still an illusion.

.

[Dontaskme]

Albert Einstein discovered that as an atom appears as a light wave and a particle

The double slit experiment originally performed by Davisson and Germer [ not Einstein ] showed electrons
[ not atoms ] displaying wave or particle like behaviour but they were still just electrons and nothing else

I agree about the whole electron behaviour. While the atom is a symbolic representation of a miniature planetary system...when blown up form a gigantic planetary system known as our milky way?

.

[surreptitious57]

The very act of perceiving means the perceiver cannot be the object it perceives

The perceiver is aware they exist but only thinks of themselves in subjective terms

But a perceiver is an object for other perceivers

[surreptitious57]

The fact IS I already KNOW what is unknown to dontaskme

It is dontaskme who does NOT know who they are yet and thus IS trying to be some thing which they are NOT

Another couple of absolute statements from you ken

Do you know what is unknown to Dontaskme or do you only think you do

Do you know that Dontaskme does not know who they are or only think you do

Do you know that Dontaskme does not know she is trying to be something she is not or only think you do

[Dontaskme]

REMEMBER it is I who says I am able to answer the question Who am I? So, I KNOW who I am, and thus am not trying to be some one. I have already be-come and come to Be who I am.

It is dontaskme who does NOT know who they are, yet, and thus IS trying to be some thing, which they are NOT.

Yes, and if you are really certain you are able to answer the question ''Who am I''....then you would be equally certain of who I am too. And you would stop projecting on to ''me'' your insatiable desire for clarification of what I am talking about...you project on to ''me'' as if there was a some one in ''me'' to receive your projections, when you already admitted you KNOW the answer to the question.. ''WHO AM I''.

And since you've already admitted to yourself that you are not trying to be ''some one'', because you KNOW who you are...then why assume there is a ''some-one'' over here to whom you can project your thoughts at?....surely if you know who you are, then this one here must know that too? Surely you must know there is no ''some one'' here to receive your projections? ..so why project ?

Or is this one here completely separated from who you are? ...and if I am separated....then what relevance is what you are trying to show me going to have on me anyway?...do you not see how you are simply tying yourself up in knots here?

It seems in your human personified ideological way of thinking...if people don't think like you, then they have no idea what they are talking about...and that makes you look like a right proper clownshoe since you already KNOW who you are, yet you seem to think and believe others don't know who they are...

.

[surreptitious57]

The only thing in your posts that pisses me off is when you say absolute statements about others especially when they are completely false

And yet as I have already demonstrated in this thread ken you also make absolute statements about others which are also completely false

[Dontaskme]

The very act of perceiving means the perceiver cannot be the object it perceives

The perceiver is aware they exist but only thinks of themselves in subjective terms

But a perceiver is an object for other perceivers

A perceiver is an object for other perceivers only in the sense that there is only perceiving objectifying itself as perceived...therefore what is perceived is only and ever the perceiver objectifying itself as a perceived object...the object being the desire of the perceiver itself...the object of my desire so to speak...so the object does not exist independently in and of itself apart from the perceiver perceiving a desire....this is how this one here is seeing it.



.

The perceiver is the pure emptiness and the object is the fullness of that emptiness... emptiness fulfilled.

All things are nothing and nothing is everything. Your life flows somewhere in the middle of both polarities.

.



.

[surreptitious57]

I think objects exist independently of a perceiver else they would be nothing more than mental constructs. I think the act of perceiving does
not automatically involve objectification but simple recognition with no added emotional input. I think my existence is just one point on the
spectrum of all existence which includes objects and organisms and also space and time. I do not think pure emptiness exists for a perceiver
as absolute nothing cant be sustained and definitely not over the life time of a perceiver. This is what this particular perceiver thinks is true