Empathic

[Lorikeet]

Empathy does not automatically result in sympathy.
It is often that part of ourselves that we see in the other which is the part we despise the most in ourselves, because it is that part which we have overcome, become masters of, or are in the process of doing so.

[Lorikeet]

Understanding is improved in proportion to the possibilities we can connect to our knowing.

[Lorikeet]

Consciousness is a looking back.
The level of consciousness, its sophistication, is a measure of how far back one can look to find useful patterns so as to apply them to their immediate circumstances, or to project them towards the yet to be determined future.
Ergo the depth or shallowness of a conscious mind is determined by how far back it can delve to sample experience/knowledge – it is the product of clear, brave, honest, detailed memory.

[Age]

You are an absolutist.

Are you talking to, or about, anyone in particular here?

And, if 'you' are an absolutist, then okay, and so be it.

Everything I or anyone says might be wrong....

Why then say it?

Also, does this mean that, actually, 'you' may not be an 'absolutist' after all?

No completions.
No perfection.
All is a measure of degrees.
All value-judgments are triangulations - estimations, approximations - within an objective reality which can never be completely known.
No omnipotence - strength/power is a measure of weakness/powerlessness.
No omniscience - knowledge/understanding is a measure of ignorance.
No absolute freedom - a man is as independent as his power/strength allows.

Once again, 'we' have here another one who does not yet comprehend and understand the, absolute, contradiction in what it is saying and claiming here.

Every time one claims that there is no absolute truth is contradicting "themselves" as well as being a "hypocrite".

Know Thyself is never completed......

Well this obviously goes, completely, against what you said and claimed previously.

yet some know themselves more than others....and the wise can know another more than he can ever know himself.

How do you know this when you do not even know 'thy self'?

Low I can never know what a high IQ is, but a high IQ can know what a low IQ is more than it knows itself: can a chimpanzee know what a human is?
Yet, a human can know what a chimpanzee is and use this knowledge to predict its behaviour.

This, obviously, does not logically follow.

[Age]

Self-awarness is this endless pursuit of an identity through knowledge, and the acceptance of one’s past.
Without the courage of acceptance all knowledge is rendered useless.

Until 'you' know 'thy Self' 'you' have not attained 'Self-awareness', and until 'you' do 'you' cannot, logically, claim what is 'Self-awareness', Itself, nor how It is, actually, obtained.

[Age]

Empathy does not automatically result in sympathy.

Has absolutely anyone here said or implied otherwise?

It is often that part of ourselves that we see in the other which is the part we despise the most in ourselves, because it is that part which we have overcome, become masters of, or are in the process of doing so.

If this is what you believe is true, then okay.

[Age]

Understanding is improved in proportion to the possibilities we can connect to our knowing.

But, 'you' can never understand and know 'thy Self', right?

[Age]

Consciousness is a looking back.
The level of consciousness, its sophistication, is a measure of how far back one can look to find useful patterns so as to apply them to their immediate circumstances, or to project them towards the yet to be determined future.
Ergo the depth or shallowness of a conscious mind is determined by how far back it can delve to sample experience/knowledge – it is the product of clear, brave, honest, detailed memory.

But, no matter what you do 'you' can never know 'thy Self', right?

[Lorikeet]

Is that what you've understood?
Of course you can know thyself....but never completely.


The goal is to know yourself as much as possible before you die.
During life this self-awrnes can help you focus your energies more effectively.

[Lorikeet]

Self-awarness is obtained in the same way awareness is attained.
Observation, action.....consequences.
The consequences of our actions based on our judgements of other and of ourselves, determine their accuracy.
Accurately understanding the causes leads to successful adjustments of our judgements.

Bad judgements based no flawed knowledge leads to unforeseeable, consequences - blaming others, or not accurately finding the cause leads to repeating the same errors.

We juxtapose the expected with the actual, and if the difference is great then our error in judgement is great, or our performance was poor.
Accurately determining what the cause of the divergence is will determine the success of our adjustments. - adaptation is based on this.

[Lorikeet]

Are you talking to, or about, anyone in particular here?

What part of "you" was confusing to YOU?

Why then say it?

What?
So, you only speak when you are absolutely certain?

Why are you speaking now?

Once again, 'we' have here another one who does not yet comprehend and understand the, absolute, contradiction in what it is saying and claiming here.

The contradiction is between what you think I am saying and what I am actually saying.

Well this obviously goes, completely, against what you said and claimed previously.

No it doesn't.
You have difficulty understanding, don't ya?

How do you know this when you do not even know 'thy self'?

I've explained this.

This, obviously, does not logically follow.

It does follow...but you are low IQ.

A dog.....can it know itself more than a human can know it?

Now go play fetch with your master.
Don't waste my time.

Ta, Ta,

[Age]

Are you talking to, or about, anyone in particular here?

What part of "you" was confusing to YOU?

LOL 'you' just made a post, so the word 'you' could have been referring to absolutely anyone, including 'you'.

Is any of this confusing, to 'you'?

Why then say it?

What?

What part of 'it' was confusing, to 'you'?

Obviously, I was replying, directly, to your claim that absolutely everything 'you' say could be wrong. So, what 'it' is, is absolutely everything you say. Which translates to, 'Why then say absolutely any thing, when absolutely every thing you say could just be wrong anyway?'

So, you only speak when you are absolutely certain?

Well I do not find any purpose in speaking here otherwise.

After all this is a philosophy forum, and not just general conversation.

Why are you speaking now?

Because I want to, obviously.

Once again, 'we' have here another one who does not yet comprehend and understand the, absolute, contradiction in what it is saying and claiming here.

The contradiction is between what you think I am saying and what I am actually saying.

Why? What is the actual difference, exactly, according to you?

And, obviously, what you think I am saying is not what I am actually meaning.

See, if you claim that there are no absolutes, but you, still, cannot, yet, see and comprehend the contradiction here, then so be it.

Well this obviously goes, completely, against what you said and claimed previously.

No it doesn't.
You have difficulty understanding, don't ya?

Do you even yet know what I was referring to, exactly? Or, are you just presuming here?

What you said 'here' completely goes against what you previously claimed. And, until you present 'the two' that I am actually meaning and referring to, you could be just misunderstanding here, right?

Or, is this not a possibility, to you?

How do you know this when you do not even know 'thy self'?

I've explained this.

you have only claimed that you can never know 'thy self'. you have not yet actually explained anything here.

This, obviously, does not logically follow.

It does follow...but you are low IQ.

Once more, 'we' have another here who never seeks clarification, but instead just assumes it knows.

A dog.....can it know itself more than a human can know it?

Can 'I' know 'you' better than 'you' can know 'you'?

Now go play fetch with your master.
Don't waste my time.

Ta, Ta,

Here 'we' have another who ends up 'running away'.

[Lorikeet]

LOL 'you' just made a post, so the word 'you' could have been referring to absolutely anyone, including 'you'.

Is any of this confusing, to 'you'?

No, and not to anyone with an IQ above 100.

I'm sorry, you are not included.
What part of 'it' was confusing, to 'you'?

Well I do not find any purpose in speaking here otherwise.

Are you the only one here?

Why? What is the actual difference, exactly, according to you?

I've explained it....if you could not understand after three attempts, then the odds are you will never.

I choose not to waste my time.

Absolute = immutable, indivisible, singularity - complete, whole, final.

'There are absolutely no absolutes,' imbecile, is based on a linguistic error. The confusion of the representation for the represented.
'Truth is there is no truth,' also an error based on linguistics.

you have only claimed that you can never know 'thy self'. you have not yet actually explained anything here.

Is that what I've claimed?
This is what you've understood.
So be it.

Here 'we' have another who ends up 'running away'.

Am I?
Again....this is what you've understood....so be it.

I don't run away from mosquitos either.
I find ways to avoid their annoying feeding habits.

I also don't run away from clowns.... I simply stop taking them seriously.

[Age]

you are an absolutist.

[Age]

LOL 'you' just made a post, so the word 'you' could have been referring to absolutely anyone, including 'you'.

Is any of this confusing, to 'you'?

No, and not to anyone with an IQ above 100.

I'm sorry, you are not included.
What part of 'it' was confusing, to 'you'?

Why do you, with an iq, presume any of 'it' was?

Well I do not find any purpose in speaking here otherwise.

Are you the only one here?

I was the only one you were asking. What part of 'this' is confusing you here?

Why? What is the actual difference, exactly, according to you?

I've explained it....if you could not understand after three attempts, then the odds are you will never.

Once again what 'we' can see here is another one who cannot back up and support their beliefs and claims here.

I choose not to waste my time.

you 'choose' because you cannot.

There is absolutely no way you could explain what the actual difference is, exactly. And, this is the very reason why you 'choose' not to.

Absolute = immutable, indivisible, singularity - complete, whole, final.

'There are absolutely no absolutes,' imbecile, is based on a linguistic error. The confusion of the representation for the represented.
'Truth is there is no truth,' also an error based on linguistics.

Therefore, this is the very reason why 'you' are contradicting "yourself" here.

you have only claimed that you can never know 'thy self'. you have not yet actually explained anything here.

Is that what I've claimed?
This is what you've understood.
So be it.

Yes, this is what you have claimed, as can be clearly seen and proved above here, in your very own words.

Here 'we' have another who ends up 'running away'.

Am I?
Again....this is what you've understood....so be it.

This one appears to be absolutely confused as to what it what it said and wrote here actually means.

I don't run away from mosquitos either.
I find ways to avoid their annoying feeding habits.

Here 'we' have another one who does not like being questioned and challenged when it cannot back up and support its claims.

I also don't run away from clowns.... I simply stop taking them seriously.

Once again, this one 'runs away'.

Or, at least, again, claims it will.