The Sun Also Sets

[Age]

DUH!!

SO, this reply of YOURS could be taken as YOU have ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF, AT ALL, whereas IRREFUTABLE PROOF that 'Life', 'Existence', AND the Universe ARE ETERNAL EXISTS.

The mirror is as eternal as eteral can ever be, however, all reflections in the mirror are ... transitoree.

So what?

Life, Existence, AND the Universe ARE ETERNAL.

I NEVER mentioned absolutely ANY 'thing' ABOUT 'mirrors' NOR 'a mirror'.

By the way there is NO mirror that could be held up to Life, Existence, NOR the Universe, themselves, ANYWAY.

[Age]

Good post.

WHY is a post of JUST QUESTIONS, a so-called 'good post'?

The answers are obvious, however I doubt that Age will acknowledge it.

If I did NOT 'stumble' across 'that post' of "gary childress", then I would have NEVER acknowledged it.

That post did NOT include a quote of mine so I NEVER received a notification, and if I did NOT come across that post, then would you have THEN CONCLUDED that you were 'right' in 'your doubt' about me NOT acknowledging that post?

Also, if the answers to 'that post' are OBVIOUS, to you, then was 'the science' that "gary childress" learned in the 1980's ACTUALLY ALL 'lies'?

Now, either way, what has 'that' got to do WITH the words that I ACTUALLY WROTE?

Furthermore, WHY did you even 'doubt' that I would acknowledge 'that post'.

As there EVER been ANY post that was direct TO 'me', and which I became AWARE OF, that I have NOT acknowledged?

If yes, then which one/s EXACTLY?

If he doesn’t agree with your point, I think he’s cray-cray.

And what was "gary childress" 'point', EXACTLY?

From what I have ascertained so far "gary childress" has ALSO NOT even BEGUN to UNDERSTAND what I was ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING.

WTF

The reason WHY there were SO MANY people, like this one, who make CLAIMS, BUT, when CHALLENGED and/or QUESTIONED, FAIL ABSOLUTELY to back up and support 'their CLAIMS', and thus "themselves", IS BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

Do 'you', "commonsense", even UNDERSTAND what I WAS SAYING, and CLAIMING?

If yes, then HOW, in and WHAT WAY, has what "gary childress" SAID and WROTE here got TO DO WITH what I SAID and WROTE?

Will you even BEGIN TO EXPLAIN here?

[Dontaskme]

By the way there is NO mirror that could be held up to Life, Existence, NOR the Universe, themselves, ANYWAY.

Yes there is a mirror, the mirror analogy is a metaphor for knowing/knowledge. If you are going to make a claim to know something, there must be something to be known, there must be a knower and known, implying twoness.

You can only know you exist by association via your reflection. And a reflection can only exist because of it's mirror nature.

Reality is Non-dual, apparently two, but not two. The mirror and IT'S reflection are ONE, not two.

[Gary Childress]

Is the science I learned in the 1980s all lies? Will our sun not explode? Will our environment not be destroyed? Is it not statistically probable that an asteroid will hit Earth someday? Will each and every one of us not die some day?

If this was directed to me, then;

When I write this I have absolutely NO idea what you learned, nor did not learn, in regards to 'science' in the 1980's so I can NOT Accurately answer this question, but I would find it highly unlikely that ALL of the 'science' you learned in those years would ALL be LIES.

For me to be able to answer your second question Accurately, then I need to KNOW what you mean by 'our', in 'our environment'?

WHY would you even ask the third question here? I would suggest that it is NOT just statistically probable that an asteroid will hit earth someday but will be an ACTUALITY.

For the fourth and last question here, it would all depend on what 'you' mean by 'us', EXACTLY?

See, to 'me', 'you', the 'person', in a way, NEVER ACTUALLY, what is called, 'dies'.

But, anyway what has the earth and its TINY, MINUSCULE insignificance, in relation to the Universe, Itself, have absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL to do with what I ACTUALLY SAID, WROTE, and MEANT, above?

But, if what you wrote above was NOT directed to me, then just forget about these answers, and responses.

It was indeed directed at you. I apologize for not quoting you so that you could easily see that. I assume that is why you did not answer it sooner.

When I learned science, the most noteworthy thing I learned was that all will come to an end eventually. There is no "eternity" for anything. And it is not clear to me that there is any continuation of me after I come to a worldly end, other than memories among others who will eventually fade also. However, there comes a very paradoxical question to me out of what I have learned thus far through the duration of my life.

What if it were the case that preserving the memory of every living soul in the world on some sort of recorded media necessitated the most enormous expenditure of matter and energy imaginable in order to accomplish the task? If it is truly the case that there is only a finite amount of [matter and] energy in the world, and also the case that energy can be expended faster or slower than what is "sustainable", then would it not be best to either not devote that matter and energy to preserving memories of people who are no longer here OR else devote that energy toward helping those here who truly need it more than those who are gone?

The greatest paradox for Bertrand Russell was the Barber Paradox. It was important to him because he could not "trim" his own ego and would not allow others to trim it for him. However, that is not the most important paradox. The most important paradox is what any one of us is willing or unwilling to do to preserve life on Earth. I wish it were not. But I see no suitable way around it, unless there is indeed a God. And in order to accomplish the task of preserving life regardless of how fast or slow we turn our planet into waste God would need to be more than anything I have yet seen any person on this forum surmise God to be.

Would you do me a favor? If this paradox has not yet been brought up by another and needs to be named, will you call it Gary's Paradox?

[Age]

By the way there is NO mirror that could be held up to Life, Existence, NOR the Universe, themselves, ANYWAY.

Yes there is a mirror, the mirror analogy is a metaphor for knowing/knowledge.

But I did NOT SAY, 'There is NO 'mirror analogy', 'mirror metaphor', NOR even just 'metaphor' that could be held up to ...'.

ALL I SAID here WAS, By the way there is NO mirror that could be held up to Life, Existence, NOR the Universe, themselves, ANYWAY.

Which, OBVIOUSLY, there could NOT be.

If you are going to make a claim to know something, there must be something to be known, there must be a knower and known, implying twoness.

WHO CARES?

The ACTUAL CLAIM I MADE, I STILL STAND BY.

Are 'you' AWARE "dontaskme" of ANY ACTUAL 'mirror' that could be HELD UP TO 'Life', 'Existence', and/or 'the Universe', themselves?

If yes, then WHERE IS 'this mirror', EXACTLY, and/or HOW could 'this' ACTUALLY WORK?

You can only know you exist by association via your reflection. And a reflection can only exist because of it's mirror nature.

If 'you', the one here known as "dontaskme" SAYS, and BELIEVES, SO, then 'it' MUST BE SO, correct?

Oh, and by the way, WHO and/or WHAT do the three letters of 'y', 'o', and 'u', when together, MEAN or REFER TO, EXACTLY?

In fact, is it even POSSIBLE for there to be just One of 'you'?

Does NOT the word 'you', by itself, even INFER or MEAN that there IS "another"?

Reality is Non-dual, apparently two, but not two.

So, WHO is 'the one' here talking ABOUT 'the "OTHER" you'?

The mirror and IT'S reflection are ONE, not two.

But what IS being 'reflected' IN 'the mirror'?

Can 'it' be, 'its' 'self'? Is 'this' even POSSIBLE?

OR, can 'the reflection' in A 'mirror' ONLY EVER BE of some 'thing' ELSE?

[commonsense]

WHY is a post of JUST QUESTIONS, a so-called 'good post'?


If I did NOT 'stumble' across 'that post' of "gary childress", then I would have NEVER acknowledged it.

That post did NOT include a quote of mine so I NEVER received a notification, and if I did NOT come across that post, then would you have THEN CONCLUDED that you were 'right' in 'your doubt' about me NOT acknowledging that post?

Also, if the answers to 'that post' are OBVIOUS, to you, then was 'the science' that "gary childress" learned in the 1980's ACTUALLY ALL 'lies'?

Now, either way, what has 'that' got to do WITH the words that I ACTUALLY WROTE?

Furthermore, WHY did you even 'doubt' that I would acknowledge 'that post'.

As there EVER been ANY post that was direct TO 'me', and which I became AWARE OF, that I have NOT acknowledged?

If yes, then which one/s EXACTLY?


And what was "gary childress" 'point', EXACTLY?

From what I have ascertained so far "gary childress" has ALSO NOT even BEGUN to UNDERSTAND what I was ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING.

WTF

The reason WHY there were SO MANY people, like this one, who make CLAIMS, BUT, when CHALLENGED and/or QUESTIONED, FAIL ABSOLUTELY to back up and support 'their CLAIMS', and thus "themselves", IS BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

Do 'you', "commonsense", even UNDERSTAND what I WAS SAYING, and CLAIMING?

If yes, then HOW, in and WHAT WAY, has what "gary childress" SAID and WROTE here got TO DO WITH what I SAID and WROTE?

Will you even BEGIN TO EXPLAIN here?

No and no

[Age]

Is the science I learned in the 1980s all lies? Will our sun not explode? Will our environment not be destroyed? Is it not statistically probable that an asteroid will hit Earth someday? Will each and every one of us not die some day?

If this was directed to me, then;

When I write this I have absolutely NO idea what you learned, nor did not learn, in regards to 'science' in the 1980's so I can NOT Accurately answer this question, but I would find it highly unlikely that ALL of the 'science' you learned in those years would ALL be LIES.

For me to be able to answer your second question Accurately, then I need to KNOW what you mean by 'our', in 'our environment'?

WHY would you even ask the third question here? I would suggest that it is NOT just statistically probable that an asteroid will hit earth someday but will be an ACTUALITY.

For the fourth and last question here, it would all depend on what 'you' mean by 'us', EXACTLY?

See, to 'me', 'you', the 'person', in a way, NEVER ACTUALLY, what is called, 'dies'.

But, anyway what has the earth and its TINY, MINUSCULE insignificance, in relation to the Universe, Itself, have absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL to do with what I ACTUALLY SAID, WROTE, and MEANT, above?

But, if what you wrote above was NOT directed to me, then just forget about these answers, and responses.

It was indeed directed at you. I apologize for not quoting you so that you could easily see that. I assume that is why you did not answer it sooner.

When I learned science, the most noteworthy thing I learned was that all will come to an end eventually.

When you say, 'learned', here, are you also saying that there was 'actual and/or irrefutable proof' presented AS WELL.

Or, was it more likely that you were just TOLD 'this', and 'it' was TOLD WITH such 'conviction', because 'the TELLER', ALSO, FIRMLY BELIEVED 'this' to be true, that then 'you' TOOK 'this' ON, as though 'it' was ACTUALLY TRUE?

If 'that, (so-called), knowledge' WAS presented WITH 'proof', then what ACTUAL 'proof' WAS presented?

If there was NO 'proof' presented, then WHY did 'you' TAKE ON 'that knowledge' as though it IS TRUE, or IS GOSPEL?

There is no "eternity" for anything.

Me hearing 'this' is like hearing, the WHOLE of the Universe BEGAN. And, BEGAN either FROM 'God', FROM 'nothing', or WITH a 'big bang'.

NONE OF making absolutely ANY sense AT ALL. And, ESPECIALLY considering AFTER ASKING, 'HOW is ANY even POSSIBLE?' AND NEVER ANY LOGICAL NOR REASONABLE ANSWER EVER BEING GIVEN.

And it is not clear to me that there is any continuation of me after I come to a worldly end, other than memories among others who will eventually fade also.

BUT 'the legacy' 'you' LEAVE NOT just on the ones who knew 'you', personally NOR directly, but 'you' LEAVE ON "others" as well CAN last or live on FOREVER MORE.

AND, if you REALLY WANT MORE TO BECOME CLEAR, to 'you', then NEVER ASSUME that what 'you' 'currently know', at ANY particular time NOR moment, is ALL 'you' can LEARN, and KNOW.

See, AS WELL 'the thoughts' and 'memories', that 'you' WILL LEAVE IN other human bodies, there ARE the 'contributions' that 'you' have LEFT on the 'physical world' that can ALSO last or live on FOREVER MORE.

However, there comes a very paradoxical question to me out of what I have learned thus far through the duration of my life.

And REMEMBER what 'you' have learned, so far, was in A number of years that REALLY IS SO TINY and MINUSCULE that to fathom what 'you' COULD HAVE LEARNED IF 'you' HAD just lived for another SAME AMOUNT 'prior' OR 'after'.

What if it were the case that preserving the memory of every living soul in the world on some sort of recorded media necessitated the most enormous expenditure of matter and energy imaginable in order to accomplish the task?

THEN 'that' would just be 'the case'?

If it is truly the case that there is only a finite amount of energy in the world,

WHEN you are SAYING, 'the world', here, what are you REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

Also, did you learn, in 'science', in the 1980's, or at ANY other time, that 'energy' can neither be created, nor destroyed?

If yes, then how does 'this' ALIGN WITH A 'beginning' AND/OR 'ending' Universe?

and also the case that energy can be expended faster or slower than what is "sustainable", then would it not be best to either not devote that matter and energy to preserving memories of people who are no longer here OR else devote that energy toward helping those here who truly need it more than those who are gone?

1. WHO would EVER 'NEED' MORE 'energy' than "another"?

2. WHERE are 'you' GOING with 'this'? One moment you are STATING and CLAIMING that there is absolutely NO 'thing' AT ALL that lasts forever, then NEXT moment you are WONDERING ABOUT devoting 'more energy' to SOME people.

The greatest paradox for Bertrand Russell was the Barber Paradox.

Have 'you' EVER QUESTIONED what 'you', human beings, ACTUALLY MEAN when 'you' SAY and USE the word 'paradox'?

Are 'you' even AWARE that the way some people USE that word is IN the EXACT OPPOSITE WAY that "others" USE 'that word'?

IN WHICH WAY do 'you' USE 'the word' 'paradox' "gary childress"? And, is 'it' IN the SAME WAY here as 'you' USE 'that word' in the rest of this forum, for example?

It was important to him because he could not "trim" his own ego and would not allow others to trim it for him. However, that is not the most important paradox. The most important paradox is what any one of us is willing or unwilling to do to preserve life on Earth.

What are 'you' even MEANING or REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, WITH and BY the words 'preserve life on earth'?

Are 'you' 'willing' to feed the children at the dinner table, which 'you' are seated at, to 'preserve life on earth', FOR 'them'?

Are 'you' 'willing' to send a dollar to a 'starving child', when 'they' are NOT seated at a dinner table, to 'preserve life on earth', FOR 'them'?

Are 'you', 'willing' to STOP POLLUTING 'the world' in which you LIVE, to 'preserve life on earth' FOR BOTH the 'starving' AND the 'non starving' children, OF earth?

I wish it were not. But I see no suitable way around it, unless there is indeed a God.

So, ONCE AGAIN, 'you', "gary childress", BELIEVE 'you', adult human beings, can NOT STOP "yourselves" from WIPING "yourselves" and ALL children OUT, COMPLETELY, WITHOUT INTERVENTION FROM some OTHER 'Thing'.

'you' do NOT have MUCH FAITH NOR BELIEF IN "your" 'self' do 'you', "gary childress"?

And in order to accomplish the task of preserving life

What do 'you' MEAN by 'preserving life'?

ALL one HAS TO DO IS just STOP HARMING or DESTROYING 'life', THEN that one is JUST 'preserving life'.

'Life' WILL look AFTER 'Itself', as long as 'you', human beings, RELEARN HOW to just live WITH 'Life', Itself.

However, IF 'you', human beings, DESTROY 'life' OVER a 'certain point or threshold', THEN GOOD BYE.

regardless of how fast or slow we turn our planet into waste God would need to be more than anything I have yet seen any person on this forum surmise God to be.

What 'we' can CLEARLY SEE here is the ACTUAL REASON WHY 'these human beings', BACK THEN, ACTUALLY TOOK SO LONG to COME-TO-REALIZE and -KNOW.

'They' were CONTINUALLY WAITING, and WAITING, for some 'thing' to HELP and/or RESCUE 'them'. BECAUSE 'they' LACKED SO MUCH ACTUAL RESPONSIBILITY, obviously because of their UNFORTUNATE ABUSIVE 'upbringings', 'they' REALLY COULD NOT SEE that if REALLY WANTED some 'thing' and/or absolutely ANY 'thing', then 'they', "themselves", HAD TO CREATE 'it' and MAKE 'it' HAPPEN, and A Reality.

Would you do me a favor?

It would depend.

If this paradox has not yet been brought up by another and needs to be named, will you call it Gary's Paradox?

I WILL WAIT to SEE how 'you' DEFINE the word 'paradox' here, FIRST.

[Age]

WTF

The reason WHY there were SO MANY people, like this one, who make CLAIMS, BUT, when CHALLENGED and/or QUESTIONED, FAIL ABSOLUTELY to back up and support 'their CLAIMS', and thus "themselves", IS BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

Do 'you', "commonsense", even UNDERSTAND what I WAS SAYING, and CLAIMING?

If yes, then HOW, in and WHAT WAY, has what "gary childress" SAID and WROTE here got TO DO WITH what I SAID and WROTE?

Will you even BEGIN TO EXPLAIN here?

No and no

WHICH IS FURTHER 'evidence' that people like this one here REALLY DID NOT HAVE A CLUE what they talked ABOUT, and STATED.

I JUST SAID, SO, this reply of YOURS could be taken as YOU have ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF, AT ALL, whereas IRREFUTABLE PROOF that 'Life', 'Existence', AND the Universe ARE ETERNAL EXISTS.
"gary childress" JUST ASKED, What proof is there that life, existence, and the universe are eternal?


I JUST REPLIED, The physical and logical IMPOSSIBILITY that they could not be.

That there is some kind of border or limitation to those 'Things' here is solely made up by 'human thought' and 'thinking', itself, and a big reason WHY 'you', human beings, do 'this' is because 'you' have 'a beginning', and thus 'began', so 'you' IMAGINE EVERY 'thing' ELSE MUST OF ALSO.

Now if absolutely ANY one would like to share what they think or BELIEVE is 'evidence' for ANY of those 'Things' NOT being eternal and/or infinite, then please do. Then we can delve into WHERE and WHAT the DISTORTION/S and/or MISINTERPRETION/S ARE, EXACTLY.

And then "gary childress" ASKED four questions, which REALLY did NOT have MUCH AT ALL to do WITH what I ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT.

[Sculptor]

I believe the sun will descend in the west tonight. I believe this because that is what has always happened.

The sun has never done that and never shall.
And it does not matter what you believe.

[Dontaskme]

By the way there is NO mirror that could be held up to Life, Existence, NOR the Universe, themselves, ANYWAY.

But no one on here in this conversation was saying that anyway, only you said it.

[Dontaskme]

Are 'you' AWARE "dontaskme" of ANY ACTUAL 'mirror' that could be HELD UP TO 'Life', 'Existence', and/or 'the Universe', themselves?

But I never said that, you did.

You misinterpreted what I said, and with that misinterpretation, you saw it necessary to add something else you thought I'd said, but didn't.

[Dontaskme]

If yes, then WHERE IS 'this mirror', EXACTLY, and/or HOW could 'this' ACTUALLY WORK?

The mirror is where thought is...and where is where but here, both where, there and here are the same place, namely, here now, nowhere.

[Age]

By the way there is NO mirror that could be held up to Life, Existence, NOR the Universe, themselves, ANYWAY.

But no one on here in this conversation was saying that anyway, only you said it.

YES, VERY True, in 'this conversation' between 'you' and 'I' alone here. To wit, by the way, you replied, 'Yes there is a mirror, ...'

BUT, IN 'ANOTHER conversation' WITH "another person" the "other person" WAS SAYING, 'The mirror is as eternal as eteral can ever be, however, all reflections in the mirror are ... transitoree.'

To which I REPLIED, 'So what?

Life, Existence, AND the Universe ARE ETERNAL.

I NEVER mentioned absolutely ANY 'thing' ABOUT 'mirrors' NOR 'a mirror'.

By the way there is NO mirror that could be held up to Life, Existence, NOR the Universe, themselves, ANYWAY.'

Did you read 'THAT CONVERSATION'?

[Age]

Are 'you' AWARE "dontaskme" of ANY ACTUAL 'mirror' that could be HELD UP TO 'Life', 'Existence', and/or 'the Universe', themselves?

But I never said that, you did.

'you', supposedly, NEVER SAID I did 'what', EXACTLY?

You misinterpreted what I said, and with that misinterpretation, you saw it necessary to add something else you thought I'd said, but didn't.

Okay.

If 'this' is what REALLY HAPPENED, then I APOLOGIZE, PROFUSELY.

But could it have been 'you' who could have MISINTERPRETED here? Or, would 'this' be an IMPOSSIBILITY?

[Age]

If yes, then WHERE IS 'this mirror', EXACTLY, and/or HOW could 'this' ACTUALLY WORK?

The mirror is where thought is...

REALLY?

OR, are 'you', ONCE AGAIN, USING A 'metaphor' here?

and where is where but here, both where, there and here are the same place, namely, here now, nowhere.

Okay.

BUT WHY do 'things', continually, all of a sudden just TURN INTO NO 'things', like 'you' made 'them' do, here-now, above?