All is energy / God is energy

[Dontaskme]

I agree with all of the above except for your conclusion which is fatalistic. You and I are not sticks or stones or robots. You and I are active agents of change and that makes us different from the things that have no notion of causes and effects.

The idea of fatalism, you and I, sticks and stones or robots, active agents of change that makes us different from the things that have no idea of cause and effect...Are all ''APPEARANCES'' of No-thing-not-a-thing-nothing.

NOTHING IS EVERYTHING simply because nothing is not an experience. There is simply here, just 'What Is', there is just what is happening apparently. Nothing is not an experience, there is herenow, only, this immediate ''EXPERIENCING'' one without a second. The Absolute.

You and I are not IN, or OF, or OUT of, the ABSOLUTE. You are the ABSOLUTE.

In reality, there is no separate awareness that is witnessing experiences. No thing is witnessing this immediate one without a second experiencing.

But the reality is there is both the Absolute and the temporal. Most people are aware only of temporal existence and will not or can not understand the Absolute. Even those who have the best understanding of the Absolute are caught up within the net of time and relative change.

There is no temporal to 'what is' only ever this immediate Absolute reality, except to say, the apparent 'appearance' of a 'temporal I am', which could only be an illusion.

And yes, only in the apparent 'appearance' of the 'temporal I am'...within the dream of separation is the Absolute unknowable, simply because the 'temporal I' is a conceptual belief within the artificial dream of separation, that doesn't actually exist. That's why KNOWLEDGE can only point to what it is we are trying to understand, which is never required by the Absolute, because the Absolute is all there is and can never be understood or known by an illusory temporal I.

[Age]

We usually describe the world in terms of trees, mountains, rivers, clouds, cars, houses, people, and so on.

But a chemist could say: “No, this is not how things truly are! The world is basically composed of molecules which are ceaselessly combining one with another at random”.

However a physicist would reply: “Not at all! Reality is actually made up of intermingling fields of energy/matter where the dance of waves/particles takes place ceaselessly”.

Who is right? Who is wrong?

That would all depend on who EVERY one could with and who EVERY could not agree with. This, by the way, is HOW 'objectivity', itself, is FOUND, and KNOWN.

All of them are clearly mere conceptual descriptions that can just supply a relative view of reality.

We do not actually live in ‘reality’,

So, WHERE do 'you', and some "others", ACTUALLY live "dontaskme"?

but rather in a description of it,

Are 'you' implying here that this 'it', and this 'reality', which 'you' speak of here 'you' are OUTSIDE of, or BEYOND 'it'?

Is it NOT POSSIBLE for the 'description' to be WITHIN 'reality', itself, ALSO?

that is like a ‘bubble’ of concepts and words all around us,

But ALL 'concepts' BEGIN WITHIN 'you', human beings. Although 'you' might put 'them' outside of 'you', and around 'you'.

which in time builds up a fictitious view of ourselves and the world.

So, WHY do 'you', and some "others", DO 'this'?

And, more importantly, WHY would 'you' even WANT to DO 'this'?

Even non-dualism (as any other -ism without exception) is just a conceptual description of reality, that hopelessly tries to point to the unknowable ‘Whatever it is’: in so far as it becomes an ideology that relies on words and thoughts, it is unable to enjoy the taste of Being.

ONCE AGAIN, "dontaskme" 'you' are here FORMING just ANOTHER 'ism'. This 'ism' is the BELIEF that ALL-OF-THIS as One is UNKNOWABLE. So, what this MEANS IS, 'you' are here doing the EXACT SAME 'thing' as FORMING 'your' VERY OWN 'conceptual description', and BELIEVING 'it' to be true, BEFORE 'you' even have the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF for. Which, as I have been SAYING, and PROVING, is just a Truly ABSURD and RIDICULOUS WAY to LOOK AT and SEE 'things'.

See, what 'you' CLASS AS and BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, is UNKNOWABLE, some of 'us' ALREADY KNOW what 'It' IS, EXACTLY. And, this is BECAUSE 'we' HAVE thee ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF to back up and support THIS CLAIM.

So we live in concepts without realizing it.

'you', and 'your' human being 'friends', may well do, but NOT ALL of 'us' do, "dontaskme".

We blindly believe that reality is just as our thought represents it.

And 'you', and 'your' OWN BELIEFS and VIEWS, are LIVING IRREFUTABLE PROOF of 'this'.

Science gives us an ‘objective’ description of the material world that, to some extent, can be very useful for the improvement of humankind,

LOL 'humankind' WAS HAPPIER and Truly FAR MORE CONTENT BEFORE ANY so-called 'improvement' EVER came along.

And, 'humankind' will ONLY EVER Truly IMPROVE when 'it' goes BACK to that WAY OF LIFE, and LIVING.

however relative and incomplete it is.

Non-duality - as far as it still relies on words and thoughts - is just another conceptual description of reality, though its understanding of non-separation can dispel a huge amount of suffering in one’s life.

This seems RATHER CONTRADICTORY considering 'you' are the one here CLAIMING to be just about ALWAYS SUFFERING.

Neither of them is more or less right, and both are useful.

ALL of 'your' human MADE UP concepts, which involve 'one' OR the 'other' "side" or view of 'things', on BOTH "sides" have Truths and Falsehoods WITHIN 'them'. And, it is ONLY when those Truths and Falsehoods can be COMPLETELY DISTINGUISHED APART, with the Falsehoods REMOVED, COMPLETELY, then what is left is just One Truth, of which NO could REFUTE.

So, when 'you' get to OBTAINING the ABILITY to being ABLE TO DO 'this' "dontaskme", then I suggest that that is WHEN 'you' come back here and make the CLAIMS that 'you' do here. Then, and ONLY THEN, will what 'you' SAY and CLAIM be ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and/or Correct.

But as long as we rely merely on them, we remain trapped in the net of concepts.

As 'you' have SO FAR been PROVING True just about EVERY time 'you' come here and WRITE.

Just as the fisherman’s net can catch only fishes, but not the water that passes through it and even supports it, so the thinking mind can grasp only concepts,

1. There is NO 'thinking mind'. There is ONLY 'thinking brains', if you like. And, there is ONLY One Mind, which is thee ALL KNOWING Mind.

2. The brain grasps 'information' from the 'outside of the body world'. But, because the brain can grasp False, Wrong, or Incorrect information, like, for example; the 'some things can NOT be known' concept/information, the 'thinking brain' can STORE this GRASPED 'concept', which, can then be added into the BELIEF system, which can then FILTER OUT ANY ACTUAL, and even IRREFUTABLE, information and concepts. Like, for example, what one BELIEVES can NOT be KNOWN, can ACTUALLY BECOME KNOWN, and could even be ALREADY KNOWN by some "others".

But, depending on HOW 'information' is FED into the brain, and/or RECEIVED, then this can affect ALL other information and EVERY other concept, which enters and is grasped by the 'thinking brain'. See, unfortunately human brains can only really just 'think' they know what thee ACTUAL Truth IS. Which is REALLY quite UNFORTUNATE for those who only LOOK AT and SEE 'the world' through a 'thinking brain' ONLY.

It is thee Truly OPEN Mind WHERE ALL the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE True, Right and/or Correct KNOWLEDGE can be SEEN, and KNOWN.

Human brains, however, do have the ability to grasp, or catch, BOTH False AND True information or concepts, as well as Right AND Wrong, and Correct AND Incorrect concepts and information TOO.

but not the awareness that perceives it as an object: the ‘water of awareness’ can never be detected by the net of the thinking mind.

The 'thinking brain' can NEVER 'catch' ANY 'thing' that, literally, does NOT go through it.

ONLY when concepts/information is 'caught' by the senses of the body, and transferred to the brain, can the 'thinking brain' grasp those concepts and information.

Awareness is NOT held up NOR within some 'thing' like fish or ANY 'thing' else is held up within 'water'. However, when 'what' 'Awareness', Itself, is WORKED OUT, then, and ONLY THEN, that 'concept' or 'information' can be passed through the senses of human bodies and FED INTO the 'thinking brains' within those other bodies.

HOW 'new' and/or 'more' knowledge is OBTAINED is through or from a Truly OPEN Mind, which is OPEN to 'new' 'things', or OPEN to 'further' knowledge, AND through the ALREADY GRASPED knowledge STORED within or with the brain. See, it is WHEN two or more 'thoughts/concepts' are combined together WHERE NEW knowledge is OBTAINED, and WHERE ALL 'things' that were PREVIOUSLY thought or BELIEVED to be UNKNOWABLE COME FROM, EXACTLY.

See, "dontaskme" here BELIEVES that the 'things' that 'it' does NOT YET KNOW are which 'it' CLAIMS is UNKNOWABLE, just like for absolutely EVERY piece of 'knowledge' that BECAME KNOWN, was ONCE 'thought of as', or BELIEVED to be, an IMPOSSIBILITY to EVER become KNOWN. What "dontaskme" does NOT YET REALIZE is that EVERY KNOWN 'thing' was ALSO once BELIEVED to be UNKNOWABLE.

But, one day, even "dontaskme' WILL COME TO KNOW this knowledge, and KNOWING, AS WELL.

Indeed, awareness is a paradoxical mystery:

LOL WHAT 'awareness' IS EXACTLY is ALREADY KNOWN. Well, at least, by some of 'us' anyway.

on the one hand its evidence is undeniable for the very fact that we are aware of objects,

HOW can there be a 'we' in NONDUAL?

but on the other hand it is unknowable, just as the existence of the eye is undeniable for the very fact that we can see objects, though it always remains invisible, outside the picture.

OF COURSE ANY 'thing' is NOT visible when there is NO 'thing' LOOKING AT 'it'.

But, this is NO WAY backs up and supports YOUR CLAIM here.

'you' are just LOOKING FOR and 'trying to' GRASP ONTO ANY 'thing' that 'you' HOPE will back up and support your UNSUPPORTABLE CLAIMS here.

However, even ‘awareness’ is just a concept: through it, we are ultimately confronted with the unknown ‘bottom line’ of any human knowledge.

No understanding whatsoever can touch the unknowable Source of everything.

What if any idea about who I am, including even the idea of ‘consciousness’, totally collapses?

Then 'it', like yours here, COLLAPSE.

But, what happens if 'it' does NOT?

And/or what happens if 'it' ONLY provides MORE SUPPORT and MORE BACKING UP of 'ITSELF'?

What if any idea about reality, including even the idea of ‘non duality’, totally collapses?

Then 'it' COLLAPSES. ALONG WITH the 'you' who DREAMED 'it' UP and HAD 'it'.

What if even these very words you are reading now lose any meaning whatsoever and fall away?

LOL a LOT of 'them' have ALREADY.

What remains when every attempt to understand or to know reality reveals its utter futility?

WHY do 'you' even PERSIST with this BELIEF of UTTER FUTILITY "dontaskme"?

The ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE answer, by the way, WAS VERY EASY and SIMPLE to FIND OUT and KNOW.

Then, out of frustration, the thinking mind cannot help saying “I don’t know” and finally quits.

LOL I found the VERY OPPOSITE. That is; WHEN Honest and when SAYING, 'I don't know', IF ANY CURIOSITY is 'hanging around', then INSTEAD of finally quitting, that DRIVES some MORE to FIND OUT what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.

Were 'you' even YET AWARE "dontaskme" the 'thinking brain' in one way or another once ONLY HELD the 'thought', 'I don't know', to ABSOLUTELY ANY and EVERY 'thing'. So, 'thinking' or 'saying', 'I don't know', has NEVER been A REASON NOR AN EXCUSE to EVER 'finally quitting'.

It is thoughts, however, like, 'I can NEVER know', or 'It is UNKNOWABLE', which lead to 'finally quitting'.

And, to just get EVERY one to FINALLY QUIT, and even to FINALLY QUITTING in making NEW human beings appears to be 'your' SOLE and ONLY PURPOSE here.

The absolute DAMAGED WAY 'you' have of LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things' in Life "dontaskme" could be the GREATEST PROOF of and for WHY it is Wrong to ABUSE CHILDREN. That is; that 'they' can end up SO DAMAGED and DESTROYED that they ACTUALLY BELIEVE 'life' is NOT WORTH living, and that the WHOLE human population should STOP BREEDING BECAUSE ALL children forever MORE WILL BE ABUSED, and DAMAGED like "dontaskme" WAS.

But when that “I don’t know” plunges off the head into the heart, the philosopher dies and the mystic is born.

I could NOT BE SEEING MORE OPPOSINGLY.

There is NOT a 'thing' KNOWN that was once NOT CONSCIOUSLY KNOWN, individually AND collectively, by 'you', human beings, so the term and phrase, 'I don't know', when questioned, or questioning, one would IMAGINE would be the most commonly USED terms or phrases throughout current human history. However, because of the way the current so-called 'education system' works and because of the way adult human beings like to 'try to' HUMILIATE and RIDICULE "others", 'children' VERY QUICKLY LEARNED NOT TO say, 'I don't know'. in front of "others".

It is not a process in time. It is a singularity where all the known collapses and disappears.

It is a timeless explosion of pure wonder and awe that blows away everything else.

And what remains is a wild, free, spontaneous, and utterly unknowable aliveness, within the glowing darkness of the Mystery that we ultimately are.

The Wonder of Unknowing
Beyond science and non-dualism.

https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ar ... -unknowing

[Age]

This isn't correct. Not everything is made of atoms (only baryonic matter is), and atoms aren't "made up of energy." Atoms possess energy as a property.

Pardon the hubris of amateur me in the following. I will write as if I am more sure of things, just to get clearer contrast and I know I am discussing this with a professional.

I think the context makes the issue more complicated. We won't find a clump of mass either (not that you said we would). But, In a sense we don't find clumps of anything but properties in a certain place. I think there is a kind of metaphysical baggage from the monist materialists (physicalists) and the dualist churches they contrasted themselves with. No, stuff is just physical. But physical turns out not to be like what we meant by physical/material. It's thinginess is not solid (not in the states of matter sense of solid, but at all). When I was a kid you divvy up matter into three states - while learning - gas liquid and solid (later plasma gets tossed in). But you learn there are these little planetlike things inside even the non-solid states. Atoms and then neutrons, etc. making up these. But really these things are not solid (now in the not-state-of-matter sense, but rather properties (that also can change) in certain places (though not always even restricted to one place, thinking here of superposition).

When you say here that you learn 'one thing', but then later on you learn 'another thing', then this is a GREAT CLUE as to what these people here are TELLING you, or IMPLYING, is true, in the day when this is being written, is best taken as it could be completely or partly UNTRUE as well.

One of the 'best things' you could LEARN from this, 'oh it was ACTUALLY WRONG before' teaching is NEVER BELIEVE ANY of what is being TOLD and/or TAUGHT to you NOW, at ANY time.

Even what is in what you quote above here, which is being TOLD as though it is ACTUALLY true can be SEEN to be False, Wrong, and Incorrect ALREADY, let alone in the future from now, when it was being written.

So, when a layperson says matter is really made up of energy, yes, they are wrong, because energy is the ability to do work not a substance other than matter. [/quote]

Sometimes the so-called "layperson" ACTUALLY KNOWS MORE than the so-called "professional person" or "expert".

And, a GREAT SIGN that the "expert" does NOT know what they are talking about, like in the above quote here, is when 'they' consider "themselves" to be a so-called "expert" or "scientist", which is putting "themselves" into some specific SPECIAL 'group' of which the members, "themselves" within 'that group' can NOT even come together IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE.

In fact, on quite a few occasions, 'they' are the BIGGEST CRITIQUES and OPPOSES on the EXACT SAME 'thing/s', even though 'they' ALL CLAIM to be the "experts" and/or "scientists", for example.

These 'human beings' can NOT even AGREE, 'half of the time', as it is sometimes called and known as, on what 'time', 'space' and 'energy' even ARE, EXACTLY. YET that they also CLAIM, for example, to USE these 'things' to, laughably, 'measure' OTHER 'things'.

They are SO BLINDED by their OWN VERY one "sided" views and BELIEFS, that they can NOT even SEE thee Truths in the "other side" NOR even SEE thee Falsehoods in their OWN "side".

For example, this one here can NOT even SEE 'its' OWN CONTRADICTION in what 'it' wrote in the above quote, AGAIN, because of 'its' OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, and BECAUSE 'it' BELIEVES and ASSUMES that 'it' ALREADY KNOWS what is Right here.

But I think what they are getting at is that it isn't matter in the sense we used to (or as laypeople) usually have. There's no hard but small thing and whatever that not hard, small thing can unfold into something with more energy and less mass, can be in a waveform, perhaps is also in a waveform already.

The word 'wave' or 'waveform' is just ANOTHER made up to, laughingly, talk as though 'they' KNOW what they are talking about.

Ask ANY of them to EXPLAIN what IS a 'waveform' EXACTLY, and/or what is a 'waveform' made up of, EXACTLY?

And THEN HEAR, and SEE, what response/answer 'you' get back.

Seriously, questioning and/or challenging these so-called 'experts', of 'science', is like questioning and/or challenging the so-called "experts", of religion.

'They' ALL REALLY have NO ACTUAL CLUE as to what they SAY and CLAIM, even though 'they' will have 'you' ALL BELIEVING that they do. (Depending, of course, on WHICH "side" 'you', "yourself", are on.)

It's a lot like what we think of as energy.

Am I saying Laypeople think this way, so we should use terms this way?

No. I think it's wonderful we can have an expert point out how the terms are being used not like scientists would use them. But at the same time I think scientists (and Science) has clung to terms with metaphysical baggage (physical and it's related terms, and material and its related terms) too long. I think they are misleading at the ontological level.

I think 'they' ARE VERY MISLEADING. But this is only because they do NOT KNOW what they are talking ABOUT, EXACTLY, but keep 'trying to', while 'they' think or BELIEVE that they do KNOW what they are talking ABOUT.

And, even when one gets to a point of questioning and/or challenging 'them' that they do NOT LIKE, then will just resort to saying things like, 'You will NEVER understand'. Which, again, is more or less EXACTLY like the "other experts" who call "themselves" "preachers" or "priests". When 'they' get challenged or questioned ENOUGH they say almost the EXACT SAME 'things'.

And, AGAIN, the amount of CONTROVERSY these so-called "experts" CAUSE from "themselves", in THEIR 'religion', either 'scientific' or 'spiritual', because of their BICKERING, FIGHTING, and NON AGREEMENT among "themselves" just SHOWS and PROVES how LITTLE they REALLY KNOW.

Unfortunately, though, it is 'these people' who get LOOKED UP TO and REVERED. Although the amount of people who are LOOKED UP TO and REVERED in the spiritual RELIGION is diminishing the amount of people in the scientific RELIGION is increasing.

Apart from being a layperson, I find this extremely hard to talk about, but I hope some of what I am saying comes across.

The SOLE reason WHY 'it' is HARD and/or COMPLEX for 'you' to talk about IS because the so-called "experts" are NOT able to EXPLAIN 'things' here is EASY and SIMPLE ways.

If these people REALLY KNEW what they were talking ABOUT, then they COULD EXPLAIN these, ultimately, Truly VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY 'concepts'. Or, in other words, if these people understood 'things' well enough here, then they could explain 'it' simply, and easily.

I think once the word matter is in the context and even words like atom - which has its own metaphysical baggage 'uncuttable' like some tiny uberdiamond that resists, through its solidity - being reduced. My point not being that yes, we can 'cut' atoms, it turns out, but that the conception of the 'little things' is ontologically questionable. If we are going to be fussy - and we should be in many contexts - about the use of the word energy - then I think we need to be fussy about matter, atoms and so on, since they are not at all what those words still imply, even if physicists know the orginal meanings are necessarily relevant.

ALL VERY True and VERY WELL SAID.

Also, I doubt if ALL so-called "physicists" KNOW the original meanings of words here, and instead only KNOW OF the meaning that they have and use. Which, AGAIN, can be VERY DIFFERENT and even VERY OPPOSING among the people who go by under the EXACT SAME NAME and LABEL of "physicists".

Nothing is "made up of" energy, energy is a property. It would be like saying a ruler is "made up of" length or a pillow is "made up of" softness, that would be the same kind of conceptual error. You will not find a clump of just energy anywhere in the universe, you will only find other things which possess energy as a property -- just like you won't find a clump of length anywhere in the universe, only things which possess length as a property.

And this holds for mass, solidity also. The stuff we associate(d) with what matter is, instead of properties it has.

If 'one' wants to make the CLAIM that 'they' can only find 'things', which possess 'stuff', then are 'they' also going to CLAIM that those 'things' are made up of matter ONLY?

> The Observer Effect states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality. This suggests not only that everything is energy, but that this energy responds to consciousness.

This is also incorrect. The observer effect has nothing to do with consciousness, it has to do with the fact that it isn't possible to observe a system without affecting it somehow. For instance consider looking at something under an electron microscope. It would be like observing a car by pelting it with basketballs and then detecting how the basketballs deflect off the car to form the image of the car. Well, obviously pelting a car with basketballs is going to affect the system: the act of "looking" at the car affects it. That's what the observer effect is about, it has nothing to do with consciousness.

Again, provisos for my lay status.

Continually putting "yourself" BELOW "another" can make them feel MORE SUPERIOR, which can then just ENCOURAGE 'them' to speak DOWN TO 'you' and/or make them BELIEVE that they KNOW. Which, OBVIOUSLY, here they do NOT.

For example this 'one' here uses the 'consciousness' word as though 'it' KNOWS what 'it' is talking ABOUT. But, if one was to question and/or challenge 'it' over or about what 'consciousness' IS, EXACTLY, then that 'one' WOULD SHOW that, REALLY, 'it' does NOT ACTUALLY KNOW what 'it' is talking ABOUT here AT ALL, REALLY.

But looking does not send photons, say, at something. Light comes from the thing-seen and enters the eye.

Is there a difference when someone places their eye on the viewing device in particle observations from when they do not place their eye on the viewfinder?

In each situation whatever process is allowing vision to notice what is going on in the chamber is present. In one the person looks, in one they don't. Aren't their different results when one places one's eye in the way of photos emerging from the viewfinder and makes and obsevation and those instances where one does not?

Entanglement isn't as easy as just having particles interact, it happens under particular circumstances that usually have to be deliberately brought about (which is why quantum computing is still so difficult). It isn't correct to say that entangled particles are "connected by energy," it is more that there is a superposition of states that gives you information about a partner once you know more information about the other. For instance, if I took an ace of spades and a queen of hearts and shuffled them and gave one of them to you without looking at mine, we have a sort of superposition of states going on. I could then travel to the other side of the Earth and look at my card (perhaps the queen of hearts) and instantly know that you have the ace of spades. That's all that entanglement is.

I think it's more than that. Haven't we now found that the act of measuring leads to specific outcomes for both particles not just the process of elimination can be used?
I am thinking of the recent Nobel Prize work...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... proved-it/
Your version with the cards implies that the property is X before measurement - it was the Queen of Spades before we looked. But that doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

Apologies in advance for all the messes of the expert having to show what is obvious to her about the lay person's hallucinations.

Here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of just because one is CONTINUALLY TOLD that 'you' are NOT the "expert", they then start to BELIEVE 'this' and then talk to the so-called "experts" as they REALLY WERE some kind of "expert".

Laughingly, these so-called "experts", who, by the way, are VERY RARELY IN AGREEMENT, nor ACCEPTING of the words, terms, and phrases that get USED, as can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN here above, just CHANGE the words, and their meanings, around from what they ONCE meant and/or ONCE thought or BELIEVED was true when 'it' turns out to NOT be true AT ALL or not be AS true.

For example, the 'public' get informed about a, laughingly, NEW DISCOVERY regarding what is called 'entanglement', and provided with SOME explanation, but WHEN that thought or BELIEVED "NEW DISCOVERY" was ACTUALLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, then WHEN the so-called "experts" get questioned and/or challenged OVER that NEW DISCOVERY, the 'public' is TOLD a whole NEW STORY or that THAT DISCOVERY was NOT ACTUALLY what happens. And, sometimes, as CLEARLY SHOWN ABOVE here, when questioned or challenged, the 'public' is ACCUSED of 'that is NOT the right information or that is not the right way to look at', which could be the EXACT INFORMATION or EXACT WAY that was PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED.

[Age]

I agree with all of the above except for your conclusion which is fatalistic. You and I are not sticks or stones or robots. You and I are active agents of change and that makes us different from the things that have no notion of causes and effects.

The idea of fatalism, you and I, sticks and stones or robots, active agents of change that makes us different from the things that have no idea of cause and effect...Are all ''APPEARANCES'' of No-thing-not-a-thing-nothing.

NOTHING IS EVERYTHING simply because nothing is not an experience.

SO, and according to this "logic" here;

EVERYTHING IS NOTHING simply because everything is an experience, correct?

If no, then WHY NOT?

There is simply here, just 'What Is', there is just what is happening apparently. Nothing is not an experience, there is herenow, only, this immediate ''EXPERIENCING'' one without a second. The Absolute.

You and I are not IN, or OF, or OUT of, the ABSOLUTE. You are the ABSOLUTE.

In reality, there is no separate awareness that is witnessing experiences. No thing is witnessing this immediate one without a second experiencing.

[Age]

The idea of fatalism, you and I, sticks and stones or robots, active agents of change that makes us different from the things that have no idea of cause and effect...Are all ''APPEARANCES'' of No-thing-not-a-thing-nothing.

NOTHING IS EVERYTHING simply because nothing is not an experience. There is simply here, just 'What Is', there is just what is happening apparently. Nothing is not an experience, there is herenow, only, this immediate ''EXPERIENCING'' one without a second. The Absolute.

You and I are not IN, or OF, or OUT of, the ABSOLUTE. You are the ABSOLUTE.

In reality, there is no separate awareness that is witnessing experiences. No thing is witnessing this immediate one without a second experiencing.

But the reality is there is both the Absolute and the temporal. Most people are aware only of temporal existence and will not or can not understand the Absolute. Even those who have the best understanding of the Absolute are caught up within the net of time and relative change.

There is no temporal to 'what is' only ever this immediate Absolute reality, except to say, the apparent 'appearance' of a 'temporal I am', which could only be an illusion.

WHY am 'I' am an illusion, 'you' are not, "dontaskme"?

And yes, only in the apparent 'appearance' of the 'temporal I am'...within the dream of separation is the Absolute unknowable, simply because the 'temporal I' is a conceptual belief within the artificial dream of separation, that doesn't actually exist. That's why KNOWLEDGE can only point to what it is we are trying to understand, which is never required by the Absolute, because the Absolute is all there is and can never be understood or known by an illusory temporal I.

WHY are 'you' the Absolute, but 'I' am Not?

[Iwannaplato]

Continually putting "yourself" BELOW "another" can make them feel MORE SUPERIOR, which can then just ENCOURAGE 'them' to speak DOWN TO 'you' and/or make them BELIEVE that they KNOW. Which, OBVIOUSLY, here they do NOT.

You are quite correct. It can. We'll see in this particular instance if it does. But I appreciate the reflection regardless.

[Lacewing]

Science gives us an ‘objective’ description of the material world that, to some extent, can be very useful for the improvement of humankind, however relative and incomplete it is.

Non-duality - as far as it still relies on words and thoughts - is just another conceptual description of reality, though its understanding of non-separation can dispel a huge amount of suffering in one’s life.

Neither of them is more or less right, and both are useful.

But as long as we rely merely on them, we remain trapped in the net of concepts.

Yes, so many different ways to view everything. This is why extremism and rigidity in any direction is madness.

Just as the fisherman’s net can catch only fishes, but not the water that passes through it and even supports it, so the thinking mind can grasp only concepts, but not the awareness that perceives it as an object: the ‘water of awareness’ can never be detected by the net of the thinking mind.

This is a great description!

However, even ‘awareness’ is just a concept: through it, we are ultimately confronted with the unknown ‘bottom line’ of any human knowledge.

I was first inclined to say 'yes!', however -- I don't think we are limited to knowledge. Children have awareness without knowledge, and I think adults can too. Adults, however, tend to frame their awareness as something 'ultimate' -- thereby limiting it. It would be like discovering one star in a dark sky for the first time and claiming that star is an ultimate truth of some sort without realizing how many more stars there are.

No understanding whatsoever can touch the unknowable Source of everything.

What if any idea about who I am, including even the idea of ‘consciousness’, totally collapses?

What if any idea about reality, including even the idea of ‘non duality’, totally collapses?

What if even these very words you are reading now lose any meaning whatsoever and fall away?

What remains when every attempt to understand or to know reality reveals its utter futility?

Then, out of frustration, the thinking mind cannot help saying “I don’t know” and finally quits.

Probably for most people, this would sound terrifying and depressing. And the language of non-dualism often sounds like babble. I prefer the slightly gentler approach of 'Forget everything you've been told about what life is and how it works'. Whatever it is that we are, it offers the magnificent potential for us to build and grow and play and think. There's no reason to invalidate that. The trick and mastery, I think, is to do it without losing oneself in service to any of it. Although it probably doesn't matter ultimately if one 'loses themselves in a particular dream', it's kind of a lost opportunity not to experience anything more than that.

But when that “I don’t know” plunges off the head into the heart, the philosopher dies and the mystic is born.

It is not a process in time. It is a singularity where all the known collapses and disappears.

It is a timeless explosion of pure wonder and awe that blows away everything else.

And what remains is a wild, free, spontaneous, and utterly unknowable aliveness, within the glowing darkness of the Mystery that we ultimately are.

I like this and understand it in my own way. There is an incredible empowerment and completeness to be experienced when one is not in service to anything to the exclusion of all else. It just doesn't make sense to narrow one's view down to singular platforms of one sort or another. If we consider how vast the Universe is in all directions that we can be aware of, we can guess that there's so much more we're not aware of -- so within all of that it would seem ridiculous to fuss over any shiny little thing as a fearful and angry Gollum creature splashing around in a small dark cave.

Whatever we're faced with, we can see and move beyond it. So why not practice doing so?

[Belinda]

I agree with all of the above except for your conclusion which is fatalistic. You and I are not sticks or stones or robots. You and I are active agents of change and that makes us different from the things that have no notion of causes and effects.

The idea of fatalism, you and I, sticks and stones or robots, active agents of change that makes us different from the things that have no idea of cause and effect...Are all ''APPEARANCES'' of No-thing-not-a-thing-nothing.

NOTHING IS EVERYTHING simply because nothing is not an experience. There is simply here, just 'What Is', there is just what is happening apparently. Nothing is not an experience, there is herenow, only, this immediate ''EXPERIENCING'' one without a second. The Absolute.

You and I are not IN, or OF, or OUT of, the ABSOLUTE. You are the ABSOLUTE.

In reality, there is no separate awareness that is witnessing experiences. No thing is witnessing this immediate one without a second experiencing.

You are the Absolute, and you are also the temporal and relative.If you were not the temporal and the relative you would not be talking to me , because you would have absolute knowledge of what I am thinking.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What is meant by energy here? I only understand two contexts for the word:

We have the energy of physics, as in mass-energy, probably sufficient to say it is the capacity to perform work. Yet this context of energy is a property, not a thing that exists unto itself (nothing “is” energy, there are only things which possess energy).

It is my understanding that everything is made up of energy, as described by the following scientific concepts:

> Quantum physics suggests that solid matter does not exist in the universe.

> Since everything is made of atoms, which are energy, this could mean that everything is made up of energy.

This isn't correct. Not everything is made of atoms (only baryonic matter is), and atoms aren't "made up of energy." Atoms possess energy as a property.

Nothing is "made up of" energy, energy is a property. It would be like saying a ruler is "made up of" length or a pillow is "made up of" softness, that would be the same kind of conceptual error. You will not find a clump of just energy anywhere in the universe, you will only find other things which possess energy as a property -- just like you won't find a clump of length anywhere in the universe, only things which possess length as a property.

> The Observer Effect states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality. This suggests not only that everything is energy, but that this energy responds to consciousness.

This is also incorrect. The observer effect has nothing to do with consciousness, it has to do with the fact that it isn't possible to observe a system without affecting it somehow. For instance consider looking at something under an electron microscope. It would be like observing a car by pelting it with basketballs and then detecting how the basketballs deflect off the car to form the image of the car. Well, obviously pelting a car with basketballs is going to affect the system: the act of "looking" at the car affects it. That's what the observer effect is about, it has nothing to do with consciousness.

> Entanglement states that once particles have interacted, they become “entangled,” no matter how far apart they are. They are connected by energy that permeates everything.

I created this thread to consider the implications of 'everything is energy', including how that applies to a concept of 'God': if someone thinks 'God is in all' or that 'we are created in a 'God's image', then that god is non-solid energy too.

Entanglement isn't as easy as just having particles interact, it happens under particular circumstances that usually have to be deliberately brought about (which is why quantum computing is still so difficult). It isn't correct to say that entangled particles are "connected by energy," it is more that there is a superposition of states that gives you information about a partner once you know more information about the other. For instance, if I took an ace of spades and a queen of hearts and shuffled them and gave one of them to you without looking at mine, we have a sort of superposition of states going on. I could then travel to the other side of the Earth and look at my card (perhaps the queen of hearts) and instantly know that you have the ace of spades. That's all that entanglement is.

Nice explanation. I'm still trying to get my head around all this.

[Age]

Science gives us an ‘objective’ description of the material world that, to some extent, can be very useful for the improvement of humankind, however relative and incomplete it is.

Non-duality - as far as it still relies on words and thoughts - is just another conceptual description of reality, though its understanding of non-separation can dispel a huge amount of suffering in one’s life.

Neither of them is more or less right, and both are useful.

But as long as we rely merely on them, we remain trapped in the net of concepts.

Yes, so many different ways to view everything. This is why extremism and rigidity in any direction is madness.

BUT, extremism and rigidity in that 'There is NO one truth' is perfectly fine and normal, and NOT madness AT ALL right "lacewing"?

Just as the fisherman’s net can catch only fishes, but not the water that passes through it and even supports it, so the thinking mind can grasp only concepts, but not the awareness that perceives it as an object: the ‘water of awareness’ can never be detected by the net of the thinking mind.

This is a great description!

BUT, 'you' WILL NEVER SEE NOR HEAR ANY counter-points, NOR ANY further descriptions and explanations, while 'you' REMAIN completely and utterly CLOSED, BLIND, and DEAF to them. EXACTLY like 'you' are SHOWING and PROVING True here, for me.

However, even ‘awareness’ is just a concept: through it, we are ultimately confronted with the unknown ‘bottom line’ of any human knowledge.

I was first inclined to say 'yes!', however -- I don't think we are limited to knowledge. Children have awareness without knowledge, and I think adults can too.

VERY GOOD OBSERVATION. SHAME though 'you' are NOT OPEN enough to talk about and discuss 'this' FURTHER.

Adults, however, tend to frame their awareness as something 'ultimate' -- thereby limiting it.

Which is EXACTLY what 'you', "lacewing", have PROVED ABSOLUTELY, and, dare I say it, ULTIMATELY, True.

It would be like discovering one star in a dark sky for the first time and claiming that star is an ultimate truth of some sort without realizing how many more stars there are.

But that would just be ABSURD and RIDICULOUS.

In fact, it would be like SAYING and CLAIMING that, There is NO one truth, and EXPRESSING 'this CLAIM' as though it IS 'one truth'. The CONTRADICTION and HYPOCRISY is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS.

No understanding whatsoever can touch the unknowable Source of everything.

What if any idea about who I am, including even the idea of ‘consciousness’, totally collapses?

What if any idea about reality, including even the idea of ‘non duality’, totally collapses?

What if even these very words you are reading now lose any meaning whatsoever and fall away?

What remains when every attempt to understand or to know reality reveals its utter futility?

Then, out of frustration, the thinking mind cannot help saying “I don’t know” and finally quits.

Probably for most people, this would sound terrifying and depressing. And the language of non-dualism often sounds like babble. I prefer the slightly gentler approach of 'Forget everything you've been told about what life is and how it works'.

HOWEVER, 'you', "lacewing", can NOT 'let go' and 'forget' about what 'you' have been TOLD about, There is NO one truth. In fact, this BELIEF that 'you' HOLD ONTO and are STUCK IN and WITH here, completely CONTRADICTS what 'you' say and claim here 'you' PREFER.

Whatever it is that we are, it offers the magnificent potential for us to build and grow and play and think. There's no reason to invalidate that. The trick and mastery, I think, is to do it without losing oneself in service to any of it. Although it probably doesn't matter ultimately if one 'loses themselves in a particular dream', it's kind of a lost opportunity not to experience anything more than that.

ONCE AGAIN, what 'you' are ACTUALLY DOING here is FURTHER PROOF of what 'you' are saying here "lacewing".

But when that “I don’t know” plunges off the head into the heart, the philosopher dies and the mystic is born.

It is not a process in time. It is a singularity where all the known collapses and disappears.

It is a timeless explosion of pure wonder and awe that blows away everything else.

And what remains is a wild, free, spontaneous, and utterly unknowable aliveness, within the glowing darkness of the Mystery that we ultimately are.

I like this and understand it in my own way. There is an incredible empowerment and completeness to be experienced when one is not in service to anything to the exclusion of all else. It just doesn't make sense to narrow one's view down to singular platforms of one sort or another.

HOW MUCH MORE CLOSED, or NARROWED could one BE and GET with the BELIEF that, 'There is NO one truth'?

HOW MUCH MORE NARROWED could one get with THIS VIEW?

If we consider how vast the Universe is in all directions that we can be aware of, we can guess that there's so much more we're not aware of -- so within all of that it would seem ridiculous to fuss over any shiny little thing as a fearful and angry Gollum creature splashing around in a small dark cave.

Talk about LETTING one's OWN BELIEF get in the way and DISTORT what ACTUALLY IS True, and what COULD BE ACTUALLY True, to 'them'.

Whatever we're faced with, we can see and move beyond it.

So, HOW EXACTLY, can 'you', "lacewing", SEE and MOVE BEYOND your BELIEF that, 'There is NO one truth'?

HOW, EXACTLY, could ANY one SEE or MOVE BEYOND this BELIEF while they HAVE and MAINTAIN this BELIEF?

OBVIOUSLY, to 'you', "lacewing", this is HOW 'things' ARE, or 'it' IS EXACTLY. So, HOW could 'you' MOVE BEYOND what IS?

So why not practice doing so?

Great question.

The reason WHY 'you', "lacewing", DO NOT is because 'you' REFUSE to LOOK AT 'this',

And, NOT from a lack of 'me' trying to get 'you' to just RECOGNIZE 'this' and to LOOK AT what 'you' ARE DOING here.

[Age]

I agree with all of the above except for your conclusion which is fatalistic. You and I are not sticks or stones or robots. You and I are active agents of change and that makes us different from the things that have no notion of causes and effects.

The idea of fatalism, you and I, sticks and stones or robots, active agents of change that makes us different from the things that have no idea of cause and effect...Are all ''APPEARANCES'' of No-thing-not-a-thing-nothing.

NOTHING IS EVERYTHING simply because nothing is not an experience. There is simply here, just 'What Is', there is just what is happening apparently. Nothing is not an experience, there is herenow, only, this immediate ''EXPERIENCING'' one without a second. The Absolute.

You and I are not IN, or OF, or OUT of, the ABSOLUTE. You are the ABSOLUTE.

In reality, there is no separate awareness that is witnessing experiences. No thing is witnessing this immediate one without a second experiencing.

You are the Absolute, and you are also the temporal and relative.If you were not the temporal and the relative you would not be talking to me , because you would have absolute knowledge of what I am thinking.

WHY does it, supposedly, 'logically follow' that if 'I' KNOW what 'you' are 'thinking', then 'I' would NOT talk to 'you'?

Also, it is thee 'I', of which there is ONLY One, which is the Absolute, Eternal, and Infinite. And, it is 'you', human beings, who are temporal and relative. Of which 'I' am NOT. Although 'I' am 'relative' to and in the way that some of 'you', human beings, 'think' and LOOK AT 'things'.

[Age]

It is my understanding that everything is made up of energy, as described by the following scientific concepts:

> Quantum physics suggests that solid matter does not exist in the universe.

> Since everything is made of atoms, which are energy, this could mean that everything is made up of energy.

This isn't correct. Not everything is made of atoms (only baryonic matter is), and atoms aren't "made up of energy." Atoms possess energy as a property.

Nothing is "made up of" energy, energy is a property. It would be like saying a ruler is "made up of" length or a pillow is "made up of" softness, that would be the same kind of conceptual error. You will not find a clump of just energy anywhere in the universe, you will only find other things which possess energy as a property -- just like you won't find a clump of length anywhere in the universe, only things which possess length as a property.

> The Observer Effect states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality. This suggests not only that everything is energy, but that this energy responds to consciousness.

This is also incorrect. The observer effect has nothing to do with consciousness, it has to do with the fact that it isn't possible to observe a system without affecting it somehow. For instance consider looking at something under an electron microscope. It would be like observing a car by pelting it with basketballs and then detecting how the basketballs deflect off the car to form the image of the car. Well, obviously pelting a car with basketballs is going to affect the system: the act of "looking" at the car affects it. That's what the observer effect is about, it has nothing to do with consciousness.

> Entanglement states that once particles have interacted, they become “entangled,” no matter how far apart they are. They are connected by energy that permeates everything.

I created this thread to consider the implications of 'everything is energy', including how that applies to a concept of 'God': if someone thinks 'God is in all' or that 'we are created in a 'God's image', then that god is non-solid energy too.

Entanglement isn't as easy as just having particles interact, it happens under particular circumstances that usually have to be deliberately brought about (which is why quantum computing is still so difficult). It isn't correct to say that entangled particles are "connected by energy," it is more that there is a superposition of states that gives you information about a partner once you know more information about the other. For instance, if I took an ace of spades and a queen of hearts and shuffled them and gave one of them to you without looking at mine, we have a sort of superposition of states going on. I could then travel to the other side of the Earth and look at my card (perhaps the queen of hearts) and instantly know that you have the ace of spades. That's all that entanglement is.

Nice explanation. I'm still trying to get my head around all this.

LOL HOW could 'you' even get, what is called, 'your head around all this', when NONE of 'you', human beings, have been able to YET, in the days when this was being written? By the way, the so-called "experts" are NOT ANY help AT ALL in 'getting your heads around all this'. In fact, the "experts" will and have only CONFUSE 'things' MORE here.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

This isn't correct. Not everything is made of atoms (only baryonic matter is), and atoms aren't "made up of energy." Atoms possess energy as a property.

Nothing is "made up of" energy, energy is a property. It would be like saying a ruler is "made up of" length or a pillow is "made up of" softness, that would be the same kind of conceptual error. You will not find a clump of just energy anywhere in the universe, you will only find other things which possess energy as a property -- just like you won't find a clump of length anywhere in the universe, only things which possess length as a property.



This is also incorrect. The observer effect has nothing to do with consciousness, it has to do with the fact that it isn't possible to observe a system without affecting it somehow. For instance consider looking at something under an electron microscope. It would be like observing a car by pelting it with basketballs and then detecting how the basketballs deflect off the car to form the image of the car. Well, obviously pelting a car with basketballs is going to affect the system: the act of "looking" at the car affects it. That's what the observer effect is about, it has nothing to do with consciousness.



Entanglement isn't as easy as just having particles interact, it happens under particular circumstances that usually have to be deliberately brought about (which is why quantum computing is still so difficult). It isn't correct to say that entangled particles are "connected by energy," it is more that there is a superposition of states that gives you information about a partner once you know more information about the other. For instance, if I took an ace of spades and a queen of hearts and shuffled them and gave one of them to you without looking at mine, we have a sort of superposition of states going on. I could then travel to the other side of the Earth and look at my card (perhaps the queen of hearts) and instantly know that you have the ace of spades. That's all that entanglement is.

Nice explanation. I'm still trying to get my head around all this.

LOL HOW could 'you' even get, what is called, 'your head around all this', when NONE of 'you', human beings, have been able to YET, in the days when this was being written? By the way, the so-called "experts" are NOT ANY help AT ALL in 'getting your heads around all this'. In fact, the "experts" will and have only CONFUSE 'things' MORE here.

Bullshit. Not knowing everything there is to know about something doesn't automatically equate to 'knowing nothing' you fucking moron. Obviously some people have a greater level of understanding and the means to increase their understanding than others, after having spent years studying it.
Why do you have this obsessive need to argue about EVERYTHING?? My comment was to her, not you, so kindly butt your big, fat, hairy, contrary snout out of it unless you have something constructive and intelligent to say.

[Age]

Nice explanation. I'm still trying to get my head around all this.

LOL HOW could 'you' even get, what is called, 'your head around all this', when NONE of 'you', human beings, have been able to YET, in the days when this was being written? By the way, the so-called "experts" are NOT ANY help AT ALL in 'getting your heads around all this'. In fact, the "experts" will and have only CONFUSE 'things' MORE here.

Bullshit. Not knowing everything there is to know about something doesn't automatically equate to 'knowing nothing' you fucking moron.

WHO are you replying here to EXACTLY?

I NEVER even 'thought' ANY thing like this, let alone 'mentioned' NOR 'said' absolutely ANY thing like this.

Obviously some people have a greater level of understanding and the means to increase their understanding than others, after having spent years studying it.

OF COURSE SOME DO.

'you', human beings, can so-call 'study' absolutely ANY thing, for as long as 'you' like, like, for example, the Universe, Itself, BUT when the so-called "experts" of the 'study' can NOT even agree on what some words ACTUALLY MEAN or REFER TO, EXACTLY, then 'spending years' so-called 'studying' could end up have being for absolutely nothing more than just a complete 'waste of time'. That is; IF the so-called "experts" EVER get around on DECIDING and AGREEING UPON on what 'time', itself, ACTUALLY IS, EXACTLY, for example.

Why do you have this obsessive need to argue about EVERYTHING??

LOL

I was NOT 'arguing' ANY thing.

I JUST asked 'you' an OPEN and SIMPLE question in regards HOW, or WHY, would 'you' expect to 'get your head around' some 'thing', when the so-called "experts" have NOT YET even WORKED OUT HOW to just DEFINE that 'thing', let alone got 'their heads around that 'thing'.

A question ASKED is NOT necessarily 'an argument' AT ALL.

AND, my next two comments were NOT 'arguments' AT ALL, either, and, in fact, were JUST Facts that could NOT be REFUTED.

Now, I could say, 'Why do you have this obsessive need to blow EVERYTHING out of proportion??'

But, that would be just as ABSURD and as UNTRUTHFUL as what 'you' asked me here and CLAIMED was true.

So I will NOT. But, I WILL ask, WHY do 'you' MISCONSTRUE and TAKE OUT OF CONTEXT SO MUCH as 'you' DO in what I SAY and WRITE here?

My comment was to her, not you, so kindly butt your big, fat, hairy, contrary snout out of it unless you have something constructive and intelligent to say.

My question WAS TO 'you', "vegetariantaxidermy", personally. And, my two comments WERE to 'you', and "others".

So, kindly refrain from TELLING 'me' what TO DO or what NOT TO DO.

If 'you' were, and still ARE, just completely and utterly INCAPABLE to just answer a Truly OPEN and SIMPLE question, asked and posed for CLARITY, alone, then so be it.

But I WILL ask questions and make comments in a PUBLIC FORUM if, and when, I CHOOSE TO DO SO. I WILL make AS MANY as I like AS WELL.

Is this UNDERSTOOD by 'you'?

And, JUST MAYBE if 'you' read what I ACTUALLY WROTE, AGAIN, BEFORE 'you' JUMP to making ANY ASSUMPTIONS AT ALL, based on the very first three letters I USED, then JUST MAYBE 'you' WILL SEE 'things' completely DIFFERENTLY, this time.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

LOL HOW could 'you' even get, what is called, 'your head around all this', when NONE of 'you', human beings, have been able to YET, in the days when this was being written? By the way, the so-called "experts" are NOT ANY help AT ALL in 'getting your heads around all this'. In fact, the "experts" will and have only CONFUSE 'things' MORE here.

Bullshit. Not knowing everything there is to know about something doesn't automatically equate to 'knowing nothing' you fucking moron.

WHO are you replying here to EXACTLY?

I NEVER even 'thought' ANY thing like this, let alone 'mentioned' NOR 'said' absolutely ANY thing like this.

Obviously some people have a greater level of understanding and the means to increase their understanding than others, after having spent years studying it.

OF COURSE SOME DO.

'you', human beings, can so-call 'study' absolutely ANY thing, for as long as 'you' like, like, for example, the Universe, Itself, BUT when the so-called "experts" of the 'study' can NOT even agree on what some words ACTUALLY MEAN or REFER TO, EXACTLY, then 'spending years' so-called 'studying' could end up have being for absolutely nothing more than just a complete 'waste of time'. That is; IF the so-called "experts" EVER get around on DECIDING and AGREEING UPON on what 'time', itself, ACTUALLY IS, EXACTLY, for example.

Why do you have this obsessive need to argue about EVERYTHING??

LOL

I was NOT 'arguing' ANY thing.

I JUST asked 'you' an OPEN and SIMPLE question in regards HOW, or WHY, would 'you' expect to 'get your head around' some 'thing', when the so-called "experts" have NOT YET even WORKED OUT HOW to just DEFINE that 'thing', let alone got 'their heads around that 'thing'.

A question ASKED is NOT necessarily 'an argument' AT ALL.

AND, my next two comments were NOT 'arguments' AT ALL, either, and, in fact, were JUST Facts that could NOT be REFUTED.

Now, I could say, 'Why do you have this obsessive need to blow EVERYTHING out of proportion??'

But, that would be just as ABSURD and as UNTRUTHFUL as what 'you' asked me here and CLAIMED was true.

So I will NOT. But, I WILL ask, WHY do 'you' MISCONSTRUE and TAKE OUT OF CONTEXT SO MUCH as 'you' DO in what I SAY and WRITE here?

My comment was to her, not you, so kindly butt your big, fat, hairy, contrary snout out of it unless you have something constructive and intelligent to say.

My question WAS TO 'you', "vegetariantaxidermy", personally. And, my two comments WERE to 'you', and "others".

So, kindly refrain from TELLING 'me' what TO DO or what NOT TO DO.

If 'you' were, and still ARE, just completely and utterly INCAPABLE to just answer a Truly OPEN and SIMPLE question, asked and posed for CLARITY, alone, then so be it.

But I WILL ask questions and make comments in a PUBLIC FORUM if, and when, I CHOOSE TO DO SO. I WILL make AS MANY as I like AS WELL.

Is this UNDERSTOOD by 'you'?

And, JUST MAYBE if 'you' read what I ACTUALLY WROTE, AGAIN, BEFORE 'you' JUMP to making ANY ASSUMPTIONS AT ALL, based on the very first three letters I USED, then JUST MAYBE 'you' WILL SEE 'things' completely DIFFERENTLY, this time.

I suppose you are an early bot. Obsolete now and too moronic and obvious to be of any use.