The Paradox of Observation

[Harbal]

The more something is observed the more complex it becomes. The more complex it becomes the less sense it makes because not all of it can sensed. The deeper something is sensed the less it is sensed.

The more your threads are observed, the less sense they make.

That is the whole point. That is why they begin with "contradiction" or "paradox".

Then I must congratulate you on an excellent job.

[Dontaskme]

The observer is the zero distance from itself.

[Age]

1. You obviously didn't read the thread or if you did then you are to blind and deaf to comprehend and understand here.

What EXACTLY made you SAY and CLAIM 'this'? Or, do 'you' just like COPYING 'me'?

AND, what part/s of YOUR thread do you think or BELIEVE I am MISSING or MISUNDERSTANDING here?

Now, we AGAIN WAIT for YOUR ANSWER/S.

2. And what do you mean by "thing"?

In relation to which sentence, EXACTLY?

But I usually use the word 'thing' to mean an object, or subject, which I did not wish to give a specific name or names to.

What did you think I meant by 'thing'?

What do you mean by 'thing'?

3. And what is your proof that human beings need delivered if the universe 'just is'?

Did I say, 'need delivered'?

AND, BECAUSE the Universe and Life 'just IS', 'you', human beings, WILL BE DELIVERED. To WHERE I have been POINTING OUT TO and SHOWING THE WAY TO here also, I will add.

1. The first post.

Okay. If this is what you BELIEVE is true, the 'this' MUST BE TRUE, correct?

2. Does it matter?

'It' MIGHT.

3. If the universe "just is" delivery or no delivery just are and both can be accepted.

If you say so.

Is it REALLY that HARD and/or TO COMPLEX for you to just ANSWER the QUESTIONS posed and ASKED here?

[Age]

The observer is the zero distance from itself.

And, thee Observer IS at the DIRECT CENTER of ALL 'things'.

[Dontaskme]

The observer is the zero distance from itself.

And, thee Observer IS at the DIRECT CENTER of ALL 'things'.

The infinite /observer is a circle whose centre is everywhere and circumference nowhere. There is nothing outside of the circle.

[Age]

The observer is the zero distance from itself.

And, thee Observer IS at the DIRECT CENTER of ALL 'things'.

The infinite /observer is a circle whose centre is everywhere and circumference nowhere. There is nothing outside of the circle.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID, and MEANT.

[Iwannaplato]

2. If other people are not lacking sense then you are saying that there are people who know everything...which we know is not true. You contradict yourself.

Nope. I am saying that many people have and make sense. They are not completely lacking sense.

I am not sure why you don't just post gibberish. At the very least I hope you see the irony of trying to use deduction to show that nothing makes sense.

[Dontaskme]

And, thee Observer IS at the DIRECT CENTER of ALL 'things'.

The infinite /observer is a circle whose centre is everywhere and circumference nowhere. There is nothing outside of the circle.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID, and MEANT.

Not exactly what you said, but yes, maybe what you meant, but written/said differently.
It's different that's all, many different ways of saying the same thing. Just the one love in action dreaming difference where there is none.

Indeed, aware of being aware, is the paradox of observation/perception.

Good to see people like Eodnhoj7 pointing out the most paramount quintessential fundamental nature of reality, inducive to both individual and collective understanding as to the true nature of observation.

[Age]

The infinite /observer is a circle whose centre is everywhere and circumference nowhere. There is nothing outside of the circle.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID, and MEANT.

Not exactly what you said, but yes, maybe what you meant, but written/said differently.
It's different that's all, many different ways of saying the same thing. Just the one love in action dreaming difference where there is none.

Indeed, aware of being aware, is the paradox of observation/perception.

And, the word 'paradox' can mean, paradoxically, a statement that might first appear contradictory or absurd but which is actually expressing the truth.

Which, again paradoxically, is the EXACT OPPOSITE WAY of how some of 'you', human beings, USE 'that word'

Good to see people like Eodnhoj7 pointing out the most paramount quintessential fundamental nature of reality, inducive to both individual and collective understanding as to the true nature of observation.

[Dontaskme]

And, the word 'paradox' can mean, paradoxically, a statement that might first appear contradictory or absurd but which is actually expressing the truth.

Which, again paradoxically, is the EXACT OPPOSITE WAY of how some of 'you', human beings, USE 'that word'

The point of all meaning is to distinguish the self as the ''owner'' of meaning. It is you who ''splits reality up'' into distinctions and dualities.

[Age]

And, the word 'paradox' can mean, paradoxically, a statement that might first appear contradictory or absurd but which is actually expressing the truth.

Which, again paradoxically, is the EXACT OPPOSITE WAY of how some of 'you', human beings, USE 'that word'

The point of all meaning is to distinguish the self as the ''owner'' of meaning.

Since WHEN, and TO WHO?

I thought that it was ALREADY COMMONLY KNOWN that the 'Self' was the so-called 'owner' of meaning, and that even the 'illusioned self', is in one way or another the, again so-called, 'owner' of meaning.

It is you who ''splits reality up'' into distinctions and dualities.

And WHO, or WHAT, does the 'you' word here, written under the label "dontaskme" here, REFER TO, EXACTLY?

The word 'you' even implies "an other", which OBVIOUSLY there is NOT. So, what 'we' have IS AN example of just how 'you', human beings, 'TRY' SO HARD to 'split up' and 'separate' 'That', which IS NOT.

BUT 'we' WILL WAIT to SEE what the 'you' word REFERS TO, EXACTLY, FIRST.

[Dontaskme]

BUT 'we' WILL WAIT to SEE what the 'you' word REFERS TO, EXACTLY, FIRST.

Yeah ok.

[Age]

BUT 'we' WILL WAIT to SEE what the 'you' word REFERS TO, EXACTLY, FIRST.

Yeah ok.

Here we have ANOTHER example of how these human beings, back then, would SAY, WRITE, and USE 'words', BUT when just ASKED what some of those words ACTUALLY MEAN, or REFER TO, to 'them', 'we' are just left WONDERING.

[Dontaskme]

Here we have ANOTHER example of how these human beings, back then, would SAY, WRITE, and USE 'words', BUT when just ASKED what some of those words ACTUALLY MEAN, or REFER TO, to 'them', 'we' are just left WONDERING.

BUT 'we' WILL WAIT to SEE what the 'you' word REFERS TO, EXACTLY, FIRST.

The point of all meaning is to distinguish the self as the ''owner'' of meaning.

Your job is to make meaning meaningful to you. When you can make that true, then it all makes sense.

[Age]

Here we have ANOTHER example of how these human beings, back then, would SAY, WRITE, and USE 'words', BUT when just ASKED what some of those words ACTUALLY MEAN, or REFER TO, to 'them', 'we' are just left WONDERING.

BUT 'we' WILL WAIT to SEE what the 'you' word REFERS TO, EXACTLY, FIRST.

The point of all meaning is to distinguish the self as the ''owner'' of meaning.

Your job is to make meaning meaningful to you.

BUT there is NO, ACTUAL, 'you' NOR 'self'.

Absolutely NO one so-call 'makes meaning meaningful'.

'Words' come WITH 'meaning', which arises WITHIN the 'thoughts' and 'thinking' WITHIN human bodies.

When you can make that true, then it all makes sense.

ONCE AGAIN, what is the 'you' word here even REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?