5G

[Age]

This is a philosophy forum which centers around finding or exposing Truth through logical reasoning which is done
through faceless anonymous discussions so is NOT a place usually held for the so called natural rhythm of conversations

A conversation is where two or more people converse and this is entirely possible regardless of the subject matter in question

But we were NOT talking about just 'A conversation', we WERE talking about the so called "natural rhythm" a conversation "should ideally have".

Now if you want to have 'A conversation' with the "natural rhythm" a conversation "should" "ideally" have, then there is some pretty strong words in there that NEED to be addressed FIRST, IF the "natural rhythm" of conversation is to take place.

1. I NEED to KNOW WHY the "should" word is here. "Should" is related to some thing specific, which I do NOT have knowledge of.
2. The word "ideally" like the word "should" are very relative words, of which BOTH of them are ONLY relative to you ONLY, of which I have absolutely NO idea what that "ideal" "should" be.

Also, what happens in YOUR "ideal" conversation, which "should" have a "natural rhythm" when, for example, 'you' or 'I' say some thing that the "other" KNOWS is absolutely Wrong, False, or Incorrect?

How does YOUR "ideal" "natural rhythm" of conversation proceed here now?

So one can be as philosophical as they like and still have a conversation because they are not mutually incompatible positions

But MY view of the word 'philosophical' is completely NOT aligned with or to YOUR view of the word 'philosophical' here, so the following 'conversation' will NATURALLY NOT be in "rhythm", with each "other", from the very outset. So, what do we do now?

Also, once again, it was NEVER about just A conversation, that is; Until you turned this (conversation) into being just about 'A conversation', and NOT about the "natural rhythm a conversation should ideally have", which is what YOU started out talking about.

Obviously two people can have A conversation, no matter what position they have. Just how well A conversation goes will be SEEN.

And, did you mean the 'compatible' word, instead of the 'incompatible' word? Or, am I asking "too many" clarifying questions here now?

[surreptitious57]

No one has access to the thoughts within another body
So clarification is not guaranteed with absolute certainty

The premise I agree with but how that logically leads to the conclusion I have absolutely NO idea [ now ]

If however this was proposed as

No one has access to the thoughts within another body
All adult human beings can not be trusted to tell the whole truth
So clarification of what the actual True thoughts within another body is not guaranteed with absolute certainty

Then that follows perfectly logically to me

Obviously that was what I meant which is why I did not have to provide a full explanation
And since you were able to determine this then there was no need for such an explanation

[surreptitious57]

what happens in YOUR ideal conversation which should have a natural rhythm when for example
you or I say some thing that the other KNOWS is absolutely Wrong False or Incorrect [ now ]

How does YOUR ideal natural rhythm of conversation proceed here now

A conversation carries on for as long as those participating in it actually want it to
This is so obvious that it does not require explanation so why even ask the question

[Age]

I KNOW there is a very fine line between NOT stepping over from what is already understood and accepted ways of talking and knowledge
and to going too far too quickly expressing new ideas and end up LOOKING like the weirdo and / or downright dick that I am LOOKING like
now in this forum when this is being written

Express all the new ideas you have regardless of what anyone thinks about you here

But this forum is NOT big enough to express ALL the new ideas.

This forum does NOT even appear big enough to just express the one idea that there is only One Mind, which is ALWAYS Truly OPEN, and to discuss just this very simple and easy to understand idea, without being ridiculed and/or dismissed BEFORE a Truly OPEN discussion takes place. And, since I am NOT challenged and NOT questioned about it for clarity, the idea goes nowhere.

And unless you actually do worry about how others see you then there is no problem

'I', thee True Self, certainly do NOT worry about absolutely any thing at all, But 'i', the human self, where ideas come through do worry, because whatever is written can be so easily taken out of context and used against what is actually be said. i certainly do NOT want to write absolutely any thing, which could be misinterpreted, misunderstood, mistaken, and/or taken out of context at all, but inevitably i do.

Human beings have learned how to be devious, and have become absolute experts at deceiving and deception, that they are now so good at it that they are NOT even unaware that they actual are doing it, let alone aware that they are actually deceiving themselves.

Can you give an example of a new idea that would make you look like a weirdo

I do NOT have to give an example of a new idea, just look at how any one here, in this forum, is treated and called whenever they say some thing that just appears to be a new idea or an idea that is NOT agreed with or accepted.

Are there actually any new ideas, or have they ALL already been thought of and discussed previously?

If it is the latter, then I can not provide any examples. If it is the former, then they might not be new, to you.

I merely ask this as I do not remember you ever expressing any such idea at all

Oh well this just answered that question.

So, I will replace the word 'new' in what I previously wrote with nothing at all.

What about the idea of studying 'thoughts' instead of studying the 'brain', that is; If 'you' Truly want to KNOW who you Truly ARE, and thus be able to finally Answer the question, Who am 'I'? properly and correctly, once and for ALL?

What does that idea make one look like?

Or, what about the idea that 'I' am God, and 'you' are NOT. What would 'you' think of that 'person' who said that to 'you'?

Also, what do 'you' think "others" would think about the one who said that?

[Age]

would it be far less use of mental energy to just write thee Truth of things I do not know instead of all the other things written

Yes it would but have I not already said many times here that I know very little or even nothing at all and do you not know this

You say this whenever you feel trapped or whenever you just want to. Yes I KNOW you have said this a number of times, but just as OBVIOUS is the FACT that I do NOT know ALL of what you KNOW and do NOT know. Therefore, KNOWING that you KNOW very little or even nothing at all, will NEVER answer the clarifying question I pose to you. The only way I can KNOW those answers comes DIRECTLY FROM 'you'.

You very rarely, if EVER, have have just said; "I do not know", when answering my clarifying questions. If you DID, then I would then BETTER KNOW how to proceed in the "natural rhythm" of conversation.

[Age]

No one has access to the thoughts within another body
So clarification is not guaranteed with absolute certainty

The premise I agree with but how that logically leads to the conclusion I have absolutely NO idea [ now ]

If however this was proposed as

No one has access to the thoughts within another body
All adult human beings can not be trusted to tell the whole truth
So clarification of what the actual True thoughts within another body is not guaranteed with absolute certainty

Then that follows perfectly logically to me

Obviously that was what I meant which is why I did not have to provide a full explanation
And since you were able to determine this then there was no need for such an explanation

WHY do 'you' write things down, and quote it to me, when it is OBVIOUS that they were NOT my WORDS at all?

Because 'you' have just ADMITTED that you can NOT be trusted to tell the truth, then what you have said here could just be LIES.

Also, if I can EXPRESS and EXPLAIN what 'you' OBVIOUSLY meant, without you EVER actually being able to EXPRESS what 'you', "yourself", meant, then I will just take this as I ALREADY KNOW, what it is that 'you' meaning in what 'you' are still just 'trying to' express.

This acknowledgement backs up and supports what I have been saying all along.

[Age]

what happens in YOUR ideal conversation which should have a natural rhythm when for example
you or I say some thing that the other KNOWS is absolutely Wrong False or Incorrect [ now ]

How does YOUR ideal natural rhythm of conversation proceed here now

A conversation carries on for as long as those participating in it actually want it to
This is so obvious that it does not require explanation so why even ask the question

Because I used to have NO idea about what 'you' BELIEVE was the IDEAL "natural rhythm" of a conversation, which SHOULD take place.

I also OBVIOUSLY ALREADY KNEW what you wrote, but what you wrote did NOT address the actual two clarifying questions posed to you AT ALL. Also, OBVIOUSLY there is NO need to explain what was OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUS. So, OBVIOUSLY my questions were NOT in relation to what you have OBVIOUSLY, once again, MISTAKEN and MISUNDERSTOOD, COMPLETELY.

OBVIOUSLY, my questions were NOT in relation to HOW long a conversation carries on for. My questions were OBVIOUSLY in relation to what I actually ASKED, which can be CLEARLY EVIDENCED and CLEARLY PROVEN in the actual WORDS that I USED.

By the way, WHY, SINCE my last post, which was directly on topic in relation to this thread topic of 5G, you immediately went OFF TOPIC for five consecutive posts, and said absolutely NOTHING on topic?

I have, out of respect, replied to your posts, but even OUR continued discussion since then has NOT gone anywhere near back ON TOPIC. Is this ALL completely MY FAULT as well?

[surreptitious57]

What about the idea of studying thoughts instead of studying the brain that is If you Truly want to KNOW who
you Truly ARE and thus be able to finally Answer the question Who am I ? properly and correctly once and for ALL ?

What does that idea make one look like ?

Or what about the idea that I am God and you are NOT ?

Also what do you think others would think about the one who said that ?

Neither of those ideas is remotely weird so would you like to have another go at answering the question
What others think of you is not relevant here as I am only referencing the question from my perspective
So can you therefore name just one idea that you have that would make me think that you were a weirdo

[Age]

What about the idea of studying thoughts instead of studying the brain that is If you Truly want to KNOW who
you Truly ARE and thus be able to finally Answer the question Who am I ? properly and correctly once and for ALL ?

What does that idea make one look like ?

Or what about the idea that I am God and you are NOT ?

Also what do you think others would think about the one who said that ?

Neither of those ideas is remotely weird so would you like to have another go at answering the question

Just because some thing is not weird to you, that obviously does not mean that it is not weird to "others".

And, what happens if we finally arrive at an idea that looks weird to you?

What others think of you is not relevant here as I am only referencing the question from my perspective

Well how about we do this in a much quicker, simpler, and easier way, and you tell me what ideas are weird to you, from your perspective?

Also if you had made it clear in the question that you were referencing the question from your perspective only, then this would it much easier and simpler for me to understand better what you were seeking and looking for.

So can you therefore name just one idea that you have that would make me think that you were a weirdo

I have absolutely no idea if I can or not. As I just pointed out, it would be much better if you were Honest and you just told me if I can or not. After all you are the one that Truly KNOWS.

If the idea that 'I am God and you are not', is not weird to you, then I do not know what idea would make you think that I am a weirdo.

Obviously, if you do not think that God is a weirdo, then everything else I say would probably not appear weird to you also.