All is energy / God is energy

[Lacewing]

The absolutely disgusting was for the purpose of transmitting absolute unfairness. This is what is meant by hoisting the unfair with their own petard. Since meaning gets lost in translation then overboard unfairness is necessary to make the point. That you perceived this unfairness in what you perceived is indication of my great skill in transmitting unfairness.

What you call the swami routine is My Shining Wisdom of fairness. Of course, fairness sounds different than unfairness, both in tone and content. Again, I'm the most fair you will encounter on PN.

You observed the starkness of the contrast between fairness and unfairness. Again, you cannot help but do that, because of the truth and my skill in communicating the truth, via the contrast.

Sooo... to summarize: It was more of your crap that you're justifying, all based on the skewed way that you think. Yep, got it!

Thus, I took your rhetorical question, which you admittedly intended as an insult as evidenced by your posting here and I turned it into objective gold, 24 karat.

No, you turned it into more of your crap that you think is gold (for some delusional reason). My question was not intended as an insult at all. It was a general question as to what any of us do with 'being'. Just because you inspire a question, doesn't mean it's all about you or aimed at you.

Now here's something specifically about you: You seem to do what a lot of people do in assigning what's fair and what's not as if your view of it is all that's valid. Then you justify your extreme response. And if other people get caught in the crossfire, too bad. If the world is filled with more insane stupid crap, too bad. You simply imagine yourself as golden, much as radical extremists do (especially the righteous soldiers of their own God). So, what are everyone else?

[Lacewing]

Age, I think she's yanking your chain and leading you on, so what you post is just whistlin' Dixie, spittin' into the wind, just jackin' your jaws for the exercise, just talking past each other.

I don't know what you're specifically responding to, but I can say this...

> I do not need Age to excessively ask me constant questions about (nor claim I'm wrong about) everything I say. I continually ask questions of myself, and I am free to post my ideas here like everyone else.

> I do not want to read through Age's excessively constant questions (and claims of being wrong) to everyone else, either.

> I don't care what Age excessively thinks is wrong.

I will not read or respond to Age's posts until he drops his excessive spammer routine towards others and starts explaining his own thoughtful ideas.

Until then, his posts are a noisy waste of energy.

[attofishpi]

Spot on Lacewing.

[Age]

Look "dontaskme", 'you' have made the claim; 'things' do NOT know.

I say, and CLAIM;

The 'human being' is a 'thing'.

The 'thing', 'human being', can and does know.

Therefore, there are some 'things', which can and do know, namely the 'thing', human being. Full stop.

Dontaskme wrote:
I'm asking you to clarify ...is the known thing known as 'human body' capable of knowing things....

To which Age answered...

NO.

I'm asking you to clarify ...is the known thing known as 'human body' capable of knowing things....

To which Age answered....

NO.

And yet Age says....

The 'human being' is a 'thing'.

The 'thing', 'human being', can and does know.

And HERE is IRREFUTABLE PROOF that the people, back in the days when this was being written, were, literally, NOT HEARING and SEEING the ACTUAL WORDS that I was SAYING, WRITING, and USING. Thus the reason WHY it took these human beings SO LONG to PROGRESS and MOVE FORWARD, TOWARDS living in Peace and in Harmony.

ONCE AGAIN, "dontaskme", I will suggest 'you' READ ONLY the ACTUAL WORDS that I USE, and REPLY to ONLY the ACTUAL WORDS that I USE. That way 'you' will NOT be SO Wrong, AS OFTEN as 'you' ARE.

Try it "dontaskme", just READ the ACTUAL WORDS I USED just in this one reply of YOURS, and SEE if 'you' can FIND WHERE and WHEN 'you' have, ONCE AGAIN, TURNED MY WORDS AROUND, USED YOUR OWN WORDS INSTEAD, BASED ON WHAT YOU ASSUMED I was saying, and meaning, and then SEE WHERE 'you' ARE MISTAKEN here.

THEN, let us KNOW how you go.

I am ALWAYS HERE to HELP 'you' if 'you' are STILL STUCK and/or CONFUSED.

[Age]

How do objects know things?

They do NOT.

Only SOME 'things', like 'human beings', know things. Understood?

Object and 'things', like 'trees', and 'brick walls', do NOT know things. Understood?

Since you are now claiming that the 'thing' like the 'thing' (human being) is the knower of things...

It IS GREAT to SEE when 'you' USE the ACTUAL WORDS that I SAY and USE here.

Then is this knower a tangible thing that can be pointed to as an actual physical object, and if not, then where exactly is this 'knower' that you claim is the 'thing' known as a human being actually located?

As I have been PREVIOUSLY CONTINUALLY STATING:

Human beings are made up of two parts; the visible part, which is just the physical body, which is what the 'human' word refers to, to me and, the invisible part, which is just the 'thoughts' and 'emotions' within the visible physical body, which is what the 'being' word refers to, to me.

The 'human' body part is OBVIOUSLY tangible as it can be 'touched', with another physical body part. The 'being' thought/emotion part is OBVIOUSLY NOT tangible, as it can NOT be 'touched', with another physical body part.

Now, to me, the word 'knower' refers to 'you', a 'person', or 'you', 'people', and as physical matter, itself, does NOT know things, then where, EXACTLY, is the 'knower', which is the 'thing' known as a 'human being', located IS WITHIN the human body existing as INVISIBLE 'thoughts'.

The, INVISIBLE, 'thoughts' located WITHIN a body is the 'knower', which is NOT tangible. (As I have been saying all along throughout this forum.)

Can you inform us the exact location of the 'knower' that is the known 'thing' known as a human being.

As I have just SAID the 'knower' is the INVISIBLE thoughts WITHIN a VISIBLE human body, of which BOTH make up the 'thing' KNOWN as the 'human being'.

Both the body (the human part) AND the thoughts (the being part) are NEEDED for A 'knower' to exist, that is; A 'person'. (Also, and by the way, this 'knower' is NOT to be CONFUSED with thee Knower, which is a whole OTHER 'matter', or 'Thing').

And can this knowing thing be touched like other objects can be touched?

As I have been CONTINUALLY INFORMING 'you', NO.

All you are saying Age is that the KNOWER is a THING known as the human being, without knowing the knowers exact location.

1. This is NOT ALL I have been saying.

2. The KNOWER or Knower is VERY DIFFERENT from the knower.

3. ONLY the 'knower' is a human being. The 'Knower' is A VERY DIFFERENT Thing.

4. I HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN the EXACT LOCATION of the 'knower', as well as thee 'Knower' ALSO, by the way. So, this CLAIM of 'yours' here is False, Wrong, AND Incorrect ONCE AGAIN.

You are just ASSUMING or believing that the 'thing' known as a human being is the KNOWER.

When one HAS IRREFUTABLE PROOF to back up and support A CLAIM, as I do here, then this is NOT ASSUMING. I ALSO neither BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE ANY thing. So, YOUR CLAIM here is, ONCE AGAIN, False, Wrong, AND Incorrect for THREE reasons. SEE, I HAVE ALSO NEVER EVER even THOUGHT, let alone ASSUMED, nor BELIEVED that the 'thing' known as a human being is the KNOWER.

To COMMUNICATE PROPERLY with 'Me' "dontaskme" 'you' REALLY do NOT to READ and FOLLOW the EXACT WAY I WRITE and USE WORDS here.

I SAY the 'thing' known as a 'human being' is the 'knower' here, which, AGAIN, is VERY DIFFERENT from who and what the 'Thing', 'Knower' (or KNOWER) IS.

You cannot prove that....

'you' ONLY ASSUME or BELIEVE I can NOT prove 'that'. Or, do 'you' ALREADY have IRREFUTABLE PROOF that I could NEVER EVER prove 'that'?

If yes, then WHERE and WHAT IS that IRREFUTABLE PROOF, EXACTLY?

your conditioning has told you something you cannot prove to be true.

And 'you' base this CLAIM of 'yours' here on WHAT, EXACTLY?

If it is true then point to the exact location of the 'THING' ...YOU CLAIM TO BE THE KNOWER?

But 'you' have ONLY been previously asking for the EXACT LOCATION of the 'thing', 'knower', which I have ALREADY SUPPLIED.

Now, if 'you' WANT me to provide 'you' with the EXACT LOCATION of the 'THING', 'KNOWER', which is AGAIN DIFFERENT, then, by now, hopefully, 'you' ALREADY KNOW what is NEEDED for that.

If you are going to make such a claim as knowing things can know things...then prove it, by telling us where this 'thing' that knows...

I ALREADY HAVE.

ALSO, I suggest if 'you' ASK for some 'thing' in A REPLY, then it is MORE WISE to WAIT, PATIENTLY, for THAT REPLY to be READ, and RESPONDED TO, BEFORE 'you' KEEP INSISTING on the EXACT SAME 'thing' in the EXACT SAME REPLY. It does NOT make SENSE to DEMAND some 'thing' that has NOT EVEN BEEN HEARD NOR READ YET.

is actually located in the physical thing known as a human being...the 'thing' you claim knows, therefore must be a knower.

REPEATING, and DEMANDING, the EXACT SAME 'thing', in the EXACT SAME 'thread', will NOT and does NOT help 'you'.

Truth is you cannot locate 'the knower' as a known physical object/thing.... can you?

I NEVER SAID I COULD.

Also, NOTICED, ONCE MORE, 'you' ATTEMPTING to CHANGE and TURN AROUND the ACTUAL WORDS that I SAY, WRITE, and USE here into WORDS of 'your' OWN MAKING, which, OBVIOUSLY and LOGICALLY, could NOT BE TRUE, ANYWAY, and then 'TRYING TO' USE those WORDS OF YOURS AGAINST 'Me'.

But, just to REMIND 'you' this WILL NEVER WORK.

AGAIN, I suggest 'you' LOOK AT and USE the ACTUAL WORDS that I USE, and, ONLY, LOOK AT and USE the WORDS that I ACTUALLY USE.

USING 'your' OWN WORDS in regards to what I SAY and CLAIM here WILL ONLY CONFUSE 'things' here, FURTHER for 'you'.

All you can say is that 'the knower' is a 'thing'. But you cannot point to this 'thing'...and tell yourself this thing is the knower.

But I have ALREADY POINTED TO, and POINTED OUT, this 'thing', FOR 'you', "dontaskme", and FOR "others" of 'you', human beings.

The knower is just an idea/thought which also cannot be seen as a physical tangible object that can be touched.

EXACTLY. 'you' have FINALLY GOT 'it' "dontaskme". The 'knower', which I have been TALKING ABOUT and REFERRING to here is, literally, just the 'thoughts' WITHIN a human body. That is; namely 'you', the 'person', WITHIN.

Only SOME 'things', like 'human beings', know things. Understood?

This comment is a FLAWED BELIEF.[/quote]

But just SAYING and CLAIMING that, 'This comment is a FLAWED BELIEF', WITHOUT absolutely ANY thing AT ALL to back up and support this CLAIM IS REALLY SAYING and CLAIMING absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.

Do 'you' have absolutely ANY thing to back up and support this CLAIM and BELIEF of 'yours' here "dontaskme"?

If yes, then WILL 'you' PROVIDE it?

if no, then WHY NOT?

If you have an argument opposed to this flawed belief that disproves it or refutes it...then lets hear it.

I have PROVIDED the PROOF for 'my' CLAIM. ALSO, as it STANDS what I CLAIMED is just IRREFUTABLE ANYWAY. SEE, ANY time ANY one of 'you', human beings, just 'TRIED TO' REFUTE the Fact that 'you', human beings, can NOT KNOW 'things', then 'you' will self-refute the CLAIM that I made.

Now, here it is 'you', "dontaskme", who has made the CLAIM that my comment is a FLAWED BELIEF, so now it is up to 'you' to back up and support 'it'. That is; IF 'you' CAN.

Prove that a 'thing' can know things.

Is a 'human being' a 'thing'?

If yes, then can 'you', a human being know things?

If yes, then 'I', through 'you', have just PROVED that a 'thing' can know things.

However, if 'you', a human being wants to know claim that either a 'human being' is NOT a 'thing' and/or that the 'thing' human being can NOT know things, then 'you' would just be CONTRADICTING "your" OWN 'self', which, ULTIMATELY, MEANS that what I have SAID and CLAIMED here is PROVED True. AGAIN, by 'you'.

So, AGAIN, THANK 'you', "dontaskme", for HELPING 'Me' PROVE ABSOLUTELY True what 'I' have been SAYING and CLAIMING here.

[Age]

Age, I think she's yanking your chain and leading you on, so what you post is just whistlin' Dixie, spittin' into the wind, just jackin' your jaws for the exercise, just talking past each other.

I don't know what you're specifically responding to, but I can say this...

> I do not need Age to excessively ask me constant questions about (nor claim I'm wrong about) everything I say.

The VIEWS of the DISTORTED.

LOL Questioning EVERY thing 'you' say, or claiming that EVERY thing 'you' say is wrong.

This could NOT be a MORE False, Wrong, and Incorrect view of things if they wanted it to be.

I ONLY question what I THINK is wrong, and claim what is wrong when I KNOW 'it' is Wrong. Which, for "lacewing" is VERY LITTLE compared to some "others" here, in this forum.

BUT, BECAUSE "lacewing" has CHOSEN to NOT LISTEN, then "lacewing" will MISS OUT on LEARNING, UNDERSTANDING, and coming to KNOW ANOTHER Fact, which I have SHARED.

I continually ask questions of myself, and I am free to post my ideas here like everyone else.

LOL 'continually'. This is OBVIOUSLY NOT True, and even if it WAS, then asking questions WITH and TO a VERY DISTORTED WAY of VIEWING and SEEING 'things' is NEVER going to be of much USE nor HELP, ANYWAY.

And, as for being 'free' to post 'your' ideas, then WHY get SO ANNOYED when what IS Wrong in or with 'your' ideas is just POINTED OUT and/or QUESTIONED? Are "others" NOT 'free' to DO THIS?

Also, the Fact that 'you' are ABSOLUTELY FREE to do ABSOLUTELY ANY thing MEANS there is NO REAL USE in TELLING 'us' that 'you' are 'free' to post 'your' ideas. OBVIOUSLY 'you' ARE.

> I do not want to read through Age's excessively constant questions (and claims of being wrong) to everyone else, either.

Do 'we' REALLY care what 'you' do NOT want to do here?

> I don't care what Age excessively thinks is wrong.

Do 'you' think 'we' care what 'you' excessively think is right or wrong either?

I will not read or respond to Age's posts until he drops his excessive spammer routine towards others and starts explaining his own thoughtful ideas.

BUT, if 'you', supposedly, NEVER read 'my' posts AGAIN, then HOW will 'you' EVER KNOW if 'i' have DROPPED or NOT DROPPED what 'you' CLAIM 'i' do here?

Until then, his posts are a noisy waste of energy.

So, NO MATTER what I SAY and WRITE here, they will ALWAYS be just a 'noisy waste of energy' to "lacewing".

Also, WHY does this one WRITE so much ABOUT 'me'?

Could this, itself, be considered by some to be just a 'noisy waste of energy', especially considering the Fact that this one, supposedly, will NEVER read NOR respond to absolutely ANY of my posts, that is; UNTIL I do some 'thing', which it could NEVER KNOW of ANYWAY?

WRITING and SAYING 'this' could be interpreted as a COMPLETE 'waste of energy'. But we will just have to WAIT, to SEE.

[Age]

Spot on Lacewing.

When, and if, this thread is LOOKED OVER (again) I wonder if 'more energy' was spent talking ABOUT 'me', then talking ABOUT the topic title: 'All is energy / God is energy'?

[attofishpi]

Spot on Lacewing.

When, and if, this thread is LOOKED OVER (again) I wonder if 'more energy' was spent talking ABOUT 'me', then talking ABOUT the topic title: 'All is energy / God is energy'?

Well then, get a hobby or an actual life and stop spending all your time talking shite and ruining peoples threads.

[Age]

Spot on Lacewing.

When, and if, this thread is LOOKED OVER (again) I wonder if 'more energy' was spent talking ABOUT 'me', then talking ABOUT the topic title: 'All is energy / God is energy'?

Well then, get a hobby or an actual life and stop spending all your time talking shite and ruining peoples threads.

POINT OUT WHERE I have, SUPPOSEDLY, talked "shite", and then we CAN LOOK and SEE if 'it' ACTUALLY IS, or NOT.

Do NOT just SAY, 'you talk shite' WITHOUT PROVING 'it'. Otherwise, I could, JUST AS EASILY and SIMPLY, also say, to 'you', for 'you' to 'get a hobby or an actual life and stop spending all of your time talking shite and ruining people threads', AS WELL.

As for 'ruining people's threads', do I, REALLY, have that much POWER of 'you' and 'your' threads?

Furthermore, some would say that talking ABOUT "another" and NOT talking ABOUT the topic title is ACTUALLY ruins the thread.

I was just QUESTIONING and CHALLENGING the CLAIMS made in relation to the topic title. So, ONCE MORE, I suggest that one has ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth BEFORE they come into this forum SAYING and CLAIMING 'things'. Otherwise, EXPECT to being QUESTIONED and/or CHALLENGED.

[Walker]

Now here's something specifically about you: You seem to do what a lot of people do in assigning what's fair and what's not as if your view of it is all that's valid. Then you justify your extreme response. And if other people get caught in the crossfire, too bad. If the world is filled with more insane stupid crap, too bad. You simply imagine yourself as golden, much as radical extremists do (especially the righteous soldiers of their own God). So, what are everyone else?

Gosh, that sounds like such an unfair thing to do, but appropriate in an unfair place where what one says is called
crap ...

[Walker]

Spot on Lacewing.

Actually, it's crap.

[Walker]

Furthermore, some would say that talking ABOUT "another" and NOT talking ABOUT the topic title is ACTUALLY ruins the thread.

You're absolutely right about that, Age.

Now, let's see if your declaration will have any effect, and cause a change that will take the thread higher, to a discussion of principles, which should be de rigueur for a philosophy thread.

Otherwise, it's just a gossip thread, or perhaps an airing of grievances.

Do you have any deductions about the probability of that change happening, reduced to a percentage of 100?

[Lacewing]

Furthermore, some would say that talking ABOUT "another" and NOT talking ABOUT the topic title is ACTUALLY ruins the thread.

You're absolutely right about that, Age.

That's funny, Age, since you rarely talk about the topics -- rather you claim what people are believing and you tell them how wrong they are. So go ahead... see if you can talk about topics without talking ABOUT "another".

[Walker]

Furthermore, some would say that talking ABOUT "another" and NOT talking ABOUT the topic title is ACTUALLY ruins the thread.

You're absolutely right about that, Age.

That's funny, Age, since you rarely talk about the topics -- rather you claim what people are believing and you tell them how wrong they are. So go ahead... see if you can talk about topics without talking ABOUT "another".

The onus is on you, 'cause you just had to gossip.

[Lacewing]

That's funny, Age, since you rarely talk about the topics -- rather you claim what people are believing and you tell them how wrong they are. So go ahead... see if you can talk about topics without talking ABOUT "another".

The onus is on you, 'cause you just had to gossip.

Well, let's see, I started the topic and I have talked about it repeatedly.

Are you going to contribute anything else?