Understanding the religious mindset

[Age]

I can only give you my -- a deist's -- view.

I won't talk about, or defend, or criticize, the theistic perspective (or dissect your monistic view).

You still wanna hear what I think?

Sure.

First, discreteness seems evident. Reality is not homogenous. I am not the Ipad I type on, the coffee I drink, or the chair I sit on. You, Lace, are a distinct other. Separateness and identity appear to natural and normal.

Separateness OBVIOUSLY 'appears' to brains, and identity OBVIOUSLY 'appears' to human brains.

And matter forms into various different shapes (and forms). However, thee Universe, Itself, is NOT ACTUALLY disconnected NOR separated.

It is just matter, which is able to move about FREELY, which is what comes together to form different shapes, which is what creates the 'appearance' of separateness, which only then becomes a "separate identity" because of the 'thought' and 'thinking' within a human body.

These 'identified things' are only "separated" by 'space', or a 'distance' of 'space', but this 'space' is just part of thee Universe like 'matter' is. The two together is what causes ALL apparent "things" to be 'conceived' and 'conceived of'.

Being able to 'separate' thee One into 'conceived' "separate things" and to then make different/separate 'identities' is just the ability of the human brain, through thought and thinking, and it is this ability of the human brain, which is what was needed for thee Universe to work out, comprehend, and understand HOW to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?', properly AND correctly, and thus also HOW to come to KNOW Thy Self

Second: if one takes the notion that sumthin' purposeful undergirds Reality, it's probable this sumthin' is a person in its own right. If there is no such undergirdin' to Reality, we're left with the mystery of complexity and individual self-awareness. Even assuming a kind of unintelligent universal vitalism (purpose without a intention) solves nuthin' (why should Reality, an entropic event, allow for anti-entropy?).

WHERE is this WRONG ASSUMPTION that thee Universe's Existence is an "entropic event" coming from, EXACTLY?

Or, better still WHERE is the ACTUAL PROOF that thee Universe's Existence is an "entropic event"?

Thee Universe is just an eternal AND infinite process, consisting of OPPOSITES but while existing IN EQUILIBRIUM.

The purpose of ALL "things" in Life, including Life, Itself, is VERY EASY and VERY SIMPLY able to discover, or learn, understand, and KNOW.

Third, there are certain universals among men, no matter their culture. Chief among these universal (or perhaps foundational to them) is the intuition that one belongs to himself.

Even the word 'himself' implies two different and separate "things".

So, what EXACTLY IS 'one's self'?

That he is his and it's natural and normal for him to be his. In a Reality without purpose, or in one where purpose is unintelligent, why do all men see themselves this way?

WHY do you PERSIST with the VERY OLD usage of the word "men" to refer to human beings, themselves? Are you STILL under the DELUSION that "men" are somehow BETTER or MORE SUPERIOR than "women" are?

If no, then WHY NOT evolve and start using words MORE THOUGHTFULLY and FAR MORE CORRECTLY as well?

But if you STILL REALLY think or BELIEVE that "men" are BETTER or MORE SUPERIOR to "women", then just continue on with your VERY OUTDATED usage of words.

Also, NOT ALL human beings see "them self"to be "theirs" "alone". This is just a relative new phenomena in human evolution, and it is only a phenomena among 'you', older human beings, as well.

OF COURSE human beings do NOT want to be TOLD what to do, and TOLD what is Right and what is Wrong, unless of course one has been brought up the Wrong way, but the reason human beings do NOT like this is because they instinctively KNOW what is Right and Wrong, and thus instinctively KNOW what the Right thing to do is, and this is EXACTLY WHY each is "their own", as some say. But just as CORRECT is the FACT that human beings NEED "each other".

So, to claim "he" is "his" as though "it" could exist WHOLLY INDEPENDENTLY is Incorrect. And, to claim "it is "natural" and "normal" for "him" to be "his", is just an ATTEMPT to 'try to' "justify" that your claim is actually true, right, and correct. Adding the words "normal" and "natural" into a sentence does NOT automatically mean that the claim is then ACTUALLY "normal" or "natural" AT ALL.

For example, 'try' and live in an indigenous culture where the people's lived WITH the earth, and NOT in the culture that you are used to where the peoples live TAKING FROM the earth, and see just how long you would survive, and live, for, with the "you" are "yours" attitude.

And, if thee Truth be KNOWN, those cultures LIVED, and were, far MORE 'natural' AND 'normal', in relation to Life, living, and the earth itself, than the present cultures, in the days when this is being written, which uses forums like this to share knowledge and understandings with.

Of course one human being can LIVE ALONE, from a particular age, but what would be the purpose, or use, of that? If one can NOT share their experiences with "another", then is there ANY purpose to being alive, or living, in the first place, AT ALL?

And if this has NOT YET been recognized or known; " The 'he' is 'his' ", or " for 'him' to be 'his', or even the "himself" " terms and phrase are actually two words with two different identities. They are NOT one and the SAME 'thing'. So, to 'try to' say or claim A single 'thing' is 'its' 'own', (besides thee Universe, Itself), will never work. Each one of 'things' ONLY exist because of, and in relation to, "other" "things".

A "man" or A 'human being' is ONLY "its" "own" if that one IMAGINES 'it' is. 'It' is NOT "its" "own" in ANY sense in relation to the Universe, Itself, nor to thee ACTUAL Truth of things, except in how I described above where A human being does NOT 'need' to be TOLD what to do NOR what IS Right and Wrong.

So, for the deist (this one, anyway), it's not ego claiming separateness; it's what is plain and apparent that leads to recognition of separateness, between persons (between me and you, between you and me and the Creator).

There may be a perceived sense of separateness between the 'you' and the 'me', and even between the 'me' and the Creator, but there is ABSOLUTELY NO separateness AT ALL between thee 'I' and thee Creator. That is; once who and what 'I' am is UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN.

(this is a quick & dirty answer, cuz I'm time-pressed)

[Age]

...

You appear to currently be obsessing over all of my posts... like a manic person with mental issues. I'm not interested in reading what you think. You're a very noisy person. Good luck to you.

Same here. If it was someone else, I'd say he/she is having a breakdown, but Age often writes like this.

LOL ALL of my posts.

[henry quirk]

If there is no purpose: all that's left is chance.

Does this idea of "purpose" have to be long-term, or can it be moment-to-moment?

Whims are moment-to-moment. Does your creative force seem whimsical? If so, why is Reality dynamic but stable? For nearly 5 billion years, roughly about a third of the universe's lifespan, Sol, for example has quite reliably fused. It, Sol may be the result of blind chance or design (purpose) but there's nuthin' whimsical about it, nuthin' moment-to-moment about it. And Sol is typical.

Even those mad stellar mayflies, pulsars, gyrate for 100 million years before dying.

Reality, as you say, is dominated by immense cycles and rhythms and interactions that we do not understand. These may be blind chance or design, but none are moment-to moment.

-----

Sumthin' I wrote for another place as part of a discussion on free will...it was a freewheelin' back & forth...what follows isn't exactly on topic, but is germane, I think...

We estimate the diameter of the known universe to be 93 billion light years.

A big place.

We estimate that only 4% of what comprises the universe is matter (and most of that is hydrogen in one state or another).

We infer the existence of what we call dark matter/energy. We can’t measure it but we need it to be so that our math works out.

Mostly though, the universe is empty, a big nuthin’.

So: right off the bat, on the largest scale, we’ve established a specialness for ourselves. We’re rare cuz we’re matter. And we didn’t have to consult our feelings to do it.

As I say: most of that rare thing (matter) is hydrogen in various states. Organized matter gets cooked up in the heart of stars and is rarer still. Carbon, iron, oxygen, etc all far rarer than rare hydrogen. In fact complex or organized matter is so rare that it makes hydrogen look commonplace.

See? Specialness without feelings.

But we’re not done...

Space is vast. Even in our little, on-the-edge-of-the-galaxy, Sol system distances are *ahem* astronomical. Because of these vast distances, the truly incomprehensible scale, we may never know how much rare organized and complex matter has become rarer still by becoming alive. What we can infer, however, if the Sol system is representative, is living matter is rarer still, rarer than non-living organized matter, rarer than that ubiquitous hydrogen (that, again, makes up the bulk of all matter throughout the universe).

Only here, on our little mud ball, is living matter apparent, and then pretty much only on the surface. The bulk of matter associated with Earth, that is Earth, is organized, complex, but lifeless.

So: without resorting to ego, we can see our specialness is even more profound.

Can we go further?

Damn straight we can.

Interspersed among all the living matter (a very rare commodity) is sumthin’ even rarer still: self-aware matter, recursive matter, intending matter, purposeful matter, reasoning matter, matter that laughs, matter that imagines.

How marvelous!

Even more so cuz all this self-aware, recursive, intending, purposeful, reasoning, laughing, imagining matter comes in discrete parcels independent of other discrete parcels of self-aware, recursive, intending, purposeful, reasoning, laughing, imagining matter. Each parcel very much like the others but simultaneously so very different from all the other parcels.

Lord, we’re talkin’ about a level of specialosity that's mind blowing! Surely I can go no further?

Hold on to your hat...

In a universe 93 billion light years across, mostly empty but for a smattering of matter (most of which is just electrons doin’ the tango with protons); in this vast empty place where organized matter is so rare as to make hydrogen ho-hum; in this Reality where living matter - insofar as we know - even rarer still, has spread out over the surface of one little dynamic rock and has given rise to remarkable self-directing, self-aware matter; in the midst of all this escalating specialness, two discrete parcels of matter are stalemated on the essential nature of the individual.

No matter the scale: we are special. Even more so: each of us is special. In this big old, mostly empty, universe, there’s only one of each of us (so much the same, so much not the same).

There’s your ‘magic’, plain as the nose on your face, and that there is fact, not feeling.

[Age]

CLAIMING things like: you appear to currently be obsessing over ALL of my posts. Which could ONLY be Truly ASCERTAINED by READING all of my posts.

Are you really not aware that obvious things can be noticed without reading through them?

How do I answer this with a yes or a no, without being CONTRADICTORY?

Also are you REALLY NOT YET AWARE that you could just write EXACTLY in relation to what is OBVIOUSLY, and ONLY, thee ACTUAL Truth of things, without adding ANY thing else to 'That'?

Furthermore, if you did, then you would be a LOT CLOSER to RECOGNIZING and SEEING thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

I can easily see that you are quoting me, with your typical capitalized words in your typical volumes of Kentext that are typically full of dumbass accusations because you misconstrue so much about what people are saying or thinking.

And, unlike you, I can and will BACK UP and SUPPORT my ACCUSATIONS.

Also, if as you CLAIM I MISCONSTRUE ANY, or SO MUCH, about what 'PEOPLE' are saying or thinking, then INSTEAD of just MAKING the ACCUSATION and CLAIM, I suggest ACTUALLY BACKING UP and SUPPORTING those ACCUSATIONS and CLAIMS with ACTUAL PROOF.

Just list ANY or ALL times I have MISCONSTRUED just 'you', "lacewing", WITHOUT worrying about ALL the other times with ALL the "other" PEOPLE, for now.

Your repetition is obvious without reading through it. (Maybe you don't understand the skill of skimming.)

And your repetition is VERY OBVIOUS, as well.

Also, 'skimming' ALLOWS FAR MORE MISSING and MORE MISUNDERSTANDING. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN above, by those that 'skim'.

you will NOT PROVIDE ANSWERS to CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, posed to 'you', by 'me'.

That's because your claims and questions are continually based on your misunderstandings and things you misconstrue.

And HOW EXACTLY did you ASCERTAIN this ABSOLUTE and CERTAIN knowledge if you did NOT obtain CLARITY FIRST. Which, by the way, is BEST DONE through Truly OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTIONING, if you were STILL UNAWARE.

Trying to clarify anything for you requires too much explanation (that would usually be unnecessary with other people), then all of that effort simply results in more of your claims and questions based on what you continue to misunderstand and misconstrue.

If this is what you have ALREADY ASCERTAINED and thus are now ASSUMING or BELIEVING is ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY TRUE, then so be it.

I do NOT care. And you OBVIOUSLY have NO INTENTION of becoming ANY WISER as well.

It's hilarious that you boast about how much you know and can prove, when you obviously misunderstand and lack awareness of many basic understandings.

WILL you PROVIDE ANY EXAMPLES? Or, WILL you just REMAIN the SAME CLOSED and SECRETIVE?

Furthermore, your supposedly "clarifying questions" are often full of accusations and assumptions.

REALLY?

Is this a PROVEN FACT, or just an ASSUMPTION that you HOLD dearly to be true.

I have YET TO SEE ANY ACTUAL PROOF of this CLAIM of YOURS. Would you like to SHARE ANY PROOF at all? Or, AGAIN and ONCE MORE are 'we' just EXPECTED to BELIEVE that your OWN unsubstantiated VIEWS and BELIEFS are IRREFUTABLY TRUE?

So what seems clear is that your agenda is not about gaining clarity, yourself -- it's about directing other people to get clear on how you see things.

REALLY?

And what is "it", EXACTLY, which you SEE or BELIEVE, 'how i see things'?

When people ask you to prove what you say, you claim that it's not up to you to prove it, or you already have, or time will tell. Nonsense.

Can you INFORM 'me' of HOW do 'I' PROVE some 'thing' to some one who BELIEVES otherwise?

If you can, then will you?

If you will, then THANK YOU.

However, if you can NOT or will NOT, then I will just continue LEARNING what 'it' IS, that I am ATTEMPTING to learn here. Thank you.

Most of the entertainment in watching people engage with you is in seeing what they say, and skipping over what you say for the most part.

LOL
LOL
LOL

If you ONLY KNEW the consequences of this remark here.

You do not offer anything new or compelling -- just your endless accusations at "you people".

Name one 'thing' NEW or COMPELLING that 'you', or "another", has offered here in this forum since its conception.

What's interesting is seeing how various people deal with and toy with that.

And, EXACTLY as I set out to do, and accomplish, was to get 'you', unsuspecting human beings, in the days when this was being written, to REACT and SAY things, the way you do, so THEN I have thee ACTUAL EVIDENCE to back up and support my CLAIMS, which I NEEDED in order to have the PROOF that makes what I WILL say ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and/or Correct, which is JUST, and thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

I do not wish you ill, Age.

WHY NOT, especially If I am, supposedly; "obsessing over ALL of your posts", "making dumbass ACCUSATIONS against 'you', human beings", "MISCONSTRUE SO MUCH of what 'you', people, say and think", "make CLAIMS, and QUESTION 'you', human beings, on my OWN MISUNDERSTANDING and what I have MISCONSTRUED", "BOASTING, when I OBVIOUSLY LACK AWARENESS of BASIC understandings", "ask CLARIFYING QUESTIONS that are FULL of accusations and assumptions, "NOT gaining clarity", "directing "others" to GET CLEAR on how i see things", "say particular things when people ask me to PROVE what I say, which is NONSENSE", "not offering ANY thing NEW or COMPELLING", AND "just make ENDLESS ACCUSATIONS at 'you', people"?

And this was just ASCERTAINED from this one THREAD of 'yours' ONLY.

So, WHY would you NOT want to "wish me ill"?

I just do not see your perspective/awareness as very credible,

In case you WERE UNAWARE 'we' WERE VERY AWARE of this a, relatively, LONG TIME AGO.

based on your continual inaccuracies and lack of awareness.

And, NOT UNTIL 'you' PROVIDE 'us' with the ACTUAL "inaccuracies", AND, the ACTUAL "awareness" which I, supposedly, have "lack of", then "these CONTINUAL INACCURACIES and LACK OF AWARENESS" will REMAIN SOLELY within that body ONLY.

[Age]

First, discreteness seems evident. Reality is not homogenous. I am not the Ipad I type on, the coffee I drink, or the chair I sit on. You, Lace, are a distinct other. Separateness and identity appear to natural and normal.

Second: if one takes the notion that sumthin' purposeful undergirds Reality, it's probable this sumthin' is a person in its own right. If there is no such undergirdin' to Reality, we're left with the mystery of complexity and individual self-awareness. Even assuming a kind of unintelligent universal vitalism (purpose without a intention) solves nuthin' (why should Reality, an entropic event, allow for anti-entropy?).

Third, there are certain universals among men, no matter their culture. Chief among these universal (or perhaps foundational to them) is the intuition that one belongs to himself. That he is his and it's natural and normal for him to be his. In a Reality without purpose, or in one where purpose is unintelligent, why do all men see themselves this way?

So, for the deist (this one, anyway), it's not ego claiming separateness; it's what is plain and apparent that leads to recognition of separateness, between persons (between me and you, between you and me and the Creator).

(this is a quick & dirty answer, cuz I'm time-pressed)

Thanks for your response.

First: I do understand (and thoroughly enjoy) the value and role of perceiving separation between people in this life and on this Earthly stage.

Second: Human beings are the ones who decide what has or needs purpose. Life, itself... including everything in nature... countless species... planets forming and suns burning out... does not seem defined by such ideas of purpose. The vast Universe would seem like overkill for demonstrating some purpose for, or defined/understood by, human beings. There are immense cycles and rhythms and interactions that we do not understand. Must everything have a purpose according to humans, or might such things simply occur and exist because they can, not because they need to?

Third: Ego is part of the first item above. I see uses for ego as a tool -- not as a complete driver. There is always much more to consider than anyone's ego. And I think human beings are more than their egos... which is why I find it interesting to practice "turning it way down" to revisit and remind myself what reality feels like with less of it.

Well absolutely NOTHING 'new' NOR 'compelling' here.

Also, seems to be a VERY NARROWED and TINY FIELD OF VIEW perspective, especially considering the ACTUAL NATURE of thee Universe, Itself.

But, 'you' OBVIOUSLY only ever could give a very limited defined and understood perspective, correct?

If I can do that... if lots of people are doing that... it's much easier to see how ego and personhood and purpose aren't required for the Universe.

Sounds like 'you' WANT "others" to do what you do, because 'you' BELIEVE that this is the BEST WAY, as well as they WILL see what 'you' SEE, correct?

By the way, 'purpose' is NOT required for the Universe. The Universe, however, is just creating an evolving being, for A PURPOSE.

When, and IF, you ever work out what that PURPOSE, IS FOR, then 'you' WILL BE CLOSER to thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

[Age]

Yes, it would be nice to think of God as a Goddess - when it has me in heaven at times and makes love to my entire being - indeed sexual ecstasy that it can 'inflict' is ...mmm... - but it appears the dude is Gay or at least bi after all -

You know what the coolest thing about atheism is? (Aside from making fun of theists, and then congratulating each other for it, with smug looks on our faces? And then celebrating it all with a good ol' round of baby eating.)

To explain the mind-boggling improbability of our universe, atheists often end up believing in an infinite multiverse. (They try to support this belief with things like String theory, which has no experimental evidence going for it whatsoever.)

Now in an infinite multiverse, most universes are uninhabited, and some universes are inhabited by talking monkeys, who post nonsense on philosophy boards.

WHY do 'you', human beings, talk about 'things' which can NOT even be A POSSIBILITY, as though they could be ACTUALLY REAL and True, let alone being AN ACTUALITY, AT ALL?

The IDEA that there COULD BE "multiverse" is just as STUPID and ABSURD that the Universe COULD BE "expanding" and COULD HAVE "begun".

'you', human beings, CAN NOT even EXPLAIN how these things COULD EVEN be A POSSIBILITY, let alone AN ACTUALITY. YET 'you' continue talking about them as they even do exist.

I suggest if you WANT to KNOW what thee One and ONLY ACTUAL Truth is regarding the matter of the Universe, then 'you' just LOOK AT and DISCUSS what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING and OCCURRING right HERE, right NOW, BEFORE 'you'.

Until then enjoy your AMUSING and ENTERTAINING "insights".

I KNOW 'we' CERTAINLY ARE, from THIS PERSPECTIVE.

But then there are those even rarer universes, which are home to the smartest and sexiest Goddesses imaginable, with powers that would seem like magic to us. We probably can't communicate them, but we can still worship them.
(Unless we are already worshipping a nasty 3rd party intelligence sky daddy, who is gay and likes to violate us.)

[Age]

...

I've thought something similar to that before, myself. It's not that outrageous to wonder... and it speaks more of frustration or bafflement than ego.

It is one thing to "think it" and have the good judgment to keep it to yourself. However, it is something else altogether to put it in writing on a public forum. It smacks of a Trumpian level of self-praising egoism where one thinks that they can publicly proclaim things such as this,...



...while, at the same time, being so oblivious as to not realize that by doing so, it demonstrates to the whole world that they are actually quite the opposite of what they think they are.

Or, at the very least, they come-off as being preening little blowhards who make themselves look smaller and smaller with every self-aggrandizing boast.

Keep in mind, Lacewing, that according to Atla, you are clueless and beneath him when it comes to intelligence, and he is just trolling you for the fun of it.

Seriously, how can there be so many people with some kind of psychosis or bizarre idiocy wandering across this forum? The high ratio is perplexing.

It would be hypocritical of me to not include myself in the extensive list of psychotic idiots with bizarre ideas, wandering across this forum. However, to answer your question, it comes with the trade-off of having a forum where there are no heavy-handed moderators.

Indeed, in most of the philosophy forums I've participated on, half of the people who are presently on this one would have been banned from the get-go.
_______

Nothing like OBSERVING thee ACTUAL Truth complete DESTROY and WIPE OUT 'egos'.

[Age]

It is one thing to "think it" and have the good judgment to keep it to yourself. However, it is something else altogether to put it in writing on a public forum.

I think I understand where you're coming from. At the same time, this is the one place where we can say it like we see it, and perhaps there is value in that. We don't have to worry about all the pleasantries... and we also don't have to take any of it too seriously. People have called me all kinds of names and accused me of all kinds of ignorant and crazy ideas.

Was it worth it to point out to you all of your own ignorant and crazy ideas?

Or, when "another", does it to 'you', is that then the 'ego'?

Also, is a place where ALL the ignorant, insane, and crazy ideas can be EXPRESSED and SHARED, without being MODERATED, really a bad thing?

After all people might STILL be BELIEVING that the sun actually does revolve around the earth if the TOTALLY ignorant, insane, and crazy IDEA that ACTUALLY the earth revolves around the sun INSTEAD, was MODERATED or NOT ALLOWED to be EXPRESSED and SHARED.

It smacks of a Trumpian level of self-praising egoism where one thinks that they can publicly proclaim things

This is online theater. He was the president. Seems to me that the scenario and expectations are very different.

WHY?

Is it REALLY that DIFFERENT when "others' are POINTING THINGS OUT to you, compared to when you are POINTING THINGS OUT to "others"?

If we cannot openly challenge absurdity, delusion, dishonesty, etc., here in this forum... where can we do it?

I suggest LOOKING AT and LISTENING TO EACH and EVERY IDEA from the Truly OPEN perspective, or the Mind, ONLY and ONLY THEN using the already gained thoughts from past experiences, which are stored and held within the brain. BECAUSE if one does it the other way around, that is; LOOKS AT and LISTENS TO EACH and EVERY IDEA from the ALREADY stored and held thoughts, within the brain, then that one is NOT LOOKING AT NOR LISTENING TO things from a Truly OPEN perspective.

And 'we' ALL KNOW where that can lead to.

Does it help anyone to stay quiet about such things and keep it to ourselves?

Does it help ANY one to RIDICULE and HUMILIATE ANY one, for ANY thing?

Does it help ANY one to just JUDGE, BEFORE KNOWING the WHOLE?

Does it mean we're full of ego if we tell someone they're being an idiot or insane?

It can. It all depends on how the 'message' is being expressed

Maybe they are, and maybe it's worth pointing out.

AGAIN, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is the 'ego' AT WORK.

Also, when "others" point out to when you are being an idiot or insane, which is quite often by the way, is this also worth pointing out to you? Or, is it somehow DIFFERENT now?

Or, at the very least, they come-off as being preening little blowhards who make themselves look smaller and smaller with every self-aggrandizing boast.

You can see it that way. Alternatively, it can be seen as many other things: insightful, bold, challenging, funny, etc... depending on perspective and context.

VERY, VERY True.

I think it's important to keep in mind that there is a lot going on in these exchanges. Nobody is a victim... and there are a lot of crazy claims.

Some of which 'you' have PROVIDED.

Keep in mind, Lacewing, that according to Atla, you are clueless and beneath him when it comes to intelligence, and he is just trolling you for the fun of it.

Hmm. I don't know if that's what Atla thinks...

Well "atla" OBVIOUSLY said it.

but if so, it wouldn't be much different than the nutjobs who arrogantly and ignorantly claim that they know me better than I know myself, and they know divine truth better than I do.

Now WHO has CLAIMED this?

And is there ANYWAY that that could be POSSIBLE? Or, is that just ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY IMPOSSIBLE.

ALSO, is there ANYWAY POSSIBLE that you could ACTUALLY be MISINTERPRETING or MISUNDERSTANDING what is being said and meant?

Or, is this just NOT a POSSIBILITY?

I, in turn, taunt them for the fun of it -- what would be more appropriate?

So, do you think or believe that it is perfectly fine or perfectly normal to "taunt" "others" BEFORE you find and discover EXACTLY what they are saying and meaning, correct?

What would be MORE APPROPRIATE to me is to just gain understanding, itself.

But, you are absolutely FREE to BELIEVE 'taunting" "others"is MORE APPROPRIATE, just because you MAKE ASSUMPTIONS about what they are saying and meaning, and then start JUDGING "them".

This kind of misbehaving CERTAINLY does NOT sound very FREE FLOWING at all, "lacewing".

It looks far more like 'you', "lacewing", are being an idiot or insane, and VERY CLOSED, by the way.

Seriously, how can there be so many people with some kind of psychosis or bizarre idiocy wandering across this forum? The high ratio is perplexing.

it comes with the trade-off of having a forum where there are no heavy-handed moderators.

Indeed, in most of the philosophy forums I've participated on, half of the people who are presently on this one would have been banned from the get-go.

Yes, agreed. And I suppose the circus atmosphere (or snake-pit) discourages the participation of more members who would be interested in more reasonable discussions.

If you do NOT like the discussions here, then this is NOT the ONLY forum on the internet.

WHY, EXACTLY, do you stay here?

However, it does seem that a lot of people here are polarized on one platform or another -- and free-thinkers who look across the aisles and really question what we think we know, are not as common. It is what it is. Sometimes I find value in it... and sometimes I don't. I come here to express and explore ideas, and to challenge absurdity and rigidity, and to play.

BUT what IS "absurdity" to YOU is NOT necessarily "absurd", AT ALL, in relation to thee ACTUAL Truth of things. Or, can you just NOT accept this FACT?

The earth revolving around the sun was ONCE "absurdity". And 'you', "lacewing", would have been 'one of those' who would have spend your WHOLE time, so called, "challenging absurdity". While all along NEVER ONCE even 'trying to' understand.

See, 'you', "lacewing", JUDGE what is 'absurd', or not, solely on your OWN current thinking, BELIEFS, or understanding, and then it is 'you' if you find any opposing or contrary ideas to yours crazy and insane, then it is 'you' who will EXTREMELY RIGIDLY just resort to taunting, ridicule, and/or humiliation just because 'you' BELIEVE this is the MOST APPROPRIATE response for 'you' to do to "other" human beings, who just have different views and ideas than you do.

Being irreverent seems suitable for the territory.

[Age]

I've thought something similar to that before, myself. It's not that outrageous to wonder... and it speaks more of frustration or bafflement than ego.

It is one thing to "think it" and have the good judgment to keep it to yourself. However, it is something else altogether to put it in writing on a public forum. It smacks of a Trumpian level of self-praising egoism where one thinks that they can publicly proclaim things such as this,...



...while, at the same time, being so oblivious as to not realize that by doing so, it demonstrates to the whole world that they are actually quite the opposite of what they think they are.

Or, at the very least, they come-off as being preening little blowhards who make themselves look smaller and smaller with every self-aggrandizing boast.

Keep in mind, Lacewing, that according to Atla, you are clueless and beneath him when it comes to intelligence, and he is just trolling you for the fun of it.

Seriously, how can there be so many people with some kind of psychosis or bizarre idiocy wandering across this forum? The high ratio is perplexing.

It would be hypocritical of me to not include myself in the extensive list of psychotic idiots with bizarre ideas, wandering across this forum. However, to answer your question, it comes with the trade-off of having a forum where there are no heavy-handed moderators.

Indeed, in most of the philosophy forums I've participated on, half of the people who are presently on this one would have been banned from the get-go.
_______

Well if you really want to know, I'm 140-145 IQ range, which is considered borderline idiot. But I also seem to have some sort of acquired savantism which in my case seems to affect my abstract thinking (I can think with the unconscious brain which is kinda parallel and almost instantaneous, skipping "conscious thoughts" which almost all humans use). I've been called a genius many times throughout my life irl.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Talk about an 'EGO', added with A RELIGIOUS "mindset".

And AGAIN, REMEMBER I do write, sometimes, in a way so that what is read, at first glance, will cause reactions, which make some JUMP to an ASSUMPTION. Although what I write and say can be backed up and supported with PROOF, MOST, if NOT ALL, when they read that, in the days when this is being written, will just ASSUME it is WRONG, and then almost instantly class 'me' as being insane or an idiot or similar.

Which is PERFECT, for what I am actually achieving.

I've finished unifying all scientific knowledge save the unimportant details some 5-10 years ago, now I just have to keep up-to-date. I usually run 5-6 dimensional universe simulations in my mind to try to figure out the best explanation for why we are here. The best we humans can do is use Occam's razor, but you guys aren't even using it for your theories.

O, I thought you were being serious at first, but now I can see that you would HAVE TO BE JUST JOKING.

[Age]

If there is no purpose: all that's left is chance.

Does this idea of "purpose" have to be long-term, or can it be moment-to-moment?

Can it be both?

[Belinda]

Age, you can no more know Lacewing's psyche than I can know yours!

That ALL depends on how 'you' are defining the word 'psyche' here, and how 'you' EXPLAIN what "lacewing's" 'psyche' IS, EXACTLY, and if 'that' 'psyche' is DIFFERENT than "yours", then HOW are "they" DIFFERENT?

Otherwise, I may ACTUALLY KNOW the 'psyche' of 'you', human beings, BETTER than 'you' do, in the days when this was written.

We will just have to wait, and see, correct?

Or, do 'you' BELIEVE 'you' KNOW 100% without ANY doubt AT ALL what you said and CLAIMED above here?

Oh, and by the way, 'you' can KNOW the 'psyche' of 'me'. That is; if 'you' were Truly INTERESTED to KNOW. Just like one can discover, learn, and KNOW Thy Self, and 'Who 'I' am', again if and when one is Truly INTERESTED, Truly CURIOS, and Truly OPEN.

Your persona according to this forum is not your psyche, which is much more complex (to the extent you don't even know the whole of your own psyche; people spend $$$$$ on psychoanalysis). The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.

[Age]

Age, you can no more know Lacewing's psyche than I can know yours!

That ALL depends on how 'you' are defining the word 'psyche' here, and how 'you' EXPLAIN what "lacewing's" 'psyche' IS, EXACTLY, and if 'that' 'psyche' is DIFFERENT than "yours", then HOW are "they" DIFFERENT?

Otherwise, I may ACTUALLY KNOW the 'psyche' of 'you', human beings, BETTER than 'you' do, in the days when this was written.

We will just have to wait, and see, correct?

Or, do 'you' BELIEVE 'you' KNOW 100% without ANY doubt AT ALL what you said and CLAIMED above here?

Oh, and by the way, 'you' can KNOW the 'psyche' of 'me'. That is; if 'you' were Truly INTERESTED to KNOW. Just like one can discover, learn, and KNOW Thy Self, and 'Who 'I' am', again if and when one is Truly INTERESTED, Truly CURIOS, and Truly OPEN.

Your persona according to this forum is not your psyche, which is much more complex (to the extent you don't even know the whole of your own psyche; people spend $$$$$ on psychoanalysis). The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.

It appears CLEAR now that you do NOT YET even KNOW what 'psyche', itself, is, let alone the, so called, "your" 'psyche", nor ANY "others",

When, and if, you discover, or learn, and find out how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK, then 'you' WILL understand what the 'psyche' IS, and how that is in relation to the human being, itself.

[Lacewing]

Does this idea of "purpose" have to be long-term, or can it be moment-to-moment?

Whims are moment-to-moment.

When you stand up from a chair, the "purpose" might be to go to the bathroom. That's not a whim.
When you pick up a pen, the "purpose" might be to write.
Especially as we can see in nature, there doesn't have to be any greater purpose than what is essentially divined or created from one moment to the next. Things are moving and flowing for reasons -- not by chance. That does not indicate a greater purpose.

A human's idea of purpose is for a human life. Such does not need to be applied to all else.
The Universe is not necessarily or even likely designed around humans and the limited way they think. There was a long time that humans weren't even on the Earth... they've been wiped out many times by nature... and there's no logical reason to believe that they are the pinnacle of all the creation they're aware of.

What is the purpose of a vast Universe of countless galaxies that we don't even occupy or need?
What was the purpose of the Earth long before we arrived on it?

Perhaps the problem for human beings is that we tend to think there's no value without purpose. Yet, "purpose" is made up. People have countless ideas about it. And even as we live our lives, many may see little or no point to life even if they want to imagine a greater purpose. It is possible to live a fulfilling life without imagining a greater purpose... so clearly, it's not needed. And since no one has or will be able to prove there's a greater purpose, what difference does it make? It's all just belief/imagination/claims at this point... and people don't seem to excel in/with life simply based on that. Actually, they may use such beliefs/claims as an excuse for "not living" their life more fully (or gratefully) while they have it, because they're waiting for the greater purpose which is to come. How much sense does that make?

[Walker]

CLAIMING things like: you appear to currently be obsessing over ALL of my posts. Which could ONLY be Truly ASCERTAINED by READING all of my posts.

Are you really not aware that obvious things can be noticed without reading through them? I can easily see that you are quoting me, with your typical capitalized words in your typical volumes of Kentext that are typically full of dumbass accusations because you misconstrue so much about what people are saying or thinking. Your repetition is obvious without reading through it. (Maybe you don't understand the skill of skimming.)

you will NOT PROVIDE ANSWERS to CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, posed to 'you', by 'me'.

That's because your claims and questions are continually based on your misunderstandings and things you misconstrue. Trying to clarify anything for you requires too much explanation (that would usually be unnecessary with other people), then all of that effort simply results in more of your claims and questions based on what you continue to misunderstand and misconstrue.

It's hilarious that you boast about how much you know and can prove, when you obviously misunderstand and lack awareness of many basic understandings. Furthermore, your supposedly "clarifying questions" are often full of accusations and assumptions. So what seems clear is that your agenda is not about gaining clarity, yourself -- it's about directing other people to get clear on how you see things. When people ask you to prove what you say, you claim that it's not up to you to prove it, or you already have, or time will tell. Nonsense.

Most of the entertainment in watching people engage with you is in seeing what they say, and skipping over what you say for the most part. You do not offer anything new or compelling -- just your endless accusations at "you people". What's interesting is seeing how various people deal with and toy with that.

I do not wish you ill, Age. I just do not see your perspective/awareness as very credible, based on your continual inaccuracies and lack of awareness.

Credibility goes not only to motive but to the effective reception by each to whatever is being transmitted by Age, regardless of Age’s intent, whether the reception be turbo skimming or slow pondering, although the latter may be difficult to imagine.

“Misconstrue,” does not imply "unknowingly misconstrue," which is not to imply that you implied that in context other than to say that Age does not understand, however the implication of “unknowingly” is still there in the word interpretation of misconstrue.

What Age does could actually be a knowing* misconstruction and as such … which you may have subtly intended to imply but I don’t think so … and as such, because it is true that misconstruction could be deliberate, what would be the purpose of that?

One answer plucked from all the possibilities known and unknown is: The purpose is to resolve any conflict one feels about the misconstruction with an as-yet personally undiscovered method (said conflict proven by the energy focus on conflict required for response.)

Off-hand, it appears that question and analysis of possibilities, which is required in the testing of a possibility for viability, is much more common than discovering a viable possibility that accounts for motion enough to resolve some perceived imbalance of understanding.


* The question is, Who knows, since Age is merely the instrument of transmission whatever is being received, which could be dukkha enough to generate motion of response, and motion is change from lazy witnessing, which after all could be the sole purpose intended by Who, one of the nameless thousand names.

[Walker]

As Gump would say, genius is as genius does ... and in the increasingly rare realm of objectivity, genius is defined by the doing, e.g., the doing that requires adaptation to circumstances that results in peace of mind.

Trump's genius is proven by the objective record of causation that affected the nation in positive ways, the same objective record that afflicted the anti-American status quo of the swamp ... and the swamp mindset that afflicts those made ignorant with the help of propaganda.