Hurricane Ian and God...no, seriously

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Hurricane Ian and God...no, seriously

Post by Iwannaplato »

Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:32 am Reality is a mysterious magic trick, that the observer has absolutely no access to...believe it or not.
More things you are saying are true. And they match what you said was true before.
You have no access to reality, but you keep telling me about reality and me and everyone.

If you have no access to reality then how to you know what you are saying is relevant for me?
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Hurricane Ian and God...no, seriously

Post by Belinda »

bobmax wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:24 am
Belinda wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:08 am
bobmax wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 5:24 pm The responsibility of an event lies with who is the unconditional origin of this event.

There is no unconditional origin in the world.
So no body is really responsible for what happens.

However, the world is the fruit of an unconditional origin.
This origin is responsible for everything that happens.

Being origin it is not only responsible, it is also all that it is.
It is Being.

Beyond your being there, as an entity in the world, you are Being.
You are the unconditional origin.
You are the one in charge.
I agree until your last paragraph which does not seem to follow from the preceding. I am not an origin : God , or nature, is the only origin, and to attribute origination to me or you or any person or persons, is idolatry
Why is the last paragraph inconsistent with the previous ones?
And what does idolatry have to do with it?

You are responsible not as a person, but as a Being.
Who are you if not the Being itself?
Do you think you are something other than Being?

As a person you are the only begotten daughter thrown into the world.
But you and God are One.

All of this has to do with the compassion we are talking about in the other topic.

So no idolatry, but the suffering of returning home.
I can view myself, and you, and all else as aspects of God, or nature.
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
John Donne
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Hurricane Ian and God...no, seriously

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
Age wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 11:49 pm What 'you' find UNKNOWABLE, and even UNFATHOMABLE, 'we' have ALREADY come to KNOW, and IRREFUTABLY I will add.
I've been through all this with you before Age. I have spoken about why I state we cannot know anything.
And I have been through all this with 'you' before "dontaskme". I have spoken about why I state we have ALREADY COME TO KNOW what you state can NOT be KNOWN
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am We don't know there is a knower, we 'create' the knower to make sense of the world. Knowing creates the knower.
We do KNOW there is a knower, we KNOW the knower, and this makes sense of 'the world'. Knowing can be opposed to thinking.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am But what is knowing?
'Knowing' is when one has ACTUAL PROOF, and thus is absolutely sure, without doubt.

Which, again, can be OPPOSED to 'thinking', itself.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am Can this knowing be known and by what?
Yes, and NOT by 'you', what 'you' call the illusioned 'i'. But by thee One and ONLY 'I'.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am What is knowing? ..yes, it does appear to be the case that we are this knowing, but we cannot know this knowing as we can know a 'thing'.
This is just 'you' ASSUMING 'things', WITHOUT KNOWING 'things' FIRST.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am We cannot point to a 'thing' and inform ourself that this 'thing' is the ''knower''
Again, contrary to what you ASSUME and BELIEVE here, we have ALREADY done this.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am We assume there is a knower because there is knowing.
That is what 'you' do but NOT what 'we' do.

'We' do NOT assume absolutely ANY thing like this. And, because 'you' ASSUME 'things' like this, this is WHY 'you' are SO LOST and SO CONFUSED here.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am The same way we assume a seer because there is seeing.
If that is what 'you' do and want to keep doing, then so be it. But I suggest doing otherwise and what we do INSTEAD.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am But what is seeing?
It is both observing and noticing with or through the eyes, as well as understanding. It all depends on what context that word is being used.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am Can the seer see itself?
Yes, the Seer/I can SEE thy Self, through UNDERSTANDING.

Which is the EXACT SAME WAY I can SEE as well as KNOW, and UNDERSTAND ALL things, including absolutely EVERY thing 'you' SAY and BELIEVE 'I' can NOT.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am What does the seer look like?
The 'seer', and thee 'Seer', as I have ALREADY INFORMED 'you' PREVIOUSLY, can NOT be seen with the physical eyes, and this is just because they are INVISIBLE things, AGAIN, as 'I' have ALREADY INFORMED 'you'. But, they can be SEEN with the Mind's Eye, or what is also called the Third Eye, and this Eye SEES 'things' through UNDERSTANDING and KNOWING, and NOT from the sense which 'you' ALWAYS resort to.

And, what they 'look like' is EXPLAINED and DEMONSTRATED, or ILLUSTRATED, through WORDS. Just like how other things can be EXPLAINED, DEMONSTRATED, and ILLUSTRATED through words, and thus SEEN and/or UNDERSTOOD. Do 'you' KNOW what 'I' MEAN? Can 'you' SEE what 'I' MEAN?
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am if you think about that, you cannot find the seer, or the knower anywhere that can be localised and isolated from actual seeing and knowing,
But as I am CONTINUALLY INFORMING 'you', 'I' have ALREADY FOUND and SEEN the 'seer'/the 'you', AND thee 'Seer'/'I'.

One is just the Knower and Seer of ALL 'things', whereas the "others" just 'thinks' 'it' knows some 'things', but does 'understand' SOME 'things', ONLY.

When, and IF, 'you' EVER LEARN and UNDERSTAND how the Mind and the brain work, EXACTLY, like 'we' and 'I' do, then all of this becomes MUCH CLEARER and MUCH MORE SIMPLER and EASIER to UNDERSTAND, and KNOW.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am it cannot be separated out as an independant thing in and of itself.
OF COURSE 'it' can NOT, physically. However, 'it' can be, conceptually.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am If you have seen the seer Age...then do tell us what the seer looks like?
The word 'seer' refers to 'you', the person, WITHIN the human body. This 'person' is made up of thoughts and emotions. BOTH thoughts AND emotions and NOT visible to the human eye 'things'. So, it is IMPOSSIBLE to TELL 'you' what 'it' 'looks like', physically. But what 'it' 'looks like' conceptually, I have ALREADY just EXPLAINED, and thus ILLUSTRATED, for 'you' 'to be ABLE to 'see' what the 'seer' 'looks like'.

The 'Seer', however, is DIFFERENT.

Also, WHY 'you' are so INSISTENT that the 'seer' can NOT 'see', itself, is because the 'seer' is, literally, 'you', and if one of 'you' is 'trying to' look FOR and SEE and invisible thing, with the human eyes, then, OBVIOUSLY, 'you' can NEVER SEE the 'seer', that is; 'you'.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am If you know the knower Age... then do tell us what the knower looks like?
The 'knower' is, AGAIN, just 'you'. Which, AGAIN, is just the 'thought' and 'emtions' WITHIN the human body. The 'knower' word in regards to 'you' is just in relation to the 'thinking' that KNOWS without doubt, things like if the sun can be seen and felt or if the sun is behind clouds, from your perspective, and whether it is raining or not, on that body.

The 'Knower', however, is DIFFERENT.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am What does this ''you'' or ''we'' or ''I'' look like that is assumed to be the knower and the seer?
A human body is created, from the sperm of a male human body when combined with an egg of a female human body. That created human body evolves, usually, within the female body, which held the egg. When that human body is born, out of that female body, for sake of this explanation, there exists NO thoughts, within that human body. But, as the that human body experiences more and more of 'the world' around 'it', more and more new 'thoughts' come to be, within that body. Now, the 'you' word can either refer to 'you', the 'human being' or the 'person', of which there are many. But what the 'you' 'looks like' all depends on what, or who, 'it' is EXACTLY which the 'you' word is being referred to, EXACTLY. The 'you' word, under the label "age" here usually refers to the 'person', which is just the INVISIBLE 'thoughts' and 'emotions' WITHIN a human body, "age" included.

Who or what the 'we' word 'looks like', again, depends on who and/or what the 'we' IS, EXACTLY, when being used. The 'we' word can be at least two of 'us' and ANY number of 'us' up to and including ALL of 'us'.

What and who the word 'I' refers to 'looks like' ALL of 'us', TOGETHER, as One.
What and who the word 'i' refers to 'looks like' ANY one of 'us,' INDIVIDUALLY. Which exist in concept ONLY, or in physicality with some PERCEIVED 'separation'. The 'what' words usually refers to the VISIBLY SEEN physicality, and the who word usually refers to the INVISIBLE one or One WITHIN.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am In every experience, the observer is the known, but what does the observer look like, does the observer have an image?
Even 'you' have just DESCRIBED, and thus ILLUSTRATED in a way, who or what the 'seer' and the 'Seer' ARE, EXACTLY. They are the 'observer', which also 'knows' some 'things', and the 'Observer', which is ALSO the 'Knower'.

What the 'observer' 'looks like' or what the 'image' of the 'observer' IS, is the 'image' of 'thought' or 'thinking'. 'you' are ABLE to CONCEPTUALIZE and image of 'thoughts', which are INVISIBLE to the human eyes, correct?
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am and can that image be known,
YES.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am and what is it that knows the image of the observer that is known?
Thee One and ONLY 'Thing', which KNOWS ALL and EVERY 'thing'. That is; ItSelf, thy Self, Everything, ALL-THERE-IS, TOTALITY, Spirit, Allah, God, Enlightenment, and/or ALL of the OTHER labels that are used to describe what 'you' SAY and CLAIM can NOT be KNOWN.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am ..to answer these questions implies there is known an observer that can observe the observing observer.
And, to answer these questions PROPERLY and CORRECT, which IS to PROVIDE IRREFUTABLE Truth REQUIRES the ALREADY KNOWN Observer, WHO has ALREADY observed and SEEN, KNOWN, and thus also FULLY UNDERSTOOD Itself.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am .so what is the image of the observer, and can that image be seen as a 'thing' known?
What the image of 'the observer' is like the image of 'the wind', that is; it is 'an image', which can NOT be SEEN VISIBLY with the human eyes.

However, 'the image' of 'the observer' and 'thee Observer' can be SEEN as 'a thing' and 'A Thing' KNOWN. Just like 'thoughts' and 'the wind' can be KNOWN, and SEEN as 'things'.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am These are the ideas that I continually put forward for everyone here to ponder, these ideas are in my opinion fundamentally unknowable and unfathomable.
We KNOW what 'you' BELIEVE is true. We are CONTINUALLY TOLD what 'you' BELIEVE is true. And, BECAUSE of this BELIEF of YOURS, you ONLY KEEP RE-REPEATING the same 'things' OVER and OVER AGAIN, WITHOUT EVER OPENING UP to LOOK FOR ANY 'thing' DIFFERENT.

I will here REMIND 'you' ONCE MORE, those ideas that 'you' BELIEVE are FUNDAMENTALLY UNKNOWABLE and UNFATHOMABLE have ALREADY been FATHOMED and are ALSO ALREADY KNOWN. And, to add this those ideas are KNOWN in such a way that what is KNOWN in IRREFUTABLE Facts, and thus are what IS IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct AS WELL.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Hurricane Ian and God...no, seriously

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:39 am So coming back on topic ....the question asked is...

So, what, given your own best thinking, was God [your God, their God, any God] thinking when He created planet Earth to make these ghastly "acts of God" inevitable.

God was probably thinking, omg what a fine mess I've created here. Hmm, I am able to wreak havoc upon my creation. That's the only thing God could think of while observing what is self-evidently happening.
NON human being caused storms are NOT so-called 'wreaking havoc' on thee Creation. These storms are just naturally occurring occurrences , which are just a part of Creating thee Creation.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:39 am It's not like God would think anything else during a hurricane, I mean God could be distracted away from the actual hurricane happening to some more peaceful place like where no huuricane is forming, and not give two hoots about what the hurricane that is happening is doing.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Hurricane Ian and God...no, seriously

Post by Age »

bobmax wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:24 am
Belinda wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:08 am
bobmax wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 5:24 pm The responsibility of an event lies with who is the unconditional origin of this event.

There is no unconditional origin in the world.
So no body is really responsible for what happens.

However, the world is the fruit of an unconditional origin.
This origin is responsible for everything that happens.

Being origin it is not only responsible, it is also all that it is.
It is Being.

Beyond your being there, as an entity in the world, you are Being.
You are the unconditional origin.
You are the one in charge.
I agree until your last paragraph which does not seem to follow from the preceding. I am not an origin : God , or nature, is the only origin, and to attribute origination to me or you or any person or persons, is idolatry
Why is the last paragraph inconsistent with the previous ones?
And what does idolatry have to do with it?

You are responsible not as a person, but as a Being.
Who are you if not the Being itself?
The letter and word 'I' is the Being. The word 'you' is just just a 'being' and NOT thee 'Being'.
Do you think you are something other than Being?
bobmax wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:24 am As a person you are the only begotten daughter thrown into the world.
But you and God are One.
Are 'you' aware that the word 'you' INFERS and MEANS "another". So, HOW could an "another" be God, thee One?
bobmax wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:24 am All of this has to do with the compassion we are talking about in the other topic.

So no idolatry, but the suffering of returning home.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Hurricane Ian and God...no, seriously

Post by Dontaskme »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:31 am
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:32 am Reality is a mysterious magic trick, that the observer has absolutely no access to...believe it or not.
More things you are saying are true. And they match what you said was true before.
You have no access to reality, but you keep telling me about reality and me and everyone.

If you have no access to reality then how to you know what you are saying is relevant for me?
But, I am only talking about the knower.

That which knows can never be an object of it's own knowledge rings true through all time because it can be verified in one's direct experience.

If we actually try to find that which knows, the not finding speaks volumes. An instrument that interferes with itself is doing so at it's own detriment. So the knower cannot know itself as it would be simply getting in the way. There is no access to the knower because there is only knowing one without a second. .this is not too difficult to grasp.

That is my philosophy, take it or leave, I don't mind, if it's not relevant for you, then so be it, but it won't change my philosophy which will always be the same.

I suggest you listen to what is being pointed to here, or not. It's ultimately up to you personally want you want to believe is true about the nature of the knower. I'm just offering up my own philosophy about it, and not saying it is true or otherwise, because I have no idea, I have only got an idea, and that idea I have no idea about.

There is no accesss to the knower because it's the only knowing there is. Only ONE
There is no room in here for two.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Hurricane Ian and God...no, seriously

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:31 am
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:32 am Reality is a mysterious magic trick, that the observer has absolutely no access to...believe it or not.
More things you are saying are true. And they match what you said was true before.
You have no access to reality, but you keep telling me about reality and me and everyone.

If you have no access to reality then how to you know what you are saying is relevant for me?
It is like every time one CLAIMS that there is NO 'absolute truth', NO 'thing' that can be KNOWN, there is NO way to access reality, or ANY of these OTHER 'we can NOT know what is true and real' CLAIMS, these people REALLY can NOT SEE the CONTRADICTION in the CLAIM.

One can NOT logically CLAIM to KNOW one 'thing' like; 'we' can NOT KNOW 'things', while PROCLAIMING to KNOW that this IS absolutely TRUE, at the same time.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Hurricane Ian and God...no, seriously

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:24 pm
NON human being caused storms are NOT so-called 'wreaking havoc' on thee Creation. These storms are just naturally occurring occurrences , which are just a part of Creating thee Creation.
You cannot even speak of such an event without conceptualising the event into a form of knowledge.

No cause can be known to have happened without a concept about it.

Wreaking havoc is a concept known, as self-evidently witnessed in a hurricane event.

It is not known what knows concept without making the knower into a concept that knows nothing.

The origin of the knower cannot be reached since there is an infinite amount of things to know, because there is an infinite amount of things to be and experience in an infinite reality. There is no end to knowing. There is no end to not knowing.

What we don't know is infinite.


In other words there is no known beginning or ending of knowing...aka a knower.
Last edited by Dontaskme on Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Hurricane Ian and God...no, seriously

Post by Iwannaplato »

Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:30 pm But, I am only talking about the knower.
I believe you said no one has access to reality.

Are you saying I might have access to reality?
That which knows can never be an object of it's own knowledge rings true through all time because it can be verified in one's direct experience.
So, it's a truth. A truth about me and my life, which are parts of reality. Or if they are not true for me and some guy in Bancock, then why are you writing as if this truth of yours is universal.

Becaues I keep pointing out that you think you have access to reality and you know things that are true and false.

And you keep responding by telling me more truths and justifying your assertions and universalising.

And so I point out that you are confirming what I am saying.
and so on.
If we actually try to find that which knows, the not finding speaks volumes. An instrument that interferes with itself is doing so at it's own detriment. So the knower cannot know itself as it would be simply getting in the way. There is no access to the knower because there is only knowing one without a second. .this is not too difficult to grasp.

That is my philosophy, take it or leave, I don't mind, if it's not relevant for you, then so be it, but it won't change my philosophy which will always be the same.
I'm not disagreeing or agreeing. I am pointing out that you are telling us what reality is.

Again and again. While also telling us that we have no access to reality.

Note: now you start saying you don't know. But really if one reads your posts it seems like you don't believe what you are saying. Or you would not say it like that.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Hurricane Ian and God...no, seriously

Post by Iwannaplato »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:37 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:31 am
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:32 am Reality is a mysterious magic trick, that the observer has absolutely no access to...believe it or not.
More things you are saying are true. And they match what you said was true before.
You have no access to reality, but you keep telling me about reality and me and everyone.

If you have no access to reality then how to you know what you are saying is relevant for me?
It is like every time one CLAIMS that there is NO 'absolute truth', NO 'thing' that can be KNOWN, there is NO way to access reality, or ANY of these OTHER 'we can NOT know what is true and real' CLAIMS, these people REALLY can NOT SEE the CONTRADICTION in the CLAIM.

One can NOT logically CLAIM to KNOW one 'thing' like; 'we' can NOT KNOW 'things', while PROCLAIMING to KNOW that this IS absolutely TRUE, at the same time.
Yes. I keep trying to mirror this back to me.
She wants to tell everyone what is true about reality.
While part of what she wants to say is we have no access to reality.
Then how does she know so much about reality? How does she know it is true about everyone?
and so on.

The urge to proclaim, it seems, is overriding what she wants to proclaim.

And the odd thing is when I first point this out, she responds by arguing why it is true (or restating her assertions). As if the issue is whether she is right instead of 'is she directly contradicting herself?´'
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Hurricane Ian and God...no, seriously

Post by Dontaskme »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:49 pmI'm not disagreeing or agreeing. I am pointing out that you are telling us what reality is.

Again and again. While also telling us that we have no access to reality.

I am telling you that there is no one telling you what reality is.

I am telling you that there is no one to access reality.

If you do not want to hear this, then so be it.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Hurricane Ian and God...no, seriously

Post by Iwannaplato »

Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:54 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:49 pmI'm not disagreeing or agreeing. I am pointing out that you are telling us what reality is.

Again and again. While also telling us that we have no access to reality.

I am telling you that there is no one telling you what reality is.

I am telling you that there is no one to access reality.

If you do not want to hear this, then so be it.
You seem only interested in what you are telling me. I read it. I consider it. If I question it, you tell me the same things again. If I point out that you seem to think you have access to reality, to you tell why you think you are right about reality. If I point out that you obviously think you have access to reality, you avoid dealing with this directly. No you are telling me that you are no one.
Well, whomever is writing to us thinks she has access to reality. If we believe her then we will think we do not have access to reality while she will continue to think she has access to reality.

What does this remind you of in relationships?
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Hurricane Ian and God...no, seriously

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:18 pmHowever, 'the image' of 'the observer' and 'thee Observer' can be SEEN as 'a thing' and 'A Thing' KNOWN. Just like 'thoughts' and 'the wind' can be KNOWN, and SEEN as 'things'.
The image of the observer has no image, it's projects an image in the form of a concept known. In other words, what is known is inseparable from the imageless.

Simply because known images cannot know of their own existence.

Again, I will repeat. That which knows can never be an object of its own knowledge. In one's direct experience there is no image of the knower.

If we actually try to find that which knows, the not finding speaks volumes.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Hurricane Ian and God...no, seriously

Post by Dontaskme »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:42 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:54 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:49 pmI'm not disagreeing or agreeing. I am pointing out that you are telling us what reality is.

Again and again. While also telling us that we have no access to reality.

I am telling you that there is no one telling you what reality is.

I am telling you that there is no one to access reality.

If you do not want to hear this, then so be it.
You seem only interested in what you are telling me. I read it. I consider it. If I question it, you tell me the same things again. If I point out that you seem to think you have access to reality, to you tell why you think you are right about reality. If I point out that you obviously think you have access to reality, you avoid dealing with this directly. No you are telling me that you are no one.
Well, whomever is writing to us thinks she has access to reality. If we believe her then we will think we do not have access to reality while she will continue to think she has access to reality.

What does this remind you of in relationships?
I have no problem with our relationship Iwannaplato. I have several relationships with others.

But these relationships have nothing to do with my philosophy on the nature of reality. Nor are my relationships with other people affected or hurt or offended by my philosophy in any way shape or form...I am only playing around with ideas that's all philosophy is to me.


I am writing about nondual philosophy that's all.

No one is obliged to believe it, or even like it, or even make sense of it.

So be it. And nothing will change, I will still continue to speak in nondual context.

You can continue to question this philosophy for as long as you wish, but the answers you get will not change.

.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Hurricane Ian and God...no, seriously

Post by Iwannaplato »

Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:02 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:42 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:54 pm


I am telling you that there is no one telling you what reality is.

I am telling you that there is no one to access reality.

If you do not want to hear this, then so be it.
You seem only interested in what you are telling me. I read it. I consider it. If I question it, you tell me the same things again. If I point out that you seem to think you have access to reality, to you tell why you think you are right about reality. If I point out that you obviously think you have access to reality, you avoid dealing with this directly. No you are telling me that you are no one.
Well, whomever is writing to us thinks she has access to reality. If we believe her then we will think we do not have access to reality while she will continue to think she has access to reality.

What does this remind you of in relationships?
I have no problem with our relationship Iwannaplato. I have several relationships with others.

But these relationships have nothing to do with my philosophy on the nature of reality. Nor are my relationships with other people affected or hurt or offended by my philosophy in any way shape or form...I am only playing around with ideas that's all philosophy is to me.


I am writing about nondual philosophy that's all.

No one is obliged to believe it, or even like it, or even make sense of it.

So be it. And nothing will change, I will still continue to speak in nondual context.

You can continue to question this philosophy for as long as you wish, but the answers you get will not change.

.
OK, but it doesn't seem honest or respectful.
You have told me several times I am not obligated to believe it or like it, etc. Or that I don't have to read it. Of course.
I truly will let you know if I think you have some kind of gun to my head, so you don't have to remind me of these facts.
But here you are engaging people and you just change your mind and what you say at any time. Deny what you said seconds ago, for example.
It's not particularly non-dual philosophy either.
Post Reply