All is energy / God is energy

[Lacewing]

There is the energy of frustration. To understand it, look inward at what frustrates and consider what you do with that energy of frustration, in order to understand energy and how it relates to existence, moment-to-moment, in a non-conceptual kind of way*. What happens to that energy, and what do you do with it?

Age frustrates you. You filter Age out of awareness.

I turn off the noise. Value can be found anywhere, but I do not choose to have all radio frequencies blasting in my direction. I've engaged with Age's broadcast a great deal and enough to know that there are better stations with less static to attune to.

I hope he finds peace with what is, and within himself, rather than continuing to bounce off of everyone else in making them wrong so he can be right.

[Lacewing]

Hey Age. I see my name attached to yours, as I scroll. You write a lot, I scroll past it, paying attention to the names so I know when to stop.

Sad thing is, I don't bother with the content. It physically doesn't make it past the cost/benefit analysis. I find the eyestrain an unnecessary cost. so I just glance at the names while scrolling until I see a gap in the avalanche...

That is a good way to describe it.

When any of Age's content pops up in the responses that people give him (thereby getting past my 'ignore' list), I find it interesting to see how the responders are handling it and what they say. I don't care to read what Age wrote -- the responses are far more clever and often humorous because nobody comes here to be grilled and pummeled with projections... so people come up with some good stuff. I think this may be the contribution we all make to each other here... ways to become more clever. And it's fun.

[Lacewing]

It's hard to understand how extreme people have become in their views and behavior. How can they not see how ridiculous and destructive it is? Are they intoxicated or possessed or so full of rage they've gone mad? I imagine something will happen to snap humankind out of that. It's such a senseless path. At the very least, maybe we'll serve as a valuable warning for future generations.

You are more optimistic than I. It's probable that there will be no civilised generations now we have broken Earth's climate.

I agree with you -- it could be really bad for a while. This is a lesson/demonstration of what we're capable of. If any survive it, perhaps they'll decidedly and significantly shift. Maybe there will be a new story and cautionary book they pass on to future generations.

My focus is: we are more than this. Whatever this is, we are here now even though we are more than it. So, I try to embrace it with wonderment and openness and as much love as I can, because that seems to lead to more of the same... just as hate and resistance appear to create more of that. It is an interesting dance of balance... like dancing on a volcano.

[Lacewing]

We do not get to chose the nature of the universe.
My approval is not going to matter. How could it?
The universe was here before me and shall endure long after I am gone. Nothing I have done so far that flies against nature has ever worked, and the only things that seem to be effective are those actions where I have understood the nature of the things around me.
IN the social, personal and political realms sometimes incoherent and unnatural thinking can work, but only when other social actors also believe. But we are a thin scum of living tissue on a minor planet in a minor galaxy amongst billions of others. With that perspective your question seems amusingly quaint.

Well, at least you're amused by something.

[Age]

And, 'I' SAY and CLAIM that the 'thing' known as 'human being' KNOWS.

'we' BOTH AGREE that the 'things' known as 'trees' and 'brick walls' can NOT know (things).

But, if 'you' want to CLAIM that the 'thing' human being can NOT know (things), then HOW can and will 'you' PROVE 'this'?

I'm not trying to prove NOT-knowing...is present in things known.

Okay. If you are NOT trying to PROVE what you say and claim is true, then that is perfectly fine with me. This, however, tends to lead to the CONCLUSION that you are NOT trying to PROVE 'this' BECAUSE you can NOT.

It is you Age that has made that assumption claiming I want to make the claim.

This sentence is NONSENSICAL. Especially considering that you have ALREADY made that CLAIM. Are you now CLAIMING that the CLAIM that you have ALREADY MADE was REALLY NOT a CLAIM that you WANT TO make?

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.

If you want to, now, claim that when 'you' say and state: 'things' do not know, is NOT a claim, or that you do NOT WANT TO make that CLAIM, then so be it. But if that is NOT, now, a CLAIM, or that you, now, do NOT WANT TO make that CLAIM, then what is 'it', EXACTLY, and/or what is 'it' you WANT TO say and CLAIM here?

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

NO.

To me,that's like saying the arm or the leg or the ears or the nose can know things.

BUT I HAVE NEVER SAID 'it'.

'you' are just MAKING ANOTHER ASSUMPTION. Which, by the way, is ABSOLUTELY Wrong, AGAIN.

So am asking you to clarify how a known thing known as a 'human body' can know things? which you claim can.

I have NEVER EVER CLAIMED such an ABSURD and RIDICULOUS thing.

WHY are you UNDER some sort of ASSUMPTION that I have EVER CLAIMED that a 'human body' can know things?

Are you NOT ABLE TO SEE the ACTUAL WORDS that I have USED and SAID here?

I am NOT sure how you could NOT, especially considering just how CLEARLY WRITTEN they are, and SOME of are even CAPITALIZED, so that they can be MORE CLEARLY SEEN.

I'm now asking you to prove that a 'human body' can know things, and how can a known physical body know things....

BUT WHY ask me to PROVE such an ABSURD and STUPID CLAIM?

I have NEVER made that CLAIM, EVER.

please clarify how a known object known as a body can know things? it's up to you the claimer to prove that.

LOL

1. I have NEVER make that CLAIM.

2. If it is up to the "claimer" to PROVE their CLAIM, then that would MEAN that it is up to you to PROVE that 'things' do not know, correct.

3. I have ALREADY PROVED IRREFUTABLY True the CLAIM that I have made that the 'thing', 'human being', CAN and DOES KNOW 'things'.

can it be the knower that can be located by touching it, like a tree or a brick wall can be touched?

NO.

Have 'I' CLARIFIED ENOUGH NOW, for 'you'?

No not really, I'm asking again, can the 'knower' be located and touched as a physical known thing known as the human body? [/quote]

NO.

I am NOT SURE HOW I can CLARIFY my answers for you EVEN MORE.

because you previously claimed the 'thing' KNOWN as 'human beings' CAN KNOW some things.

YES I HAVE, and I STILL DO.

The onus is on you now Age to prove that what you claim to be a known thing known as a human body can know....can be the knower?

'you', the one here known as "dontaskme", REALLY can NOT SEE and COMPREHEND the ACTUAL WORDS that I am USING.

I suggest 'you' go back over the ACTUAL WORDS that I SAY and WRITE here and for 'you' to SEE if 'you' can SPOT THE DIFFERENCE from the ACTUAL WORDS that 'you' SAY and WRITE here.

Can a physical known object that can be touched as a physical object known as the human body .....be the knower?

NO.

You are not really returning the clarity you ask other's to ask you for.

PROVIDING CLARITY here is EXACTLY what I am DOING. I am ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTIONS you are posing and asking me here.

That 'you' are NOT YET ABLE to UNDERSTAND, and thus GAIN the CLARITY, is NOT REALLY my fault.

Although I could VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY POINT OUT and SHOW EXACTLY WHERE and WHEN 'you' are going Wrong here.

So until you do, I'll keep asking you to explain how a thing known as a human body aka an object known....is able to know things.

'you' can keep asking for me to explain 'this', for as long as 'you' like "dontaskme". But considering the Fact that I have NEVER said 'it', NOR even thought 'it', NOR even alluded to it, 'you' will NEVER get me to explain YOUR Wrong ASSUMPTION and Wrong CLAIM here.

How do objects know things?

The do NOT.

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

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

[Age]

You are more optimistic than I. It's probable that there will be no civilised generations now we have broken Earth's climate.

Although 'you', adult human beings, are the most STUPID 'thing' on planet earth, 'you' also have absolute Intelligence WITHIN. And, although it was FROM this Intelligence that ALLOWED 'you' to become SO STUPID as to be DESTROYING 'your' One and ONLY HOME, 'you' are NOT that STUPID to keep going leading to 'your' OWN demise. Fortunately for 'you', and the rest of 'earth's creatures', and for earth, itself, 'you' do EVENTUALLY, WAKE UP to "yourselves", and CHANGE, for the better.

SEE, like VERY individual one of 'you' AFTER 'you' 'FIND OUT' that 'you' are DYING, because of some particular reason, then this is WHEN 'you' WISHED 'you' could GO BACK and CHANGE the 'thing', which is 'now' making 'your' demise and death, QUICKER. But which is NOT a possibility. However, as a 'race' or 'kind', then 'you', human beings, collectively, do have the OPPORTUNITY to LEARN from 'your' MISTAKES, and thus ARE ABLE TO, WILL, and DO CHANGE, for the better.

The next generations AFTER the one, in the days when this was being written, DID CHANGE, BEFORE earth's climate was FULLY 'broken'.

'you', adult human beings, when on your 'last legs' or 'at the end of your tether', and with NO 'other options' DO DO what is NECESSARY FOR CHANGE.

See, the 'life source' WITHIN makes SURE that 'you', as a species WILL LAST for AS LONG as 'you' possibly can.

That IS; UNTIL 'you' CHANGE INTO 'That' what 'you' have ALWAYS BEEN EVOLVING INTO and TOWARDS. Which is WHERE God, and the infinite and eternal 'Energy' come INTO PLAY, and WORK.

I guess all of us here are humble elderly people chatting about a huge dangerous change we can do little to influence.

Well, if you ask "others", then you would be wrong.

See, to a some/most people here 'I' am considered to be non humble immature child. Which is VERY FUNNY when what thee Truth IS becomes KNOWN.

Now, what is this so-called 'dangerous change', which you speak of and talk about here?

ANY 'change' I talk about is CERTAINLY NOT 'dangerous' WHATSOEVER AT ALL.

Change must be political.

WHY SO?

And, what do you mean by 'political'?

None of us is politically influential.

you seem to be completely MISSING ANY POINT I have made or referred to in regards to ANY 'change', which I talk of and speak about.

When Age writes YOU he should say who he means by "YOU".

1. WHY are 'you', "belinda", TELLING "others" what 'i' SHOULD DO, instead of just TELLING 'me'?

2. WHY only on the VERY RARE OCCASIONS when I write 'you' in capital letters SHOULD 'i' then say who 'i' mean?

3. WHY SHOULD ONLY 'i' do this? WHY SHOULD 'you' and "others" NOT ALSO DO what 'you' say 'i' SHOULD do here?

4. 'i' more than ANY one else, BY FAR, when 'i' do write the word 'you', DO say who 'i' mean. ANOTHER example of WHEN 'i' DID DO this is in number 1, in my reply just here.

5. When I do use the single quotation marks around the word 'you', then that is to SIGNIFY that I am referring to a particular one or group of 'you', which is USUALLY followed up with the EXACT 'one' that I am referring to. And, which, by the way, I have NOT notice ANY one of 'you', posters, here DOING THIS. So, saying and CLAIMING that ONLY 'i' SHOULD be DOING THIS, seems REALLY rather ABSURD, especially considering the Fact that 'i' am the ONLY one who ACTUALLY DOES THIS, ANYWAY.

It's true that we small people can be a sign of change of heart and mind, but signs don't cause change to happen .

WHY do 'you', "belinda", SAY, "we small people", here?

Also, what do 'you' mean by, "we small people can be a sign of change of heart and mind"? That does NOT make sense, to 'me'.

And, OF COURSE 'signs', themselves, do NOT cause CHANGE to happen.

ONLY 'you', human beings, can CAUSE the CHANGE to happen, which is REALLY NEEDED and WANTED here, and which is the ONE that I have been talking about and referring to here.

[Age]

There is the energy of frustration. To understand it, look inward at what frustrates and consider what you do with that energy of frustration, in order to understand energy and how it relates to existence, moment-to-moment, in a non-conceptual kind of way*. What happens to that energy, and what do you do with it?

Age frustrates you. You filter Age out of awareness.

I turn off the noise. Value can be found anywhere, but I do not choose to have all radio frequencies blasting in my direction. I've engaged with Age's broadcast a great deal and enough to know that there are better stations with less static to attune to.

'you' ONLY do NOT like the 'noise' I make, or correctly do NOT like the 'words' I USE, because they PROVE 'your' CLAIMS Wrong, INCONSISTENT, or CONTRADICTORY. 'you' have NEVER ACTUALLY SHOWN NOR PROVED ANY thing Wrong in what I have SAID here.

I hope he finds peace with what is, and within himself, rather than continuing to bounce off of everyone else in making them wrong so he can be right.

LOL

It is by KNOWING what IS WHERE Peace EXISTS. So, KNOWING what thee ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth IS EXACTLY, is KNOWING what IS. Which, by the way, 'you', "lacewing", STILL have a VERY LONG WAY to go. Although, 'you' are STILL A LOT CLOSER than most "other" adults are.

WHY do those like "lacewing", who can NOT back up and support their CLAIMS, 'try to' TURN my QUESTIONING into some 'thing' OTHER than what it IS NOT?

The REASON and ANSWER, by the way, is VERY EASY and VERY SIMPLE to KNOW when one is just Truly OPEN and Honest.

[Age]

Hey Age. I see my name attached to yours, as I scroll. You write a lot, I scroll past it, paying attention to the names so I know when to stop.

Sad thing is, I don't bother with the content. It physically doesn't make it past the cost/benefit analysis. I find the eyestrain an unnecessary cost. so I just glance at the names while scrolling until I see a gap in the avalanche...

That is a good way to describe it.

When any of Age's content pops up in the responses that people give him (thereby getting past my 'ignore' list), I find it interesting to see how the responders are handling it and what they say. I don't care to read what Age wrote -- the responses are far more clever and often humorous because nobody comes here to be grilled and pummeled with projections... so people come up with some good stuff. I think this may be the contribution we all make to each other here... ways to become more clever. And it's fun.

What these "posters" did, back in those days, PROVED IRREFUTABLY what I have been SAYING and CLAIMING about HOW the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK. So, ONCE AGAIN, thank you ALL for participating and being my UNKNOWING and UNWILLING test subjects. See, the MORE 'you' WANT to IGNORE 'Me', and what I am SAYING, then the MORE 'you' ARE backing up, supporting, and PROVING MY CLAIMS IRREFUTABLY True.

[Walker]

What happens when fairness answers unfairness?
It's a rhetorical question.

Because of what does happen, unfairness begins to answer unfairness.

Now, it should not be hard to understand.

(As you notice, this is the doing of what I advised, at your request, in my previous posting. I answer my own question, and offer it to you for feedback, which is not required btw, if you have nothing to say).

Listen, Swami Wanker... I previously asked "What do we do with being" as I was thinking about how you can swing from being absolutely disgusting with your posts to using your swami routine (one extreme to another), and I wondered if you have some sort of skitzo mental imbalance and how you might explain it if you're aware of it, which I'm guessing you are. Maybe not.

I thought I explained that. You must have missed it.

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.

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.

It's all very simple. What complicates things for you is your attempt to ostensibly cloak a couched question.

[Walker]

...

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.

[Age]

It's hard to understand how extreme people have become in their views and behavior. How can they not see how ridiculous and destructive it is? Are they intoxicated or possessed or so full of rage they've gone mad? I imagine something will happen to snap humankind out of that. It's such a senseless path. At the very least, maybe we'll serve as a valuable warning for future generations.

You are more optimistic than I. It's probable that there will be no civilised generations now we have broken Earth's climate.

I agree with you -- it could be really bad for a while. This is a lesson/demonstration of what we're capable of. If any survive it, perhaps they'll decidedly and significantly shift. Maybe there will be a new story and cautionary book they pass on to future generations.

There IS, and WAS, and 'you', posters, here are PROVING, EXACTLY, what NOT TO DO, for future generations.

By NOT LISTENING to "others", 'you' have PROVED WHY the 'world' WAS in the MESS 'it' was, back in the days when this WAS being written.

My focus is: we are more than this. Whatever this is,

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, this one KNOWS that ' we are more than 'this' ', which is ABSOLUTELY True for the 'we', known as 'you', human beings, but, and LAUGHABLY, has NOT YET learned NOR discovered what the 'this' IS, and refers to, EXACTLY, YET this one will NOT LISTEN to "others", like 'me', BECAUSE this one BELIEVED 'it' KNOWS BETTER.

we are here now even though we are more than it.

'you' were THERE, back THEN, because 'you' had NOT YET evolved ENOUGH to WHERE 'we' are HERE-Right-NOW. That is; living in Peace, and in Harmony.

So, I try to embrace it with wonderment and openness and as much love as I can,

LOL
LOL
LOL

'you' could NOT be MORE HYPOCRITICAL here.

'you' do NOT try to EMBRACE 'it', and this is BECAUSE 'you' are STUCK in YOUR ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which ARE HOLDING 'you' BACK from SEEING and REALIZING just how Truly WONDERFUL ALL-OF-THIS Truly IS.

'you' are, literally, being CLOSED OFF by 'your' OWN 'thinking' here.

because that seems to lead to more of the same... just as hate and resistance appear to create more of that. It is an interesting dance of balance... like dancing on a volcano.

The ONLY 'thing' 'you' so-call 'dance' to here "lacewing" is YOUR OWN 'tune'. That is; YOUR OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

[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.

But I AM ACHIEVING and have ACHIEVED, EXACTLY, what I WANTED and AM WANTING to.

So, what IS HAPPENING, is and was INTENDED.

[Walker]

But I AM ACHIEVING and have ACHIEVED, EXACTLY, what I WANTED and AM WANTING to.

I think that your unrelenting consistency is proof of that, Age.

In fact, many folks get thoughtlessly locked into their unrelenting consistencies, and thus become both predictable and somewhat boring in their projections, and insistence that others BE the expectations. However, I think that your unrelenting consistency is purposeful and intended, not thoughtless. Thus, your energy is focused, and aligned to purpose rather than confused and wandering about, and rather than whining about the condition of the world.

[Dontaskme]

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.

[Dontaskme]

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...

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?

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

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

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

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

You cannot prove that....your conditioning has told you something you cannot prove to be true. If it is true then point to the exact location of the 'THING' ...YOU CLAIM TO BE THE KNOWER?


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

Truth is you cannot locate 'the knower' as a known physical object/thing.... can 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.
The knower is just an idea/thought which also cannot be seen as a physical tangible object that can be touched.

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

This comment is a FLAWED BELIEF.

If you have an argument opposed to this flawed belief that disproves it or refutes it...then lets hear it. Prove that a 'thing' can know things.