Is it possible to convince anyone with the right words?

[ken]

The answer to that question is on the record.

Need is in relation to movement.

What was 'that' actual question asked, which you are just now answering?

Also, how can 'need' be in relation to movement, when it is you who is saying movement is because of 'need'.

I will try again, you have stipulated that ALL movement is because of 'need'. You state; "Not a thing in the universe: not body, not thought, not object, moves unless it must." My question refers to WHY must ALL things move?

What is the NEED for ALL things to move?

What is the actual NEED, in relation to, which, you insist, ALL things must move?

The "logic" that 'the need for the things to move is because they need to', does not work.

The NEED for things to move, is in relationship to what exactly?

In other words, WHY do things NEED to move?

[Walker]

Your questions only muddle your own understanding.

You only do, say, and write what you must. You can’t reduce it any further.

To say that you must is the same as saying that you have to, or that you need to. You may want to do what you need to do, or may not want to do what you need to do, but if you do want to do what you need to do, this means the wanting is created by the need.

If you don't know what you need to do, you're likely milling about in circles, perhaps even thinking about why the milling, maybe even where the milling, because that's exactly what you have to do. But anything you do do, is because you must, whether or not you know it, or can put your finger on it.

Realizing that every idiot has to be an idiot, and those with everything must someday suffer the loss, generates compassion.

[ken]

Your questions only muddle your own understanding.

If you can not answer the questions, then please refrain from trying to divert that inability onto some other thing.

You only do, say, and write what you must. You can’t reduce it any further.

You may not be able to reduce any further, but I can, and have already.

I have already alluded to the fact that I already know WHY every thing needs to, or must, do what it does. I have a clear understanding of this. I was just asking the person who keeps insisting that every thing needs to do what it does, WHY this is the case? You, unfortunately, are NOT able to answer the questions. No matter how many ways I ask this in the most simplest and straight forwardest ways I ask the questions, you have already proved you can not answer them.

To say that you must is the same as saying that you have to, or that you need to.

Obviously.

You may want to do what you need to do, or may not want to do what you need to do, but if you do want to do what you need to do, this means the wanting is created by the need.

Again, if you do NOT stipulate what the 'need' is in relation to, then you are only allowing others to show you how what you are saying can be perceived as totally inaccurate. If you can not provide a clear understanding of what you are talking about, then that 'need' is allowing Me to prove what I NEED to do, in order to create what I and NEED need to do.

If you don't know what you need to do, you're likely milling about in circles, perhaps even thinking about why the milling, maybe even where the milling, because that's exactly what you have to do.

But just in case you have forgotten because you needed to forget, YOU are the on who does NOT know what you need to do. You have proven this multiple times already because you have not yet defined what the 'need' of ALL movement is, is in relation to. You have absolutely no idea WHY you NEED to do every thing you do, do you?

But anything you do do, is because you must, whether or not you know it, or can put your finger on it.

I KNOW this already, you have repeated the same things enough times already, and unlike you I already KNOW WHY.

Also, do you think I am disagreeing with you?

Realizing that every idiot has to be an idiot, and those with everything must someday suffer the loss, generates compassion.

Who has everything?

And, WHY must those ones with everything suffer the loss?

What loss must they suffer?

And, depending on what loss they must suffer, I might then ask HOW and WHY will this generate compassion?

[Walker]

Milling is not reductionism.

[surreptitious57]

The question was Are there things other than physical things

I asked that because previously you seemed to not have viewed there being anything other than physical things

Since a thing by definition is physical then there cannot be other things that are non physical as a non physical thing is not a logical concept so
all things have to be physical. So called non physical things such as thoughts and emotions are therefore physical things albeit on a rather more
subtle level. The problem is that the definition of physical is too rigid if it excludes so called non physical things. And this is my position at this
moment in time. I particularly like it because it very conveniently places both the physical and the so called non physical in the same category

[surreptitious57]

I was at all at able to express articulately as I would like to be then I would not have to explain that if what I am saying is not 100 per cent clearly understood then just ask Me clarifying questions and I would also not have to explain that if what I am saying is not agreed with then just challenge Me by pointing out and showing what it is that I am saying which is wrong or false or inaccurate and /or incorrect and then just explain why it is so

That is not entirely true for one can express perfectly articulately but that is no guarantee that someone will not question it for whatever reason
How others interpret your words is not something you have any real control over and so if someone wants to question them you cannot stop them
This however does not mean they are questioning them for legitimate reason in which case you are under zero obligation to actually answer them

[surreptitious57]

I have already explained My reasons for NOT debating any thing and I do NOT see debating as being meaningful also. I can NOT debate
anyway because I am Open to ALL things so I am NOT able to choose nor pick one seemingly side over another seemingly side and then
fight or argue for that apparent side. I choose to look for and find and see the truth in ALL things and the falsehoods as well

When I say debate I mean open ended conversation rather than the adoption in advance of a particular side on a specific issue
As those type of so called debates are somewhat restricted as they are notably lacking in freedom and spontaneity and inquiry
Where as with open ended conversation there is no such restriction and probably the only real limitation is that of imagination

[ken]

Milling is not reductionism.

What does 'milling' mean, to you?

If you can not yet reduce any further, and thus are not able to answer the questions, then do not worry about it. I do not expect you to know some thing, which you have not yet learned.

[ken]

The question was Are there things other than physical things

I asked that because previously you seemed to not have viewed there being anything other than physical things

Since a thing by definition is physical then there cannot be other things that are non physical as a non physical thing is not a logical concept so
all things have to be physical.

Thank you for answering.

By the way does 'thing' by definition HAVE TO be physical?

If yes, does every person use this definition?

If not, then why does 'thing' by definition HAVE TO be physical?

By the way, I do not define the word 'thing' as necessarily physical.

So called non physical things such as thoughts and emotions are therefore physical things albeit on a rather more
subtle level.

Is there any evidence that thoughts and emotions are actually physical things?

And, why did you write, "So called 'non physical things' ...' if 'non physical things' is not a logical concept?

I have never said thought and emotions are non physical things. In fact, I do not recall calling anything here a non physical thing. I am just asking you to clarify your thinking.

The problem is that the definition of physical is too rigid if it excludes so called non physical things.

You just wrote; "... non physical things." again. Why do you keep using the term 'non physical things' if it is an illogical concept?

How and why do you propose the definition of 'physical' could be more changeable and include the non physical?

This seems like a rather illogical concept to Me.

And this is my position at this
moment in time.

I am not sure it could be an actual position.

Trying to include the non physical in with the definition of 'physical' seems rather contradictory to Me.

I particularly like it because it very conveniently places both the physical and the so called non physical in the same category

Excuse Me for missing your position exactly, but how or what exactly conveniently places both the physical and the non physical in the same category?

What category? Is the use of the word 'things' the category you are referring to?

If it is, then how could the term 'things', which to you only refers to the physical, also conveniently place the non physical within it?

What I see happening here is you just trying to support and/or justify your already previously held position that there is only physicality, and this includes now trying to explain how thoughts, emotions and the Universe Itself, that is ALL-THERE-IS, are physical.

[ken]

I was at all at able to express articulately as I would like to be then I would not have to explain that if what I am saying is not 100 per cent clearly understood then just ask Me clarifying questions and I would also not have to explain that if what I am saying is not agreed with then just challenge Me by pointing out and showing what it is that I am saying which is wrong or false or inaccurate and /or incorrect and then just explain why it is so

That is not entirely true for one can express perfectly articulately but that is no guarantee that someone will not question it for whatever reason
How others interpret your words is not something you have any real control over and so if someone wants to question them you cannot stop them
This however does not mean they are questioning them for legitimate reason in which case you are under zero obligation to actually answer them

See how useless I am at expressing?

You have just misunderstood and/or misinterpreted just about every thing that I was saying here.

Maybe this is partly because when you quote Me you inaccurately re-write what I wrote. So, maybe you are not looking at and seeing what I write at all, and maybe you are just looking at and seeing from your, obviously evidenced, wrong perception only.

But I am sure there is more to this that just that. I am sure I can do more to be much better understood.

Do you realize and understand that I WANT TO BE questioned, and challenged, hard and fully?

I am seeking out HOW to be questioned and challenged far more than I am now, do you understand this?

I find that I am NOT being questioned nor challenged at all here. I want to be questioned and challenged far more, and 100% fully.

How can you misinterpret what I wrote so much, which is evidenced by your reply?

[ken]

I have already explained My reasons for NOT debating any thing and I do NOT see debating as being meaningful also. I can NOT debate
anyway because I am Open to ALL things so I am NOT able to choose nor pick one seemingly side over another seemingly side and then
fight or argue for that apparent side. I choose to look for and find and see the truth in ALL things and the falsehoods as well

When I say debate I mean open ended conversation rather than the adoption in advance of a particular side on a specific issue

So, why not say just say what you mean, instead of using a term which is just about the exact opposite of what you mean?

An 'open ended conversation' is obviously NOT a debate?

As those type of so called debates are somewhat restricted as they are notably lacking in freedom and spontaneity and inquiry
Where as with open ended conversation there is no such restriction and probably the only real limitation is that of imagination

Well that is roughly what debating is. And, that is why I do not participate in debates.

I much prefer logically reasoned open ended discussions, with a goal proposed from the outset.

[surreptitious57]

What I see happening here is you just trying to support and /or justify your already previously held position that there is only physicality

This is true and I cannot really explain it any better than I already have and there is no point in me repeating it so I will just let it stand
Words are descriptive not prescriptive and so meanings and definitions may change over time depending on context as language evolves

[surreptitious57]

Do you realize and understand that I WANT TO BE questioned and challenged hard and fully

I am seeking out HOW to be questioned and challenged far more than I am now do you understand this

I find that I am NOT being questioned nor challenged at all here I want to be questioned and challenged far more

You want to be questioned or challenged more than you are then try and find a place where that is going to happen
Here is probably not the best place as it is quite a small forum and so the questioning or challenging will be limited
You do go elsewhere you may find more satisfaction rather than staying here and becoming thoroughly disappointed

[ken]

Do you realize and understand that I WANT TO BE questioned and challenged hard and fully

I am seeking out HOW to be questioned and challenged far more than I am now do you understand this

I find that I am NOT being questioned nor challenged at all here I want to be questioned and challenged far more

You want to be questioned or challenged more than you are then try and find a place where that is going to happen

Any suggestions?

Here is probably not the best place as it is quite a small forum and so the questioning or challenging will be limited

But it does not matter if there is one person or seven billion or so people.

The questioning and/or challenging is not limited by the amount of people. The questioning and/or challenging is limited by the person/people, themselves, and in how interested or disinterested they are in learning and teaching. Obviously if there is no questioning nor challenging, then there is no interest in learning and/or teaching. Subsequently, it would follow that the more interest in learning and teaching, then the more questioning and challenging would occur.

Unfortunately, however, most people are just like you in that they already have strongly held positions and views and instead of learning and gaining more and/or new knowledge, they have a 'bias confirmation' outlook, which makes them prefer to just look for and find ways to express, what they already think, assume, and/or believe is right, as being absolutely true.

You do go elsewhere you may find more satisfaction rather than staying here and becoming thoroughly disappointed

I am used to not finding people interested. I do not feel disappointed in regard to this. I totally understand this. I do not expect any thing of people nor do I force any issue. If, however, I am coming across as feeling disappointed, well that is because of how you can completely misunderstand, misconstrue, and/or misinterpret what I say and write, especially in how you to it to such an extent some times that you actually say the exact opposite of what I just said. I feel disappointed in the lack of ability I have in being understood.

[surreptitious57]

The questioning and /or challenging is not limited by the amount of people

Not absolutely so but the larger a forum is the greater the chance of you being questioned or challenged is going to be
Whether you stay here or go else where is ultimately up to you as I cannot make that decision for you for only you can