The meaning of life

[Harbal]

Are you sure you want to do that?

I'm sure of very little at the present moment,IC.

[Dontaskme]

But if 'you' are A PART OF Life, and 'you' are placing 'meaning' or 'NO meaning' on Life, then would those actions/behaviors NOT be A REQUIREMENT of Life, Itself?

Only in the illusory sense there is a need or no need for meaning, purpose and reason to be a 'you' in the first place.

The requirement to be a 'you' who places meaning or no meaning to life, is purely an optional conditional illusion within life itself, because existence is without doubt or error, whether there is a 'you' to place meaning or no meaning on it. Existence requires no conditions to be, and yet at the same time seems as though there is a sense of 'you' who places conditions on what is first and foremost, unconditional existence, which is free to be. And so being unconditional is what allows for everything to be exactly as it is, including the placing of meaning or no meaning upon the experience of existing as existence itself.

[Dontaskme]

After all, at EVERY given moment was has BECOME KNOWN was ONCE the unknown.

Yes, that's right, what is unknown will eventually become known. But that which is unknowable, can never be known. It is not possible to unknow knowing. You are this knowing. This knowing is not a 'you' that knows, there is [Only knowing], including the knowing of the word 'you'

But that 'you', human beings, DO and CREATED these squiggly and straight marks does NOT mean that there is NO A Guider and Knower WITHIN 'you' that is continually providing Life ENERGY for 'you' ALL to just KEEP GOING, correct?

You are the knower as 'you' is known as a word, in the exact same instance of knowing. There is, only this knowing.

[Dontaskme]

And what is so-called 'responsible' for the sun?

To save time, you can google the answer to the question what is so-called responsible for the sun, or you can make up your own version Age.

And what do you actually mean by 'responsible' here?

By 'responsible' I mean the same 'responsible' as what you have written below...which I've underlined for you.
That some 'thing' that must have been 'responsible' for the earth, was in my opinion, the sun.
As for the some 'thing' that is 'responsible' for the sun...that answer can be found in the google re-search engine, or you can make up your own idea about that question Age..

AND, some 'thing' MUST HAVE BEEN responsible for the earth, stone, and rock to exist in the first place. Have ANY of 'you' WORK OUT what that some 'thing' IS, EXACTLY, YET?

[Immanuel Can]

Are you sure you want to do that?

I'm sure of very little at the present moment,IC.

To quote the Bard, "A fair and an honest answer."

[Dontaskme]

It's like watching you try to ring blood out of a stone.

Well you do not have to do that, as blood does come from stone. That's one of God's secret miracles, dont you know. The miracle of turning stone which is just another word for rock which is just another word for stone and that stone that is also known as rock was able to turn into blood.

Unless you have another theory or idea as to where blood came from or how blood was able to exist on a planet made of stone, not forgetting the earths core is also stone, except to say it is in a more melted liquidy version of it's solid form ?

Just think about it IC..if there had been no earth made of stone, there would never have been blood.

Hey, and imagine this earthly round stone without the capacity to craft the word BLOOD into existence, what the heck is blood?

There is no spoon – Spoon Boy (The Matrix) There is no spoon. A certain problem or obstacle only exists if one believes in it; therefore, it is possible to overcome it by denying its existence.

From belief to clarity IC from belief to clarity. And this is why you refuse to speak clarity with me IC, because there is no one here for you to bounce off.

Hey, and if you think I am insane and crazy, you should see my Father, that guy you call God.

[Age]

Do you LIKE to be INFORMED when YOUR CONCLUSIONS, and/or JUDGMENTS, are Incorrect, partially and/or wholly?

Or, in other words, if what you BELIEVE was true was NOT true, then would you like to HEAR 'it'?

My first choice would always be the truth.

But MY QUESTION, to you, WAS, If what you BELIEVE was true was NOT true, then would you like to HEAR that YOUR BELIEF IS NOT true?

BUT HOW could A 'thing' which you BELIEVE could NOT even exist send an angel to you, or do absolutely ANY thing?

If God exists, he exists regardless of my disbelief.

Okay, WHY do you PRESUME God is a "he"?

Also, WHY have you CONCLUDED that God is a "he"?

I haven't. I have concluded that there probably is no God, and therefore probably has no gender. I chose the pronoun, "he", because it is the one most conventionally used when referring to God.

So, you sometimes SAY 'things' just because 'those things' are the most conventionally used words, terms, or phrases even though they could be absolutely FULLY or PARTLY Wrong, right?

Do you KNOW WHERE this DISTORTED CONCLUSION and BELIEF even came from, EXACTLY?

No.

Okay. One of the more likely CAUSES can be shared with you, that is; if you are INTERESTED.

WHY do you NOT appear to be ABLE TO COMPREHEND that WHILE one is BELIEVING or DISBELIEVING some 'thing' is true, then there is absolutely NOTHING that could 'come-to-light' and SHOW OTHERWISE?

That doesn't make sense, so it isn't a question of comprehending it, unless one is to comprehend it as nonsense, of course.

What you said and wrote here does not make sense, to me.

It is this SIMPLE. While one is BELIEVING some 'thing' to be true, then they are NOT OPEN to ANY 'thing' CONTRARY.

Unless, OF COURSE, ANY one will provide ANY example otherwise.

Maybe if you provide AN EXAMPLE of while you are BELIEVING, or DISBELIEVING, some 'thing' is true, HOW EXACTLY CONTRARY 'evidence' or 'proof' could be SHOWN or EXPLAINED, to you, then I COULD LEARN HOW to PROVIDE such 'evidence' AND 'proof' to 'you', human beings.

I did give you an example. The example of God sending an angel.

WHAT IS AN 'angel'? LET ALONE WHAT IS 'God'?

And, so while you are BELIEVING that God does NOT exist is absolutely and irrefutably TRUE you, ALSO, BELIEVE that this NONE EXISTING 'thing' can send some OTHER IMAGINED 'thing', to you, right?

BECAUSE it is AN IMPOSSIBILITY to BELIEVE, or DISBELIEVE, some 'thing' is true WHILE AT THE EXACT SAME TIME OPEN to 'it' NOT being true AT ALL NOR PARTIALLY.

I didn't make that claim, so I am not going to be held responsible for justifying it.

You did NOT make WHAT claim?

What does the 'that' word refer to, EXACTLY?

LOL
LOL
LOL

Well then 'it' was OBVIOUSLY NEVER EVER 'irrefutable'.

Exactly.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, WHY IMAGINE that 'it' IS IRREFUTABLE when 'it' could possibly BE REFUTED?

To me, this seems like a Truly bizarre AND absurd thing to do.

But i do NOT 'believe' in irrefutable truths in ANY way. So, what made you ASSUME, SAY, and WRITE the 'thing' that you just did here?

But you obviously do believe in them, even if it isn't obvious to you.

So, do you REALLY BELIEVE that you are somehow SO SUPERIOR to "another" that you able to TELL 'them' what the thoughts and thinking ARE EXACTLY going on WITHIN that head?

'I' will TELL 'you' what ACTUAL 'thoughts' occur WITHIN this head and there are absolutely NONE that consist of, 'I BELIEVE in irrefutable truths'.

Is this now UNDERSTOOD and COMPREHENDED by 'you', "harbal"?

And, LOL proposing AN ASSUMPTION of YOURS as being an 'obvious fact' is Truly BIZARRE, to say the least.

Also, in 'what' WAY were you ASSUMING I did 'believe' in irrefutable truths, EXACTLY?

I'm not sure how to answer that. Will you give me a list of different ways of assuming something, so that I might choose an appropriate one?

'Guessing', alone, will suffice here.

So, you ADMIT that you CONCLUDE 'things' to be true, right, or correct but which, in fact, may NOT be true, right, NOR correct AT ALL, right?

No, I am not admitting anything.

WHY?

What is SO HARD or DIFFICULT about just being Truly OPEN and Honest here now?

I am saying that I tend to think in terms of varying probability, rather than absolute truth.

This is BECAUSE you BELIEVE, WHOLEHEARTEDLY and ABSOLUTELY, that 'absolute truth' does NOT exist.

Of course, in actuality, I treat most things that I consider to be highly probable as if they were truths, for the sake of expediency.

LOL but 'you', human beings, do NOT HAVE TO CONCLUDE 'things'.

SEE, what 'you' CAN DO INSTEAD is just REMAIN OPEN.

I don't remember ever asserting otherwise.

you did NOT HAVE TO.

you CONCLUDE and BELIEVE 'things' BEFORE you GAIN and OBTAIN ABSOLUTE CLARIFICATION, and SO conclude AND believe some 'things' to BE TRUE when they OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT.

Which is WHY 'you', adult human beings, have taken SO LONG to evolve TO LEARNING HOW to FIND and SEE the ACTUAL, IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things'.

This 'mind' 'thing', which you speak of, is that 'thing' that is part 'consciousness' but NOT ALL 'consciousness', correct?

I've abandoned any hope of us arriving at an agreed upon definition of "mind".

LOL When 'you', human beings, had NOT arrived at an agreed upon definition of 'mind' for thousands UPON thousands of years, so for 'you' "harbal" to NOT reach a definition within a few posts is NOT very surprising AT ALL.

This WAS just ANOTHER EXAMPLE of HOW OFTEN the adult human beings, back in the days when this was being written, would SAY and USE words but REALLY have ABSOLUTELY NO idea of what those words could ACTUALLY MEAN or REFER TO, EXACTLY, which would FIT IN WITH other words and terminology.

But you do NOT BELIEVE in ANY irrefutable truths, correct?

If yes, then this implies that, to you, there are NO irrefutable truths AT ALL, right?

If yes, then this means that you will ALWAYS be doing some 'thing'?

However much something appears to be the truth, how can you possibly know that nothing could ever happen, or come to light, that would refute it?

VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY WITH HIND-SIGHT, FORE-SIGHT, and WITH the ability to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' from A Truly OPEN perspective.

What does have 'the importance' to you here?

I have no idea.

So, once again, you write and use terms and words but really have NO idea what they mean, right?

Or, did you just NOT understand what I wrote and said here?

I think there will always be things that I can never know for sure, and I can accept that.

Okay, like 'what', for example?

Well, if you claim something to be irrefutibly true, for example, I can't know for sure that actually know it is irrefutibly true.

Also, are you under some sort of illusion that i could NOT or could NEVER accept 'that'?

Also, are you under some sort of illusion that i could NOT or could NEVER accept 'that'?

I don't think I'm under any such illusion, as I haven't even considered the matter.

I do NOT think that there is a human being who does NOT accept that there are some things that they can NEVER KNOW for sure.

But unlike 'you' where you BELIEVE absolutely AND wholeheartedly that there is absolutely NO thing that you can KNOW, for sure, I KNOW, for sure, that there are some things that can be KNOWN, FOR SURE, and this is just because they are IRREFUTABLE True Facts.

[Age]

Yes, that's what some sort of councillor said to my wife.

Well it is an IRREFUTABLE Fact.

You might say so, but I don't know that it is.

What do you NEED BEFORE you can KNOW something?

WHY would you NOT 'accept' "her" drinking? It was OBVIOUS that "she" was drinking right?

Are you deliberately misunderstanding me?

No. Could you be misunderstanding me here?

I would not regard her drinking, and its consequences, as something that could be accepted.

Although 'that' was what was ACTUALLY HAPPENING, correct?

Also, do you mean in regards to 'accepting', full stop, or, in regards to your OWN 'standards' of living and 'acceptance'?

What is the 'it' word here in relation to, EXACTLY?

The problem that my wife claimed her drinking was a response to.

Which was 'what', EXACTLY?

Do you here mean 'could not' or 'had not'?

I can't honestly say.

But you CAN 'honestly say', you have just CHOSEN to PREFER to NOT 'honestly say', correct?

Unless you provide justification for making that assertion, I have to regard it as meaningless.

Do 'you' HAVE TO, or, CHOOSE TO?

Please stop asking pointless questions.

LOL But they are NOT pointless questions. In fact IF answered Honestly and OPENLY just HOW MUCH of A POINT there REALLY IS, IS REVEALED.

Well I suppose it is something you just have to put up with if you insist on involving yourself with human beings.

But NOT ALL human beings are like 'you', "harbal".

Okay, then I'll revise it to, I suppose it is something you just have to put up with if you insist on involving yourself with me.

Okay.

[Age]

So, if the so-called 'nature' of 'you', human beings, is to BELIEVE 'things' ARE true when they are NOT necessarily true AT ALL, then this helps in EXPLAINING WHY it is taking SO LONG for 'you', human beings, to come to SEE and REALIZE thee ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things'.

Also, and by the way, that is NOT the 'nature of human beings' AT ALL, and this is PROVED IRREFUTABLY True by ALL of 'you'.

My impression is that you have a poor understanding of human nature.

This IMPLIES that you KNOW, for sure, what 'human nature' IS, EXACTLY. So, would you like to INFORM, and EXPLAIN TO, the REST what IS 'human nature', EXACTLY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Now, do you have ANY ACTUAL PROOF that BELIEVING (in) 'things' being true, when they are ACTUALLY NOT True, IS 'human nature', itself, then will you PROVIDE 'that proof'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, I MENTIONED that IRREFUTABLE PROOF exists, YET you COMPLETELY and UTTERLY IGNORE this and just move onto your OWN IMPRESSION/ASSUMPTION, INSTEAD.

Great, will you help me in coming up with a better way of putting 'it'?

I don't think I can.

WHY do you have SO LITTLE 'Self-BELIEF'.

The source of the intention being the imagination of those striving to progress.

But WHY 'imagination'?

Could it NOT be from the 'source' of thee One who IS the 'Driver', 'Guider', or 'Instinctual Knower' from DEEP WITHIN ALL of 'us'?

I have no idea what you are referring to here, as being "thee One who IS the 'Driver', 'Guider', or 'Instinctual Knower' from DEEP WITHIN ALL of 'us."

Okay.

[Age]

But if 'you' are A PART OF Life, and 'you' are placing 'meaning' or 'NO meaning' on Life, then would those actions/behaviors NOT be A REQUIREMENT of Life, Itself?

Only in the illusory sense there is a need or no need for meaning, purpose and reason to be a 'you' in the first place.

But, if 'Life' created/caused 'you', or, if in 'Life' 'you', a wondering and meaning seeking creature, came to exist, then could this mean that there IS at least SOME 'meaning' here. Could there be a 'purpose' to 'Life' if this so-called 'illusory sense' came to exist? Could there be a 'reason' for 'Life' creating a so-called 'illusory sense' of 'meaning', 'purpose', and/or 'reason'.

The requirement to be a 'you' who places meaning or no meaning to life, is purely an optional conditional illusion within life itself, because existence is without doubt or error, whether there is a 'you' to place meaning or no meaning on it. Existence requires no conditions to be, and yet at the same time seems as though there is a sense of 'you' who places conditions on what is first and foremost, unconditional existence, which is free to be.

YET in Existence a 'meaning' creating creature came to exist.

One might now ask WHY?

And so being unconditional is what allows for everything to be exactly as it is, including the placing of meaning or no meaning upon the experience of existing as existence itself.

Also, when 'you' USE the 'illusory sense' phrase or term, what are 'you' meaning or referring to, EXACTLY?

[Age]

After all, at EVERY given moment was has BECOME KNOWN was ONCE the unknown.

Yes, that's right, what is unknown will eventually become known.

Great, I am glad that you do SEE, and KNOW, 'this'.

But that which is unknowable, can never be known.

Are you able to EXPLAIN absolutely ANY 'thing', which could be what you call 'unknowable'?

It is not possible to unknow knowing.

I am NOT sure HOW this relates to what you quoted me as saying here.

Will you ELABORATE at all here?

You are this knowing.

We have gone through 'this' ENOUGH TIMES now "dontaskme". What 'you' call 'you' here 'I' SAY and CLAIM is NOT 'knowing', but is 'thinking', instead.

This knowing is not a 'you' that knows, there is [Only knowing], including the knowing of the word 'you'

And, AGAIN, we have gone through 'this' ALREADY ALSO. The word 'you' INDICATES "another", of which there is NONE REALLY. There can ONLY EVER be just One, and that One HAS TO BE thee 'I', or thy 'Self'.

But that 'you', human beings, DO and CREATED these squiggly and straight marks does NOT mean that there is NO A Guider and Knower WITHIN 'you' that is continually providing Life ENERGY for 'you' ALL to just KEEP GOING, correct?

You are the knower as 'you' is known as a word, in the exact same instance of knowing. There is, only this knowing.

BUT, IF this 'knowing' is NOT 'you', as 'you' CLAIM above here, then WHO IS thee One that KNOWS, 'knowing'?

Could that One be the One and ONLY 'I'?

Which, just to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR could NEVER be ANY of those little SEPARATED human being 'i's', which are ILLUSORY CLAIMED to be 'I's.

[Age]

And what is so-called 'responsible' for the sun?

To save time, you can google the answer to the question what is so-called responsible for the sun, or you can make up your own version Age.

I found that when one MAKES A CLAIM, but are NOT ABLE TO back up and support THAT CLAIM, then there REALLY WAS NOT MUCH USE for 'them' to MAKE THE CLAIM in the beginning. you have SHOWN and PROVED 'this', ONCE AGAIN.

And what do you actually mean by 'responsible' here?

By 'responsible' I mean the same 'responsible' as what you have written below...which I've underlined for you.
That some 'thing' that must have been 'responsible' for the earth, was in my opinion, the sun.
As for the some 'thing' that is 'responsible' for the sun...that answer can be found in the google re-search engine, or you can make up your own idea about that question Age..

AND, some 'thing' MUST HAVE BEEN responsible for the earth, stone, and rock to exist in the first place. Have ANY of 'you' WORK OUT what that some 'thing' IS, EXACTLY, YET?

IF I was to now ask 'you', What is the 'meaning' of the 'responsible' word that I MEAN, 'you' would NOT be ABLE TO ANSWER 'this' ALSO correct, "dontaskme"?

[Harbal]

My first choice would always be the truth.

But MY QUESTION, to you, WAS, If what you BELIEVE was true was NOT true, then would you like to HEAR that YOUR BELIEF IS NOT true?

Yes.

So, you sometimes SAY 'things' just because 'those things' are the most conventionally used words, terms, or phrases even though they could be absolutely FULLY or PARTLY Wrong, right?

Yes.

It is this SIMPLE. While one is BELIEVING some 'thing' to be true, then they are NOT OPEN to ANY 'thing' CONTRARY.

Unless, OF COURSE, ANY one will provide ANY example otherwise.

I looked online a while back to check what time my local convenience store opened, and the website informed me that the store opened at 6:00 am. I believed the information on the website. I went to the store, arriving shortly after 6:00 am, to find it was not open. At that point I stopped believing the store was open.

I did give you an example. The example of God sending an angel.

WHAT IS AN 'angel'? LET ALONE WHAT IS 'God'?

I don't know, I never got to see either of them.

And, so while you are BELIEVING that God does NOT exist is absolutely and irrefutably TRUE you, ALSO, BELIEVE that this NONE EXISTING 'thing' can send some OTHER IMAGINED 'thing', to you, right?

No, your assessment here is incorrect, wrong, mistaken.

I do not believe it irrefutably true that God does not exist, I think it highly unlikely that he/she/it does exist. I don't believe that a none existing thing can send anything anywhere.

You did NOT make WHAT claim?

There is no claim, I didn't make one.

What does the 'that' word refer to, EXACTLY?

Which "that" are you referring to?

So, WHY IMAGINE that 'it' IS IRREFUTABLE when 'it' could possibly BE REFUTED?

To me, this seems like a Truly bizarre AND absurd thing to do.

No comment.

So, do you REALLY BELIEVE that you are somehow SO SUPERIOR to "another" that you able to TELL 'them' what the thoughts and thinking ARE EXACTLY going on WITHIN that head?

No.

I' will TELL 'you' what ACTUAL 'thoughts' occur WITHIN this head and there are absolutely NONE that consist of, 'I BELIEVE in irrefutable truths'.

That's not the way it seems.

Is this now UNDERSTOOD and COMPREHENDED by 'you', "harbal"?

No.

And, LOL proposing AN ASSUMPTION of YOURS as being an 'obvious fact' is Truly BIZARRE, to say the least.

Should one be concerned about one's behaviour being perceived as bizarre, do you think?

I am saying that I tend to think in terms of varying probability, rather than absolute truth.

This is BECAUSE you BELIEVE, WHOLEHEARTEDLY and ABSOLUTELY, that 'absolute truth' does NOT exist.

No, I do not " BELIEVE, WHOLEHEARTEDLY and ABSOLUTELY, that 'absolute truth' does NOT exist."

you CONCLUDE and BELIEVE 'things' BEFORE you GAIN and OBTAIN ABSOLUTE CLARIFICATION, and SO conclude AND believe some 'things' to BE TRUE when they OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT.

So do you. You have come to a few false conclusions about me, for example. I have pointed out at least one instance in this reply.

This WAS just ANOTHER EXAMPLE of HOW OFTEN the adult human beings, back in the days when this was being written, would SAY and USE words but REALLY have ABSOLUTELY NO idea of what those words could ACTUALLY MEAN or REFER TO, EXACTLY, which would FIT IN WITH other words and terminology.

And yet most human beings are still able to communicate with other human beings more effectively that you are. Don't you find that bizarre, to say the least?

However much something appears to be the truth, how can you possibly know that nothing could ever happen, or come to light, that would refute it?

VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY WITH HIND-SIGHT, FORE-SIGHT, and WITH the ability to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' from A Truly OPEN perspective.

I think you are making a mistake to think that.

But unlike 'you' where you BELIEVE absolutely AND wholeheartedly that there is absolutely NO thing that you can KNOW, for sure, I KNOW, for sure, that there are some things that can be KNOWN, FOR SURE, and this is just because they are IRREFUTABLE True Facts.

Give me a couple of examples of irrefutable facts so I know what sort of things I need to eliminate from my list of things that can never be known for sure.

[Harbal]

Well it is an IRREFUTABLE Fact.

You might say so, but I don't know that it is.

What do you NEED BEFORE you can KNOW something?

You need to know you have all the relevant information.

I would not regard her drinking, and its consequences, as something that could be accepted.

Although 'that' was what was ACTUALLY HAPPENING, correct?

Also, do you mean in regards to 'accepting', full stop, or, in regards to your OWN 'standards' of living and 'acceptance'?

I mean it could not be accepted as a way of life.

The problem that my wife claimed her drinking was a response to.

Which was 'what', EXACTLY?

Our relationship, I suppose.

But you CAN 'honestly say', you have just CHOSEN to PREFER to NOT 'honestly say', correct?

No, you are not correct.

[Dontaskme]

And what is so-called 'responsible' for the sun?

DAM answered the Age question with the following....

To save time, you can google the answer to the question what is so-called responsible for the sun, or you can make up your own version Age.

Age answered...

I found that when one MAKES A CLAIM, but are NOT ABLE TO back up and support THAT CLAIM, then there REALLY WAS NOT MUCH USE for 'them' to MAKE THE CLAIM in the beginning. you have SHOWN and PROVED 'this', ONCE AGAIN.

I'm very interested to know how would you like me to back up the claim that I made by claiming the sun is what is responsible for the earth?

I could have said...the planet mars is responsible for the earth...but I didn't think that answer would sound right, so I put the sun is responsible for the earth instead, why, because I thought that was the right thing to say in response to your question. If you want me to back up that claim, you'll have to tell me how or what that even means to you, so that I fully understand what you are requesting me to do with my claim by asking for back up and support for the claim.