Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm
Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:01 am If so, please explain why it applies to all people but not to you.
ken wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 am
Did you assume, think, or believe that what I said would apply to all people but not to me?
So, I asked you some clarifying questions, and now you jump right into asking me if I assume, think, or believe
Is there some thing wrong with Me counter-clarifying?
Is clarifying really seen as being such a bad thing?
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm-- rather than noticing/acknowledging the role that your communication plays in creating confusion (or revealing intent) that needs to be clarified. I will try to show you some examples in this post...
But I did and do notice/acknowledge the role that My communication plays in creating confusion. I actually intend on creation some confusion here, in this forum, so then by the way people respond I can show, with proof, of how the Mind and the brain work, which is what I have partly been doing.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmYour statement
"Surely you understand that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing", sounds like a very absolute statement, doesn't it?
I surely hope it does. That is the exact way that I wrote it and was hoping it would sound like. I would hope people did NOT see it in any other way than the way I wrote it, and, if they saw it as ambiguous in any way, then I would hope that they would ask Me for clarity BEFORE they made and assumptions and/or jumped to any conclusions. Could it be seen in any other way than a very absolute statement?
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm It could be taken as applying "in general" or "in this instance". You did not specify that detail when you said it.
Ah here we go, so you did take it that it could mean different things. And, unfortunately still NO clarifying question.
If you had noticed, by the way I write, I intentionally use words to define as close as possible to what I actually mean. I am just learning how to do this in the shortest and most succinct way I possibly can. I did NOT use words like "in general", nor "in this instance", nor "at the moment", nor "at certain times", et cetera, et cetera because I meant ALWAYS, FOREVER, ALL THE TIME, CONSTANTLY, et cetera, et cetera.
I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing. FULL STOP.
Now, can that be read, taken, and/or understood in different ways?
If it can I am really interested in being informed so.
Do you, and others, NOW fully understand that I, from a certain past date, NEVER neither believe nor disbelieve any thing?
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmFrom what you've responded, I'm thinking that maybe your response was applying only to "this instance". Is that correct?
Not at all.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm Or do you (and have you previously indicated that you)
neither believe nor disbelieve any thing... in general?
I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing EVER.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmken wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 am
'views', by their nature, can and do change. Whereas, 'beliefs' can not. Only during or after the dismissal of a belief, the belief returns to a view, when then be changed.
So here you're making up the definitions and distinctions and how they work, do you realize?
Yes, of course. I do it all the time. BUT I use a dictionary as a reference to base those definitions and distinctions upon, and how I make those words work. In fact, it will be found that how I gained a clear and big picture of how human beings and the Universe works and how EVERY thing fits together perfectly to form a perfect picture was mostly because of the definitions that have already been made up and have already been given to words, which can very easily been seen and proven in the dictionaries that already exist. The big and full picture of Life is seen (with) in the words, and their definitions, which already exist.
Do you realize EVERY person makes up the definitions and distinctions of words and how they work?
If not, then just take notice next time when a person states some thing like, "But that is not what [any word added here] means". It is human beings who make up the definitions and distinctions of words
There is NO word in the Universe that HAS A meaning in and of itself. ALL words are made up, and then given definitions BY human beings. The meanings given to a word are based on those made up definitions.
By the way when, and if, you take notice when a person, even if you catch your self doing it, you might also notice just how many disagreements, disputes, and fights are caused just solely because of the varying and different definitions each person has distinctively given to words. While looking into this you might also notice just how often a person, even one's self, does NOT know what the actual written definition of a word is. For example, I have to look in a dictionary the definition of a word on average about five or six times on each response I write, but this is getting a lot less frequent now. But when I first came here it felt like every five word I read I had to turn to a dictionary to understand better what was being said. By the way I am not the best one as an example of this because of how slow and simple I actually am. I am just very thorough and write very intentionally. I also would NEVER say what a word means, but I do write "What a word once meant, or was once defined as, ...", which by the way can be completely contradictory to how that same word is used generally in the days of now.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm Whereas, I could say that beliefs change all the time, without ever being "dismissed" and going through a view period. Beliefs can morph to and fro constantly.
Yes you could. If you did, then I would question it by asking some thing like, "But how could a belief form if not coming from a previous view? Do you, can you, believe some thing without ever having some form of experience it?" If so, then how? At present I can not see how some thing could be believed without it coming from some sort of previous experience. The information, from an experience, is transferred into the brain through any or all of the five senses, which is what forms, or produces, a view, almost instantly. From that information, (or view of things), we then decide what to do with that view, that is whether to believe or not believe the view, or just keep it as a view, for the moment.
I do not dispute nor disagree the beliefs people choose to have can change, and can change quite frequently, nor do I disagree that beliefs can morph to and fro constantly. If that is what people choose to do, then that is their prerogative. I am any one to say what human beings can do or not do, but I will question you about "HOW could a person change a belief if they are holding onto and/or maintaining it?" What I observe is people ONLY believe some thing if it is, to them, true, right, correct, and/or accurate. Do you know of any person who would have or maintain a belief if it were NOT true, NOT right, NOT correct, and/nor NOT accurate, to them? If you do not know of any person who would do that, then it is easy to imagine and see that while a person is believing, (or not believing which may also be the case), some thing to be true, et cetera, then they must be
holding onto or maintaining that belief, and therefore could it even be possible to change that belief, at that very instance? Because if that it were true, which is what they are believing at that given moment, then WHY would they want to change it anyway?
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm I think people are like oceans... and one day they may think and believe or respond one way, and another day they may think and respond another way. It could depend on all kinds of things... but they can very firmly believe it in the moment.
Yes that is very true. In fact it can and does happen hourly and some times minute by minute not just daily or more. BUT that does NOT disagree with, detract from, nor refute what I see.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmken wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 am
I made this distinction after I discovered, while talking to some people with relative power, of how destructive the power of belief can actually be. I decided then that I was
not going to believe nor disbelieve any thing again.
Now, notice how your statement sounds absolute here.
But My statement was meant to sound absolute from the outset.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm So, please clarify, do you or do you not -- in general -- believe or disbelieve any thing?
Thank you, from the deepest sincerity, a clarifying question.
I NEITHER believe nor disbelieve any thing, IN GENERAL, ALWAYS, FOREVER MORE, et cetera. FULL STOP.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm Is your view that other people -- in general -- believe or disbelieve things more than you do?
Yes. Some people even believe, and thus insist, that human beings HAVE TO believe things. These people actually believe that a human being can NOT exist without believing some thing.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmAlso, are you aware that some people here are trying to do for you, what you are trying to do for others?
What is it that they are trying to do for Me, what I am trying to do for others?
And, who are those people?
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmWhen you appear to be telling people how something "is"... and they question you about that... the issue is NOT simply and automatically because they haven't asked enough clarifying questions of you.
I like that you used the word "appear". I do not recall telling people how some thing "is". Could you please provide some examples of when I have supposedly done this? I am not saying that I have not. I just do not recall doing that. When, and if, you do, then we can look at if I have actually done that or it just "appears" that way. Some times I write in a way that can appear to be NOT what it actually IS. I do this for effect.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmThe issue can be that you incorrectly think you know how something "is", or the issue can be that there is an inconsistency in what you communicate.
I totally agree that there is inconsistency in what I communicate.
I some times do this on purpose;
to strengthen people's assumptions and beliefs. And,
to show the actual amount of times people do NOT ask for clarification, and thus will just proceed along, basing things on the assumptions and/or beliefs that they already have gained from previous experiences.
I also from the outset have proposed I am here to learn how to write more succinctly in order to express what I one day want to express, so there will at times be inconsistencies. I am very far from a learned person, who knows how to communicate at all really. I am just learning how to.
I also see people see far more inconsistencies in what I write then what is actually there. But how much truth is in this last sentence will come to light soon enough.
To find out if I incorrectly think I know how some thing "is", then we need the examples of when I have done it. Then we will be able to find out what the actual truth IS.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm I don't think it is up to other people to "work through" what someone says to such a degree... as if the content is so important to be understood.
There are countless eyes and minds seeing more than a single view can fathom.
From what I observe and notice is if a person is completely open, and not supposing they KNOW any thing, then they would and do 'work through' what others say, to find, see, and understand what the actual truth. The people who just accept what others say are the ones I found to be the believers. If people think, assume, or believe that the content of what another is saying is not that important to be understood, then so be it. It seems far easier to accept what one already believes to be true and to believe what one already accepts to be true, then it is to try to understand another one.
I agree there are more eyes seeing more than a single individual person can. But there is One single view, which can fathom ALL. That view is made up of ALL views. From this vantage point ONLY is the view point from which I talk about. The best way to gain the advantage to see from the single unified perspective of Everything is to listen to and learn from others. What each and EVERY one has to say is as IMPORTANT as the next. We ALL can learn from each other, no matter how seemingly unimportant, or unwanting to be heard, what another has to say.
ken wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 amThe reason I say, what I say, is to evoke feelings to people, and then watch the reaction. What will be observed is people instantly start assuming. People then write assumingly,
You realize that you write assumingly too, correct?[/quote]
I am sure I have. And when it was pointed out to Me when I did I instantly acknowledged My mistake, and then concentrated harder on not doing it again. When it is pointed out to Me when I do it, then I can be made aware of it. As I have said before, 'I do not want to assume', which obviously does not mean that I do not do it. I can easily choose to neither believe nor disbelieve some thing but it is harder I found to never assume any thing. The awareness needed for that is above my ability yet. That is why I write, I do not
want to assume.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm And you realize that you are not the only one aiming to evoke feelings and reactions, yes?
Yes. But do you realize I do NOT do it to, what is commonly referred to as, "hurt" another's feelings. I just do it to cause a certain response?
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmken wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 amI want to show how the brain has stopped what the Mind already sees and knows.
I think a lot of people understand this, Ken. My question for you... repeatedly... has been: "Do you see this as a problem... as something to be overcome or fixed... and if so, why?"
It does not have to be overcome nor fixed. Human beings can carry on the way they are now. The pollution and wars caused by greed will inevitably fix any "problems". Nature, naturally, looks after Itself, after all. If human beings are 'to much', 'to out of balance', or 'to out of sync' with Nature, then I am sure the "problem" will eventually be gotten rid of fixed.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm There appears to be an undercurrent to your writings that suggests we are not where we should be. Is that what you think?
Not at all. We are EXACTLY where we are meant to be. I just allow my human being tendency of
impatience to come through some times, more than I like to be honest, and thanks to you I am being made aware that it is happening to much. Thank you.
The personal fear is I will not finish expressing this before this body stops breathing and pumping blood. The other personal fears I have of being mis/judged, taken out of context, being misconstrued, and/or misunderstood prevents me from working on this and expressing more. My inner most knowing, however, KNOWS that it does NOT matter one bit if this body does not finish expressing this. One day, some time, some one will. So it will be done.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmken wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 amI also actually did not even give the impression people are not seeing the actual truth of Life. I said they are distorted and/or blinded from it because of, the reasons given.
Those two statements can easily be seen to be saying the same thing -- even if you see them as saying something different.
Thanks again for highlighting this out to me. I do not instantly see what others see and I need the feedback to learn more.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm So, yes, it could be reasonably said that you DID give the impression, even if you didn't intend to.
What My intention was is what is important, to Me anyway, so without clarification from Me My intention can be completely lost. Thus the importance of learning how to express as best I can. I thought I had explained clearly enough that, obviously, the truths of Life are HERE staring at us all. So, we ALL can obviously see the actual truth of Life, and that it is only our distortions and blindness that is stopping us from seeing It. The distortions and blindness coming from the assumptions and beliefs. But I obviously need how to better phrase this. Once again thank you for showing Me this.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm Being distorted and/or blinded MEANS not seeing. Again we go back to... are you speaking "absolutely", or are you saying "sometimes"?
Thank you for the clarifying question. When we are assuming and believing, then we are being distorted and blinded from reality (the truth of Life), so the answer is 'some times'. But the blindness and distorted viewing happens 'absolutely' at those times, (of believing and assuming).
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm Are you sometimes saying absolutely, and sometimes saying sometimes?
Neither.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmken wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 amThe truth of Life is all around. People are looking at and seeing it all the time. But they are distorting that view or being blinded from it completely because of the way they are thinking.
So are they
seeing it all the time, or are they
being blinded from it completely?
The clarifying questions is really refreshing.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmWhich is it?
Human beings are ABLE to see the truth of Life completely when they are truly or completely open. AND, they are being blinded from it completely when they are believing, and are being blinded from it somewhat (or distortedly) when they are assuming. 'Beliefs' cause a complete blindness of the truth of Life whereas 'assumptions' cause a distortion, or distorted view, of it.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm If by "seeing it all the time", you mean "they have access to it", then it would help for you not to use such absolute phrases that contradict so much else of what you say.
Thank you for the feed back, it helps tremendously. But I do not see that My absolute phrases necessarily contradict what else I have said. If the actual apparent contradiction/s are brought to light, then I could either show there is no contradiction or I could be shown otherwise and will have to acknowledge that and correct the mistake/s.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm Speaking "absolutely" could be a tendency of someone who wants to proclaim "how it is". Do you see?
Yes that is very easy to see. But like I said just before I do not recall ever saying "how it is". If I recall correctly, it was some one else who says, "that's how it is". I have been questioning them about that.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmken wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 am
Yes, agreed.
Which if people have noticed what I have been writing from the outset in this forum, the Truth IS what is agreed upon and accepted by ALL.
That's not what I said,
WHAT, is not what you said?
WHAT, do you think or assume I am saying that you said?
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmand I don't agree that there is some unified total truth that must be agreed upon and accepted by all.
You do NOT have to agree with any thing at all. AND, there is NO THING that I am aware of "that must be agreed upon and accepted by all". The fact is I have been saying the very opposite of that.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm For me, truth -- on the human level -- is an evolving vast field, to be experienced vastly. Beyond that, there is no such thing as truth -- it is only associated with human thinking.
Fair enough. You can think, see, assume, and/or believe any thing you want to. ONLY you what is right for you. Is this correct?
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmken wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 am
Do you agree that that SPIRIT might also be in every moment I write?
Absolutely!
Spirit is wild and free and all things. Any of us can be sages at times... and demons at others... and so on. Isn't it all there, and aren't we all of it? Why wouldn't we be?
What is the 'it' and who or what is the 'we', you are referring to here?
ken wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 am
one day soon, hopefully, you will be able to see that I am NOT writing from the perspective that you have really been thinking I have.
And perhaps you will see that there's more to you than you realize there is?
I think there's much more to all of us than we realize... on lots and lots of levels.[/quote]
Who and what that 'more' is I just would love to be able to express, succinctly.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmken wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 am
what I want to, eventually, show is that SPIRIT that you talk about. I just do it in a roundabout way. I just need to show ITs existence from a scientific, religious, philosophical, spiritual, thoughtful, and emotion way so that I do not put any one off "side". A challenging and fairly slow process, but a very doable one.
To me, this sounds like a laborious physical/mental effort to define something that is beyond definition...
The defining part has already been done and the evidence for this is easily accessible. The 'how to express this', without being misunderstood by any one, is the laborious effort part.
What are you basing your "beyond definition" quote on, exactly?
If you really sat there and took the time to think about that question, what is your most honest answer?
I will await your reply, then give what I see is the answer and allow you to respond to that.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmand that's why all the distortions and inconsistencies happen.
When, and if, there are any distortions and inconsistencies in what I write, then I am the first one who wants to be made aware of them. I can not correct that of which I am unaware of. So please point them out to Me at your first opportunity to. I will be the first one to acknowledge and them and correct them.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm The human mind and ego cannot contain and rule spirit.
I could ask you to clarify what is the 'human mind' exactly, but at the moment I will not.
But I agree wholeheartedly that wrong thinking, like assuming and believing, tries to contain and rule Spirit, but they can NOT.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm Spirit is beyond the human mind's concepts. Spirit is demonstrated through being. Words get in the way. Words are just for play.
If Spirit is as you are proposing here, then Spirit can do MUCH MORE than what human beings, at the moment, can conceive. So, what you conceptualize as being "beyond definition" may in fact NOT be.