The Sun Also Sets

[Gary Childress]

I WILL WAIT to SEE how 'you' DEFINE the word 'paradox' here, FIRST.

Will this work as a definition of the word paradox?

A paradox is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation. It is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to a seemingly self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox

Have you EVER NOTICED that the word 'paradox' is ACTUALLY A 'paradox' of 'itself'?

AS the word 'paradox' can mean BOTH, what you wrote here, AND, 'a seemingly contradictory or absurd statement or proposition, but which on further reflection actually expresses a truth'.

So what 'this' literally means is 'we' can make 'this' WORK, as a definition, in just about ANY way 'we' like.

If matter is neither created nor destroyed and everyone was to live forever, where would the matter eventually come from to create more humans?

WHY did you 'now' bring the 'matter' word into this discussion?

Also, what you keep MISSING here is that what 'you' ASSUME 'you' are, EXACTLY, may NOT ACTUALLY be 'that' AT ALL.

How do you define the word 'you' and/or 'person', EXACTLY?

If every living being (let alone just human beings) in the universe were preserved in some shape or form (say even just preserving all the conversations we have on the Internet over the course of time), it would continually take up more and more matter and energy to preserve more such information as both new beings are created and old beings create more and more information.

WHY would 'you' even PRESUME or ASSUME that 'this' could even happen and occur?

And, WHY are 'you' even bringing 'this idea' into 'our discussion'?

Or if it is only old beings who want to preserve information and stop new beings from arriving, then eventually, it will use up all the matter and energy in the universe to preserve that information. And if we prevent new beings from arriving, who is going to till the soil and grow crops so that the old generation can continue?

'your' very first 'if' here was so FAR OFF TOPIC, I am still wondering WHY 'you' brought 'it' into 'our discussion' here.

And, from 'your' first 'if' here 'you' have just KEPT GETTING FURTHER and FURTHER OFF TOPIC, and thus OFF TRACK.

If the old generation creates a completely automated world that services them (without the need of new arrivals to work), then how long can the old generation preserve its memories and information without using up all the matter in the universe?

'your' very first 'if' had absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I have SAID, nor CLAIMED, here so that 'if' IS MOOT. Thus, the rest of these 'ideas', following on from 'your' OWN IMAGININGS, have NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH 'me'.

Or is it not the case that matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed?

'Matter', 'space', AND 'energy' are NOT 'created' NOR 'destroyed' in the sense that 'they' BEGAN, nor will CEASE, to exist.

Also, for ALL of 'those of you', who CLAIM that the Universe, Itself, BEGAN and/or will CEASE to exist, will 'you' EXPLAIN how 'this' could ACTUALLY happen IF 'matter' and/or 'energy' is neither created nor destroyed?

If 'you' will NOT EXPLAIN this apparent CONTRADICTION, INCONSISTENCY, and/or CONFLICT here, then WHY NOT?

I suppose what I'm trying to say, Age is that holding onto a life that is pointless and purposeless for me seems like an ultimately selfish act on my part. It comes at some expense to people caring for me who have the vitality and energy to do wonderful things for society. I read about economic and industry celebrities (for lack of better words) who are uploading their brains, "consciousness" (or whatever) onto a computer so that their children can remember them forever. I've even heard it speculated that it might actually preserve them (As if they'll still be living in the Matrix or something).

If I had kids, I wouldn't want them to have an uploaded me to talk to whenever they felt like it. They need to get over me and move on. I look at my dad's picture and visit his grave periodically, but listening to him talk to me after he's dead has a morbid creepiness factor to it. I can think of more productive things to devote resources to when my turn comes.

[Gary Childress]

NO, they may well NOT have.

BUT they were SAYING, that 'a mirror' is eternal as can be, but ALL 'the reflections' ARE 'transitory'. WHICH, some might take or infer to mean that what I was SAYING were also NOT ACTUALLY 'eternal' BUT ONLY 'transitory' AS WELL.

Which, OBVIOUSLY, 'they' ARE NOT.

So, I just made it VERY CLEAR that I NEVER said absolutely ANY 'thing' ABOUT 'mirrors'. Therefore, what was being SAID and CLAIMED in 'that sentence', which was in DIRECT response to what I SAID, and CLAIMED, REALLY DID have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH what I ACTUALLY SAID, and CLAIMED. Which, by the way, STILL STANDS.

It doesn't even matter anyway.

Okay.

People make claims about things all the time and usually understand perfectly the claims they are making, else they would rarely make them public.

Wow REALLY?

From what I have OBSERVED on this public forum alone I find the EXACT OPPOSITE to be much MORE true.

So it matters not whether they are misinterpreted by others, the point is, if everyone understands what they are saying, then there is nothing that can come between their understanding to undermine that understanding anyway, in other words, to misunderstand what to others is their own unique perfect understanding is futile and pointless, unless there is full agreement with what is being read.

If you SAY SO, then 'it' MUST BE SO, correct?

Not to confuse what is being read by what is being written. As there are many authors writing their understandings here, but there is only one reader that we can all agree on.

And WHO or WHAT is that 'one reader', which 'we' ALL can supposedly 'agree on', EXACTLY?

And another thing, Age. When you post your replies containing "this is why things were the way they were back in the days when this was written" and "you adults do this..." It really reminds me that you are posting your posts in the past tense. As though you are talking to posterity. You spend probably more words talking about us people who you were with "back in the days when this was written", than you do talking TO us. A lot of your words seem directed to someone other than the person you're talking to. While you are here among us, Age, why not talk to us instead of about us? You're not going to be here forever either. Don't you think talking to those of us who are here with you might be time better spent? You never say much about yourself. You're always looking for "clarification" to the point where none of us knows what you are talking about or how to talk to you.

Tell us about you. Are your parents still alive? Is there a thinker or philosopher who particularly "rings true" or who sticks out to you as somehow exceptional? I tend to relate a lot with Socrates myself. And after Socrates and Plato were gone, Plato's "Academy" became dominated by the "Skeptics". I kind of identify with that thread of philosophy more so than many others, though Descartes also resonates with me in terms of the primacy of the cogito for each and every one of us (at least it has a primacy with me).

[Age]

Will this work as a definition of the word paradox?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox

Have you EVER NOTICED that the word 'paradox' is ACTUALLY A 'paradox' of 'itself'?

AS the word 'paradox' can mean BOTH, what you wrote here, AND, 'a seemingly contradictory or absurd statement or proposition, but which on further reflection actually expresses a truth'.

So what 'this' literally means is 'we' can make 'this' WORK, as a definition, in just about ANY way 'we' like.

If matter is neither created nor destroyed and everyone was to live forever, where would the matter eventually come from to create more humans?

WHY did you 'now' bring the 'matter' word into this discussion?

Also, what you keep MISSING here is that what 'you' ASSUME 'you' are, EXACTLY, may NOT ACTUALLY be 'that' AT ALL.

How do you define the word 'you' and/or 'person', EXACTLY?

If every living being (let alone just human beings) in the universe were preserved in some shape or form (say even just preserving all the conversations we have on the Internet over the course of time), it would continually take up more and more matter and energy to preserve more such information as both new beings are created and old beings create more and more information.

WHY would 'you' even PRESUME or ASSUME that 'this' could even happen and occur?

And, WHY are 'you' even bringing 'this idea' into 'our discussion'?

Or if it is only old beings who want to preserve information and stop new beings from arriving, then eventually, it will use up all the matter and energy in the universe to preserve that information. And if we prevent new beings from arriving, who is going to till the soil and grow crops so that the old generation can continue?

'your' very first 'if' here was so FAR OFF TOPIC, I am still wondering WHY 'you' brought 'it' into 'our discussion' here.

And, from 'your' first 'if' here 'you' have just KEPT GETTING FURTHER and FURTHER OFF TOPIC, and thus OFF TRACK.

If the old generation creates a completely automated world that services them (without the need of new arrivals to work), then how long can the old generation preserve its memories and information without using up all the matter in the universe?

'your' very first 'if' had absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I have SAID, nor CLAIMED, here so that 'if' IS MOOT. Thus, the rest of these 'ideas', following on from 'your' OWN IMAGININGS, have NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH 'me'.

Or is it not the case that matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed?

'Matter', 'space', AND 'energy' are NOT 'created' NOR 'destroyed' in the sense that 'they' BEGAN, nor will CEASE, to exist.

Also, for ALL of 'those of you', who CLAIM that the Universe, Itself, BEGAN and/or will CEASE to exist, will 'you' EXPLAIN how 'this' could ACTUALLY happen IF 'matter' and/or 'energy' is neither created nor destroyed?

If 'you' will NOT EXPLAIN this apparent CONTRADICTION, INCONSISTENCY, and/or CONFLICT here, then WHY NOT?

The contradiction is that the more we try to preserve, the more matter we use for the purpose of preservation as opposed to other things (such as supporting new creation).

'you', ONCE AGAIN, "gary childress", appear to completely and utterly MISS THE POINT that I SPOKE and WROTE ABOUT here.

The CONTRADICTION I was SPEAKING ABOUT is for 'those' who CLAIM that the Universe BEGAN, and/or WILL END, BUT, ALSO CLAIM that 'energy' can NOT be created, NOR destroyed.

Now, if you STILL can NOT SEE the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION here, then 'it' is IN the CLAIMING that the Universe BEGAN, BUT, IN, ALSO, CLAIMING that 'energy' MUST OF been CREATED.

As far as I'm aware, none of us can live forever.

WHO CARES?

The ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS SOMETIMES VERY DIFFERENT FROM what 'you', human beings, personally or collectively, are CURRENTLY aware of. Like, for example, right here and now IN 'this example'.

'you' ALL 'live ON', FOREVER MORE, in one sense or another.

None of us can be remembered forever.

ONCE AGAIN, 'this' is NOT necessarily true AT ALL.

I'm simply saying as a 56-year-old man who has realized how my time in this world is growing increasingly shorter,

And WHEN did you come to this REALIZATION, EXACTLY?

From what I am OBSERVING MOST of 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, have a fair amount of REALIZATION that so-called 'my time in this world' is growing increasingly shorter WHEN 'they' were IN 'their childhoods'.

that I have to deal with the problem of finality.

LOL
LOL
LOL

And what IS this so-called 'problem of finality', EXACTLY?

It's ever-present and ever-knawing at my mind,

Here we have ANOTHER example of WHEN one ALLOWS Falsehoods to OVERRIDE and CONTROL 'the way' they LOOK AT and SEE 'things'.

The three Falsehoods ARE;

1. There is NO 'problem' here to so-call 'deal with', AT ALL.

2. Even if there WAS, the chances that 'that' would be EVER-present and EVER-knawing IN the 'thinking' WITHIN 'that body' would be ZERO.

3. There is NO such 'thing' as 'my mind'.

like termites on a temple made of wood.

Do termites NOT sleep, rest, eat, NOR play, EVER?

It's all I can think about.

Come on "gary childress" it is 'me' 'you' are speaking TO here. Do 'you' REALLY expect absolutely ANY one to believe 'this' even REMOTELY or for A SECOND?

Last March I told doctors to take my father off life support.

Okay.

He had stated in his "living will" that he did not want to be on any kind of artificial support that would severely reduce his quality of life and independence.

Okay, so 'you' granted "your" father's WISHES and DESIRES. In other words 'you' DID what "your" father WANTED 'you' TO DO.

So I made that decision while he was on life support. Ever since then, I've wrestled with the thought that I killed my own father.

Did 'you' do 'it', or did the "doctors" do 'it', OR did "your" 'father' do 'it'? After all that IS what "he" WANTED, right?

However, my mother and I could not help him because he had become immobile from weakness and would have been bedridden with me carrying him to the bathroom. Even when he was able to support himself a little it was at times almost impossible for me to carry him to the bathroom without almost breaking my back and causing him a lot of pain from trying to manhandle him.

Okay, but the 'almost breaking my back' could be seen as a 'bit over the top', as some might say.

There were also issues of whether or not his Medicare would cover the costs of assisted living. So when the doctors told me his chances of getting off life support were unlikely and that if he did he would be on dialysis and a feeding tube in nursing care, I made the decision. He was accustomed to living in our home watching TV and doing as he pleased. A nursing home would have been an incredible shock to his system. The one time he was in extended rehab for knee surgery in a nursing home for a few weeks, he said it was the worst experience he had ever had and constantly asked us to get him out, and for that reason he refused surgery on his other knee, just to avoid that experience again.

Okay, but you do NOT need to 'justify' your past behaviors TO me.

I made that choice and I will follow my father if it comes down to it.

Okay, but 'you' will follow "your" 'father' WHERE, EXACTLY?

The hospital said my father finally passed under sedation and painkillers.

Just like most older people come to 'pass', when they are in the so-called 'health system'. It was the quickest, simplest, and easiest way to get rid of 'them', back in the days when this was being written.

I hope he didn't suffer.

In what way, EXACTLY?

I hope I made the right decision.

What could you base 'right' or 'wrong' off or on here, EXACTLY?

But it is also a decision I feel someone will probably have to make for me. And all I can remember was one of the nurses treating my father in a very rude way when he came back from x-rays that showed he had a broken hip. He contracted pneumonia while waiting in the hospital for hip surgery.

Okay.

For me, it's a wake-up call.

For you, what is a wake-up call EXACTLY?

My fate could be something similar. I was choked with tears when I said goodbye to him, however, I was told he was unconscious when my mother and I said our final goodbyes.

Okay.

The end is a sobering thing to me.

The 'end' of 'what', EXACTLY, is a 'sobering' 'thing' to you?

I think about it a lot.

Okay.

One of the most sobering thoughts is that there is a point, where I could be preserved from dying, hooking me up to machines with a room full of nurses catering to my survival.

How long do you think 'this' could last for? And, what would the actual purpose of 'this' be for, EXACTLY?

Or I could let those nurses go deliver babies or perform routine procedures treating broken bones from people such as construction workers who are out fixing our roads and building things. And in the end, I am under no belief that doctors and nurses who make the decision to end my life are going to be the least bit mournful of me. It's part of their job. Nobody is going to cry on my grave. I have no relatives after mom departs.

Okay.

There's something disconcerting about dying like a pet animal that has outlived its appeal to the family.

I also sometimes wonder how my body should be treated when I'm dead.

What would it even matter?

And, who would actually care?

The thought of being pickled with whatever they put in corpses for burial these days kind of unnerves me.

Okay.

In the end, I think Diogenes of Synope has a good point. Just feed my corpse to sharks, vultures, hyaenas, or something that could use me for food for its own survival. At the very least let bacteria and microbes feast on me. No pickling, please.



¯\_(*_*)_/¯

Oh, are 'you' 'one of those' who still think or believe that 'that body' IS 'you', 'the person'?

Also, NO matter what happens with 'that body' what HAPPENS TO 'it' WILL BE THE EXACT SAME 'thing' that HAPPENS TO ALL 'matter'. That is; 'it' REMAINS here, in the Universe, JUST TRANSFORMING, and CHANGING ALWAYS, and FOREVER MORE.

[Age]

Will this work as a definition of the word paradox?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox

Have you EVER NOTICED that the word 'paradox' is ACTUALLY A 'paradox' of 'itself'?

AS the word 'paradox' can mean BOTH, what you wrote here, AND, 'a seemingly contradictory or absurd statement or proposition, but which on further reflection actually expresses a truth'.

So what 'this' literally means is 'we' can make 'this' WORK, as a definition, in just about ANY way 'we' like.

If matter is neither created nor destroyed and everyone was to live forever, where would the matter eventually come from to create more humans?

WHY did you 'now' bring the 'matter' word into this discussion?

Also, what you keep MISSING here is that what 'you' ASSUME 'you' are, EXACTLY, may NOT ACTUALLY be 'that' AT ALL.

How do you define the word 'you' and/or 'person', EXACTLY?

If every living being (let alone just human beings) in the universe were preserved in some shape or form (say even just preserving all the conversations we have on the Internet over the course of time), it would continually take up more and more matter and energy to preserve more such information as both new beings are created and old beings create more and more information.

WHY would 'you' even PRESUME or ASSUME that 'this' could even happen and occur?

And, WHY are 'you' even bringing 'this idea' into 'our discussion'?

Or if it is only old beings who want to preserve information and stop new beings from arriving, then eventually, it will use up all the matter and energy in the universe to preserve that information. And if we prevent new beings from arriving, who is going to till the soil and grow crops so that the old generation can continue?

'your' very first 'if' here was so FAR OFF TOPIC, I am still wondering WHY 'you' brought 'it' into 'our discussion' here.

And, from 'your' first 'if' here 'you' have just KEPT GETTING FURTHER and FURTHER OFF TOPIC, and thus OFF TRACK.

If the old generation creates a completely automated world that services them (without the need of new arrivals to work), then how long can the old generation preserve its memories and information without using up all the matter in the universe?

'your' very first 'if' had absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I have SAID, nor CLAIMED, here so that 'if' IS MOOT. Thus, the rest of these 'ideas', following on from 'your' OWN IMAGININGS, have NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH 'me'.

Or is it not the case that matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed?

'Matter', 'space', AND 'energy' are NOT 'created' NOR 'destroyed' in the sense that 'they' BEGAN, nor will CEASE, to exist.

Also, for ALL of 'those of you', who CLAIM that the Universe, Itself, BEGAN and/or will CEASE to exist, will 'you' EXPLAIN how 'this' could ACTUALLY happen IF 'matter' and/or 'energy' is neither created nor destroyed?

If 'you' will NOT EXPLAIN this apparent CONTRADICTION, INCONSISTENCY, and/or CONFLICT here, then WHY NOT?

I suppose what I'm trying to say, Age is that holding onto a life that is pointless and purposeless for me seems like an ultimately selfish act on my part.

But I ALSO FOUND 'trying to' HOLD ONTO absolutely ANY 'thing' that is IMPOSSIBLE to HOLD ONTO a Truly WORTHLESS and POINTLESS 'things' to do ANYWAY.

It comes at some expense to people caring for me who have the vitality and energy to do wonderful things for society. I read about economic and industry celebrities (for lack of better words) who are uploading their brains, "consciousness" (or whatever) onto a computer so that their children can remember them forever.

HOW, EXACTLY, could "their" 'children' remember 'them' FOREVER WHEN 'the children' will only be able to remember for a hundred or so years?

I've even heard it speculated that it might actually preserve them (As if they'll still be living in the Matrix or something).

Okay, but there appears to be a LOT of 'things', which you have heard that are just NOT quite Right, AT ALL.

If I had kids, I wouldn't want them to have an uploaded me to talk to whenever they felt like it.

If you HAD had kids, then you would have ALREADY LEARNED that 'Life' IS NOT about what 'you' WANT.

They need to get over me and move on.

WHY?

WHERE is this ALLEGED 'need' COMING FROM? And, 'getting over you and moving on' IS 'need' FOR 'what', EXACTLY?

I look at my dad's picture and visit his grave periodically, but listening to him talk to me after he's dead has a morbid creepiness factor to it.

And do you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE what has so-called 'morbid creepiness factor' TO and FOR 'you' would then MEAN, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, the EXACT SAME 'morbid creepiness factor' would HAVE TO APPLY to "your" children AS WELL?

I can think of more productive things to devote resources to when my turn comes.

Okay.

[Age]

It doesn't even matter anyway.

Okay.

People make claims about things all the time and usually understand perfectly the claims they are making, else they would rarely make them public.

Wow REALLY?

From what I have OBSERVED on this public forum alone I find the EXACT OPPOSITE to be much MORE true.

So it matters not whether they are misinterpreted by others, the point is, if everyone understands what they are saying, then there is nothing that can come between their understanding to undermine that understanding anyway, in other words, to misunderstand what to others is their own unique perfect understanding is futile and pointless, unless there is full agreement with what is being read.

If you SAY SO, then 'it' MUST BE SO, correct?

Not to confuse what is being read by what is being written. As there are many authors writing their understandings here, but there is only one reader that we can all agree on.

And WHO or WHAT is that 'one reader', which 'we' ALL can supposedly 'agree on', EXACTLY?

And another thing, Age. When you post your replies containing "this is why things were the way they were back in the days when this was written" and "you adults do this..." It really reminds me that you are posting your posts in the past tense.

I am NOT SURE WHY 'my words' ONLY 'remind you'.

Given the EXACT NATURE of 'the words' I CHOOSE and USE, the words, 'were' and 'back then' I would have thought DIRECTLY INFERS 'past tense'.

However, I am NOT SURE HOW the words, ' 'you', adults, do ... ', would so-call 'remind' you that I am necessarily posting 'that post' in the 'past tense'. But each to their own, as some might say.

As though you are talking to posterity.

I, 'the writer', CHOOSE 'my audience', just as "other" 'writers' do, AS WELL.

You spend probably more words talking about us people who you were with "back in the days when this was written", than you do talking TO us.

Okay. It is GREAT TO SEE that 'you' can SEE 'this' VERY CLEARLY.

A lot of your words seem directed to someone other than the person you're talking to.

I would have thought that which words are ACTUALLY DIRECTED to "others" and NOT the 'person' who I quoted in my reply would have been MORE OBVIOUS than just 'seems to be the case'.

While you are here among us, Age, why not talk to us instead of about us?

BECAUSE as I have been continually STATING from the outset of coming into this forum, I am USING 'this forum' to SHOW and REVEAL HOW 'people' WERE, BACK THEN, WHEN this WAS being written, in order to PROVE True what 'it' IS that I WANT TO WRITE ABOUT, and SHARE.

See, the 'things' that 'you', respondents, SAY and DO here, AND NOT SAY and DO NOT DO here, on 'your' OWN ACCORD, WILL PROVE IRREFUTABLY True my views on HOW the Mind and the brain WORK, for example.

You're not going to be here forever either.

Be 'where', forever neither?

Don't you think talking to those of us who are here with you might be time better spent?

HOW I AM TALKING here IS SPENT PERFECTLY, well in my view anyway. If I thought that there was A WAY to BETTER spend 'time', then I IMAGINE I would be DOING 'that', INSTEAD.

See, one of the MANY 'things' I WANT TO POINT OUT, SHOW, and REVEAL is that NO matter what one SAYS, or WRITES, if 'the reader' or 'hearer' has NO REAL INTEREST, then 'they' will NOT ASK ANY FURTHER CLARIFYING NOR CHALLENGING QUESTIONS. And, it is sometimes IMAGINED that the so-called 'philosophers' over the generations are the so-called 'smartest of the bunch', but what can be CLEARLY SEEN and OBSERVED throughout 'this philosophy forum' IS people are FAR MORE INTERESTED IN expressing 'their' OWN VIEWS, FIGHTING and ARGUING FOR THOSE VIEWS, while 'TRYING TO' CONVINCE "others" to OBTAIN and HAVE the EXACT SAME VIEWS, AS WELL.

Thus, through 'your' OWN WAYS of DOING 'things' here 'you' ARE SHOWING and REVEALING WHY it IS taking SO LONG FOR 'you', human beings, to PROGRESS and MOVE FORWARD here.

You never say much about yourself.

BECAUSE 'this' here IS A 'philosophy' FORUM.

If one WANTS TO SPEAK ABOUT "them" 'self' MORE, or ONLY, then there are a countless number of OTHER places to DO 'that'.

You're always looking for "clarification"

AGAIN, 'this' here IS A 'philosophy' FORUM, right?

If yes, then IF SEEKING CLARIFICATION of what "others" are talking ABOUT and MEANING, EXACTLY, is NOT MEANT TO BE DONE here, in THIS FORUM, then what OTHER place IS BETTER SUITED for OBTAINING BETTER CLARITY, and thus a BETTER UNDERSTANDING of WHERE each and EVERY one is COMING FROM, EXACTLY?

to the point where none of us knows what you are talking about or how to talk to you.

JUST TAKE absolutely EACH and EVERY word I SAY and USE here LITERALLY. After all 'we' ARE IN A 'philosophy' FORUM and NOT talking with our friends ABOUT Truly TRIVIAL or MUNDANE 'things'.

Also, IF ANY one of 'you' KNOWS what I am talking ABOUT, then I WILL AGAIN SUGGEST just ASKING some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, UNTIL 'you' DO.

And, IF ANY of 'you' REALLY STILL do NOT YET KNOW HOW TO talk TO 'me', then JUST DO EXACTLY what 'you' ALL HAVE BEEN DOING. 'you' ARE HELPING 'Me' GREATLY IN ACHIEVING what I HAVE SET OUT TO ACCOMPLISH and ACHIEVE here, by JUST DOING EXACTLY what 'you' ALL HAVE BEEN.

Tell us about you.

How about INSTEAD of TELLING 'me' WHAT TO DO, 'you' JUST ASK, 'what it IS', EXACTLY, that 'you' would LIKE TO KNOW?

Are your parents still alive?

Even IF I knew who they were I probably would NOT know anyway.

Is there a thinker or philosopher who particularly "rings true" or who sticks out to you as somehow exceptional?

Yes, and 'one' who IS NEVER Wrong.

I tend to relate a lot with Socrates myself.

Okay.

And after Socrates and Plato were gone, Plato's "Academy" became dominated by the "Skeptics".

Okay.

I kind of identify with that thread of philosophy more so than many others, though Descartes also resonates with me in terms of the primacy of the cogito for each and every one of us (at least it has a primacy with me).

I FOUND that just LOOKING AT the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth, ONLY, FAR OUTWEIGHS what these just adult human beings have IMAGINED, and SAID, anyway.

[Gary Childress]

Okay.



Wow REALLY?

From what I have OBSERVED on this public forum alone I find the EXACT OPPOSITE to be much MORE true.


If you SAY SO, then 'it' MUST BE SO, correct?


And WHO or WHAT is that 'one reader', which 'we' ALL can supposedly 'agree on', EXACTLY?

And another thing, Age. When you post your replies containing "this is why things were the way they were back in the days when this was written" and "you adults do this..." It really reminds me that you are posting your posts in the past tense.

I am NOT SURE WHY 'my words' ONLY 'remind you'.

Given the EXACT NATURE of 'the words' I CHOOSE and USE, the words, 'were' and 'back then' I would have thought DIRECTLY INFERS 'past tense'.

However, I am NOT SURE HOW the words, ' 'you', adults, do ... ', would so-call 'remind' you that I am necessarily posting 'that post' in the 'past tense'. But each to their own, as some might say.

As though you are talking to posterity.

I, 'the writer', CHOOSE 'my audience', just as "other" 'writers' do, AS WELL.

You spend probably more words talking about us people who you were with "back in the days when this was written", than you do talking TO us.

Okay. It is GREAT TO SEE that 'you' can SEE 'this' VERY CLEARLY.

A lot of your words seem directed to someone other than the person you're talking to.

I would have thought that which words are ACTUALLY DIRECTED to "others" and NOT the 'person' who I quoted in my reply would have been MORE OBVIOUS than just 'seems to be the case'.

While you are here among us, Age, why not talk to us instead of about us?

BECAUSE as I have been continually STATING from the outset of coming into this forum, I am USING 'this forum' to SHOW and REVEAL HOW 'people' WERE, BACK THEN, WHEN this WAS being written, in order to PROVE True what 'it' IS that I WANT TO WRITE ABOUT, and SHARE.

See, the 'things' that 'you', respondents, SAY and DO here, AND NOT SAY and DO NOT DO here, on 'your' OWN ACCORD, WILL PROVE IRREFUTABLY True my views on HOW the Mind and the brain WORK, for example.

You're not going to be here forever either.

Be 'where', forever neither?

Don't you think talking to those of us who are here with you might be time better spent?

HOW I AM TALKING here IS SPENT PERFECTLY, well in my view anyway. If I thought that there was A WAY to BETTER spend 'time', then I IMAGINE I would be DOING 'that', INSTEAD.

See, one of the MANY 'things' I WANT TO POINT OUT, SHOW, and REVEAL is that NO matter what one SAYS, or WRITES, if 'the reader' or 'hearer' has NO REAL INTEREST, then 'they' will NOT ASK ANY FURTHER CLARIFYING NOR CHALLENGING QUESTIONS. And, it is sometimes IMAGINED that the so-called 'philosophers' over the generations are the so-called 'smartest of the bunch', but what can be CLEARLY SEEN and OBSERVED throughout 'this philosophy forum' IS people are FAR MORE INTERESTED IN expressing 'their' OWN VIEWS, FIGHTING and ARGUING FOR THOSE VIEWS, while 'TRYING TO' CONVINCE "others" to OBTAIN and HAVE the EXACT SAME VIEWS, AS WELL.

Thus, through 'your' OWN WAYS of DOING 'things' here 'you' ARE SHOWING and REVEALING WHY it IS taking SO LONG FOR 'you', human beings, to PROGRESS and MOVE FORWARD here.

You never say much about yourself.

BECAUSE 'this' here IS A 'philosophy' FORUM.

If one WANTS TO SPEAK ABOUT "them" 'self' MORE, or ONLY, then there are a countless number of OTHER places to DO 'that'.

You're always looking for "clarification"

AGAIN, 'this' here IS A 'philosophy' FORUM, right?

If yes, then IF SEEKING CLARIFICATION of what "others" are talking ABOUT and MEANING, EXACTLY, is NOT MEANT TO BE DONE here, in THIS FORUM, then what OTHER place IS BETTER SUITED for OBTAINING BETTER CLARITY, and thus a BETTER UNDERSTANDING of WHERE each and EVERY one is COMING FROM, EXACTLY?

to the point where none of us knows what you are talking about or how to talk to you.

JUST TAKE absolutely EACH and EVERY word I SAY and USE here LITERALLY. After all 'we' ARE IN A 'philosophy' FORUM and NOT talking with our friends ABOUT Truly TRIVIAL or MUNDANE 'things'.

Also, IF ANY one of 'you' KNOWS what I am talking ABOUT, then I WILL AGAIN SUGGEST just ASKING some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, UNTIL 'you' DO.

And, IF ANY of 'you' REALLY STILL do NOT YET KNOW HOW TO talk TO 'me', then JUST DO EXACTLY what 'you' ALL HAVE BEEN DOING. 'you' ARE HELPING 'Me' GREATLY IN ACHIEVING what I HAVE SET OUT TO ACCOMPLISH and ACHIEVE here, by JUST DOING EXACTLY what 'you' ALL HAVE BEEN.

Tell us about you.

How about INSTEAD of TELLING 'me' WHAT TO DO, 'you' JUST ASK, 'what it IS', EXACTLY, that 'you' would LIKE TO KNOW?

Are your parents still alive?

Even IF I knew who they were I probably would NOT know anyway.

Is there a thinker or philosopher who particularly "rings true" or who sticks out to you as somehow exceptional?

Yes, and 'one' who IS NEVER Wrong.

I tend to relate a lot with Socrates myself.

Okay.

And after Socrates and Plato were gone, Plato's "Academy" became dominated by the "Skeptics".

Okay.

I kind of identify with that thread of philosophy more so than many others, though Descartes also resonates with me in terms of the primacy of the cogito for each and every one of us (at least it has a primacy with me).

I FOUND that just LOOKING AT the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth, ONLY, FAR OUTWEIGHS what these just adult human beings have IMAGINED, and SAID, anyway.

What is the "actual" and "irrefutable truth"? Would you please share it with me? Or is it your wish that I remain ignorant? Perhaps telling me this truth will set me free from my errors and help the next generation of truth seekers to not make the same mistakes I and "we adults" have? Please lay it out on the table, Age. You have the answers. What are those answers?

[Walker]

But I am interested in hearing your answer.

Supernovas are a dime a dozen but The First Black Dwarf will be unique. Do the physics fit Sol for the first place trophy?

The persecution of Trump is an example of how the law, like the vote, has been corrupted by that which tolerates and defends the corrupt, bribe-taking Brandon.

Trump is The Individual Man against The Machine.

Well, hopefully you won't remain in that state of mind forever. The law has been corrupted many times, not just when your idol Donald Trump gets tried.

No. This time is different. Much different. The issues are much bigger than Trump, or your small-minded views ... Gary.

[Gary Childress]

Supernovas are a dime a dozen but The First Black Dwarf will be unique. Do the physics fit Sol for the first place trophy?

The persecution of Trump is an example of how the law, like the vote, has been corrupted by that which tolerates and defends the corrupt, bribe-taking Brandon.

Trump is The Individual Man against The Machine.

Well, hopefully you won't remain in that state of mind forever. The law has been corrupted many times, not just when your idol Donald Trump gets tried.

No. This time is different. Much different. The issues are much bigger than Trump, or your small-minded views ... Gary.

What exactly are my "small-minded" views, Walker?

[Gary Childress]

What are these "small minded" views that I possess, Walker? Go ahead, state them.

Are the Chinese trying to take over the world but not Russia? Is there something about the Chinese that makes them more dangerous to Americans than the Russians? Please enlighten me on what you are thinking. The world needs to know the truth. What is the truth?

[Gary Childress]

What is the truth that makes China more evil than Russia, Walker? Please post it. AND also post proof that the Chinese are guilty of this evil. I have not seen any evidence that China is more guilty than Russia as a threat to the US. I'm asking for the truth, Walker. What is it?

[Age]

And another thing, Age. When you post your replies containing "this is why things were the way they were back in the days when this was written" and "you adults do this..." It really reminds me that you are posting your posts in the past tense.

I am NOT SURE WHY 'my words' ONLY 'remind you'.

Given the EXACT NATURE of 'the words' I CHOOSE and USE, the words, 'were' and 'back then' I would have thought DIRECTLY INFERS 'past tense'.

However, I am NOT SURE HOW the words, ' 'you', adults, do ... ', would so-call 'remind' you that I am necessarily posting 'that post' in the 'past tense'. But each to their own, as some might say.

As though you are talking to posterity.

I, 'the writer', CHOOSE 'my audience', just as "other" 'writers' do, AS WELL.

You spend probably more words talking about us people who you were with "back in the days when this was written", than you do talking TO us.

Okay. It is GREAT TO SEE that 'you' can SEE 'this' VERY CLEARLY.

A lot of your words seem directed to someone other than the person you're talking to.

I would have thought that which words are ACTUALLY DIRECTED to "others" and NOT the 'person' who I quoted in my reply would have been MORE OBVIOUS than just 'seems to be the case'.

While you are here among us, Age, why not talk to us instead of about us?

BECAUSE as I have been continually STATING from the outset of coming into this forum, I am USING 'this forum' to SHOW and REVEAL HOW 'people' WERE, BACK THEN, WHEN this WAS being written, in order to PROVE True what 'it' IS that I WANT TO WRITE ABOUT, and SHARE.

See, the 'things' that 'you', respondents, SAY and DO here, AND NOT SAY and DO NOT DO here, on 'your' OWN ACCORD, WILL PROVE IRREFUTABLY True my views on HOW the Mind and the brain WORK, for example.

You're not going to be here forever either.

Be 'where', forever neither?

Don't you think talking to those of us who are here with you might be time better spent?

HOW I AM TALKING here IS SPENT PERFECTLY, well in my view anyway. If I thought that there was A WAY to BETTER spend 'time', then I IMAGINE I would be DOING 'that', INSTEAD.

See, one of the MANY 'things' I WANT TO POINT OUT, SHOW, and REVEAL is that NO matter what one SAYS, or WRITES, if 'the reader' or 'hearer' has NO REAL INTEREST, then 'they' will NOT ASK ANY FURTHER CLARIFYING NOR CHALLENGING QUESTIONS. And, it is sometimes IMAGINED that the so-called 'philosophers' over the generations are the so-called 'smartest of the bunch', but what can be CLEARLY SEEN and OBSERVED throughout 'this philosophy forum' IS people are FAR MORE INTERESTED IN expressing 'their' OWN VIEWS, FIGHTING and ARGUING FOR THOSE VIEWS, while 'TRYING TO' CONVINCE "others" to OBTAIN and HAVE the EXACT SAME VIEWS, AS WELL.

Thus, through 'your' OWN WAYS of DOING 'things' here 'you' ARE SHOWING and REVEALING WHY it IS taking SO LONG FOR 'you', human beings, to PROGRESS and MOVE FORWARD here.

You never say much about yourself.

BECAUSE 'this' here IS A 'philosophy' FORUM.

If one WANTS TO SPEAK ABOUT "them" 'self' MORE, or ONLY, then there are a countless number of OTHER places to DO 'that'.

You're always looking for "clarification"

AGAIN, 'this' here IS A 'philosophy' FORUM, right?

If yes, then IF SEEKING CLARIFICATION of what "others" are talking ABOUT and MEANING, EXACTLY, is NOT MEANT TO BE DONE here, in THIS FORUM, then what OTHER place IS BETTER SUITED for OBTAINING BETTER CLARITY, and thus a BETTER UNDERSTANDING of WHERE each and EVERY one is COMING FROM, EXACTLY?

to the point where none of us knows what you are talking about or how to talk to you.

JUST TAKE absolutely EACH and EVERY word I SAY and USE here LITERALLY. After all 'we' ARE IN A 'philosophy' FORUM and NOT talking with our friends ABOUT Truly TRIVIAL or MUNDANE 'things'.

Also, IF ANY one of 'you' KNOWS what I am talking ABOUT, then I WILL AGAIN SUGGEST just ASKING some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, UNTIL 'you' DO.

And, IF ANY of 'you' REALLY STILL do NOT YET KNOW HOW TO talk TO 'me', then JUST DO EXACTLY what 'you' ALL HAVE BEEN DOING. 'you' ARE HELPING 'Me' GREATLY IN ACHIEVING what I HAVE SET OUT TO ACCOMPLISH and ACHIEVE here, by JUST DOING EXACTLY what 'you' ALL HAVE BEEN.

Tell us about you.

How about INSTEAD of TELLING 'me' WHAT TO DO, 'you' JUST ASK, 'what it IS', EXACTLY, that 'you' would LIKE TO KNOW?

Are your parents still alive?

Even IF I knew who they were I probably would NOT know anyway.

Is there a thinker or philosopher who particularly "rings true" or who sticks out to you as somehow exceptional?

Yes, and 'one' who IS NEVER Wrong.

I tend to relate a lot with Socrates myself.

Okay.

And after Socrates and Plato were gone, Plato's "Academy" became dominated by the "Skeptics".

Okay.

I kind of identify with that thread of philosophy more so than many others, though Descartes also resonates with me in terms of the primacy of the cogito for each and every one of us (at least it has a primacy with me).

I FOUND that just LOOKING AT the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth, ONLY, FAR OUTWEIGHS what these just adult human beings have IMAGINED, and SAID, anyway.

What is the "actual" and "irrefutable truth"?

IN RELATION TO 'what', EXACTLY?

Would you please share it with me?

SURE, but will you please be MORE SPECIFIC?

If you WANT IN RELATION TO 'death and dying', IN RELATION TO 'you', human beings, for example, then just let me KNOW.

Or is it your wish that I remain ignorant?

The VERY LESSON I AM TEACHING here, IS COMING FROM the VERY Fact of what 'you', responders, here are NOT DOING. And what 'you' ARE NOT DOING IS JUST ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

I AM TEACHING what NOT TO DO. I DO 'this' by SHOWING and REVEALING what 'you', adult human beings, USED TO DO, back in the days when this was being written. Which was; TO PRESUME and ASSUME, and to CONCLUDE and BELIEVE, 'things', BEFORE 'you' EVER even OBTAINED and GAINED ABSOLUTE and ACTUAL CLARITY FIRST.

LOOK, I CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT 'you' TO REMAIN IGNORANT. I would LOVE FOR 'you' TO BECOME Truly CURIOS, OPEN, and INTERESTED IN LEARNING, and thus IN BECOMING-WISER.

BUT, I can NOT MAKE 'you' WANT TO DO 'these things'. They are SOLELY UP TO 'you' ALONE.

Now, IF 'you' EVER DO DECIDE to WANT TO BECOME MORE WISER and LEARN MORE, then I AM MORE than WILLING TO GUIDE.

Perhaps telling me this truth will set me free from my errors and help the next generation of truth seekers to not make the same mistakes I and "we adults" have?

WHEN I BECOME AWARE OF and KNOW what 'it' IS that 'you' WANT 'this truth' OF, THEN, and ONLY THEN, I can INFORM 'you' OF 'this truth'.

What WILL set 'you' FREE FROM 'your errors' is ALSO WITH and FROM a 'nine-step program', and NOT FROM one just TELLING or INFORMING 'you' of some 'truth'.

SEEKING 'truth' IS REALLY rather USELESS WHEN the same one is NOT SPEAKING 'Truth', ANYWAY. Also, FINDING 'Truth' happens almost immediately AFTER one LEARNS, and/or COMES-TO-UNDERSTAND, and thus GAINS the KNOW-HOW TO FIND and SEE the ACTUAL Truth all by "their" OWN 'self'.

Please lay it out on the table, Age. You have the answers. What are those answers?

It IS this kind of RIDICULOUSNESS and ABSURDNESS WHY 'you', people, in the days when this is being written, are NOT PROGRESSING and EVOLVING as QUICKLY as 'you' ALL COULD BE.

JUST ASK 'me' the ACTUAL QUESTIONS, which 'you' would like 'me' TO ANSWER, FOR 'you' here.

[Walker]

What are these "small minded" views that I possess, Walker? Go ahead, state them.

Are the Chinese trying to take over the world but not Russia? Is there something about the Chinese that makes them more dangerous to Americans than the Russians? Please enlighten me on what you are thinking. The world needs to know the truth. What is the truth?

Start paying attention and you will find that the answers relating to your small-mindedness, as revealed by your interpretations and communication skills, perpetually reveal in all situations, such as this one. Once you know the truth, Gary, truth becomes evident as situations in the mirror change, as they always do. For example, the principle of sarcasm is within the capacity of humans, probably always will be and always was, as evidence of both gamesmanship and ignorance. "Hey Ug ... would it hurt you to gather dung for the fire, for a change?" Ug says, "Maybe."

The issue is not about Trump. Not about your small-mindedness. Certainly not about me.

As you've already been told, the issue is evidenced in the corruption of the vote and the corruption of the law as it pertains to selective prosecution, non-prosecution, new interpretations to find that fit the agenda of persecution, and selective media propaganda ... in addition to corruption of the border, corruption of the constitution, slanted and ignored news, etc., and that which supports such corruption, and its causes.

For example, your ignorance is supportive and enables you to ignore that the new, official party of the United States, now supported by all official insititutions, now eliminates its political rivals in much the same way as the Rooskies.

That's the principle in play that is bigger than the players, young Gary, so innocent.

[Gary Childress]

It IS this kind of RIDICULOUSNESS and ABSURDNESS WHY 'you', people, in the days when this is being written, are NOT PROGRESSING and EVOLVING as QUICKLY as 'you' ALL COULD BE.

JUST ASK 'me' the ACTUAL QUESTIONS, which 'you' would like 'me' TO ANSWER, FOR 'you' here.

I just did some Googling, Age. Is this article true? Yes or no? OR what in this article is NOT true or what in the article IS true?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangxi_Massacre

[Gary Childress]

What are these "small minded" views that I possess, Walker? Go ahead, state them.

Are the Chinese trying to take over the world but not Russia? Is there something about the Chinese that makes them more dangerous to Americans than the Russians? Please enlighten me on what you are thinking. The world needs to know the truth. What is the truth?

Start paying attention and you will find that the answers relating to your small-mindedness, as revealed by your interpretations and communication skills, perpetually reveal in all situations, such as this one. Once you know the truth, Gary, truth becomes evident as situations in the mirror change, as they always do. For example, the principle of sarcasm is within the capacity of humans, probably always will be and always was, as evidence of both gamesmanship and ignorance. "Hey Ug ... would it hurt you to gather dung for the fire, for a change?" Ug says, "Maybe."

The issue is not about Trump. Not about your small-mindedness. Certainly not about me.

As you've already been told, the issue is evidenced in the corruption of the vote and the corruption of the law as it pertains to selective prosecution, non-prosecution, new interpretations to find that fit the agenda of persecution, and selective media propaganda ... in addition to corruption of the border, corruption of the constitution, slanted and ignored news, etc., and that which supports such corruption, and its causes.

For example, your ignorance is supportive and enables you to ignore that the new, official party of the United States, now supported by all official insititutions, now eliminates its political rivals in much the same way as the Rooskies.

That's the principle in play that is bigger than the players, young Gary, so innocent.

I just did some Googling, Walker. Is this article true? Is this what you are looking at?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangxi_Massacre

[commonsense]

No.
Experience is only a small part of knoweldge.
I know things I shall never have a prospect of experiencing and so do you. SO much is obvious, or do I need to give examples?

Do you agree that reading is an experience?

Reading is not knowledge

Reading is one way to acquire knowledge. (The act of) reading is an experience. Knowledge is a collection of experiences.