What do you mean?

[Iwannaplato]

Often it serves their purpose to feign unconscious behaviour.

I tend to think of it as mainly unconscious, but actively avoiding the regular flickers that what they are saying about themselves is not correct. IOW the unconsciousness is maintained by a regular avoidance choice. So, there is a lot of responsibility, despite the unconsciousness. In the case of Age, there has to be a constant avoiding noticing that there isn't really a caring atittude. There may be the idea of a caring attitude in his or her mind, but the actual attitude is condescending, smug and most happy when given 'reasons' to talk down to people.
Or that Age could use the word 'belief' in an idiosyncratic way that somehow allows him/her to think he/she has but one belief, but otherwise believes nothing. It would take work for Age not to realize that he/she doesn't have a vast range of beliefs and is constantly indicating these.
In their work to fend off feelings of confusion and cognitive dissonance and then also fears about what they actually are like and doing, they accrue a lot of responsibility for what ends up being rather nasty. VA has a lot of the same kind of pattern. Though he, at least, does manage to actually put some things to discuss on the table.
Here in philosophical discussions online they are about as harmless as pop up ads.
But they follow the same patterns that some fairly harmful people out in the real world carry out.

We don't know Age's gender, comes across initially as a male of course and had a male username before this one. But on second thought I think a heavily autistic female with multiple other major issues would fit Age better.

I don't know. I assumed male. Whatever that may say about me or Age.

[Age]

I'm fairly sure that most others will think that you keep providing evidence for my claims about you. Obviously.

And 'you' HAVE DONE EXACTLY what I SAID and CLAIMED 'you' WOULD DO here "atla". Therefore, PROVING ME True AND Right, ONCE MORE.

This is part of your partially willful delusion btw.

BUT, if 'it' is an ACTUAL delusion or NOT, can be CLEARLY VERIFIED BY 'your' words above here.

AND, what can be CLEARLY SEEN above here is that 'you' HAVE DONE EXACTLY what I SAID and CLAIMED 'you' WOULD.

So, the WHO HAS the ACTUAL DELUSION here IS VERY OBVIOUS.

[Age]

This is part of your partially willful delusion btw.

Again, Age is in Turing device territory.
1) Register an assertion.
2) Question part or all of assertion.
3) Upon receiving response, demand explanation of some of the terms and proof of something.
4) Repeat ad nauseum while interspersing this pattern with LOLs and judgments of people in general and the first poster in specific.

As a device, the Turing device does not understand what it would mean if a human behaved this way.

Here we have ANOTHER example of one who BELIEVES that human beings can MAKE ASSERTIONS, and then DO NOT HAVE TO back up and support SAID ASSERTIONS.

WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY IRREFUTABLY True.

BUT, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one MAKES AN ASSERTION, which they can NOT back up and support WITH ACTUAL PROOF. Then 'I' AM the VERY LAST One to AGREE WITH and ACCEPT 'that ASSERTION'.

'you', human beings, however, ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO ACCEPT, AGREE WITH, and BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' that 'you' LIKE and/or WANT TO.

I, 'on the other hand', as some might call 'it', ONLY ACCEPT and AGREE WITH what IS the IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct Knowledge.

[Age]

This is part of your partially willful delusion btw.

Again, Age is in Turing device territory.
1) Register an assertion.
2) Question part or all of assertion.
3) Upon receiving response, demand explanation of some of the terms and proof of something.
4) Repeat ad nauseum while interspersing this pattern with LOLs and judgments of people in general and the first poster in specific.

As a device, the Turing device does not understand what it would mean if a human behaved this way.

And what's even worse, looks like she absolutely believes (without any doubt and uncertainty) that she's demonstrating our defects to future people with these interactions.

LOL
LOL
LOL

AND, what 'we' have here is ANOTHER CASE of a human being who BELIEVES that 'it' KNOWS (without ANY doubt and without ANY uncertainty) what HAPPENS, in the future to 'it' and 'its' days.

The, OBVIOUS to Me anyway, DEFECTS of the 'past people', to 'us', could be AS CLEARLY RECOGNIZED and SEEN 'back then' as THOSE DEFECTS are TO 'us' NOW.

I hesitate to accept that someone can be this clueless, I think there's likely a degree of wilfullness to it.

And what we have here is ANOTHER CLEAR example of just how ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS, themselves, completely and utterly PREVENTED and STOPPED 'these people', BACK THEN, from GAINING UNDERSTANDING, and MOVING FORWARD.

The ABSOLUTE DEFECTS 'they' HAD ARE, and WERE, CRYSTAL CLEAR, although, OBVIOUSLY, 'they' could NOT RECOGNIZE and SEE 'them' ALL, BACK in those 'OLDEN DAYS'.

[Age]

And what's even worse, looks like she absolutely believes (without any doubt and uncertainty) that she's demonstrating our defects to future people with these interactions. I hesitate to accept that someone can be this clueless, I think there's likely a degree of wilfullness to it.

She's a she. I didn't know that.

Here we have ANOTHER GREAT and PRIME example of WHERE and WHEN one will just BELIEVE what "another" one SAYS, STATES, or ASSERTS WITHOUT skerrick of CURIOSITY and CLARIFICATION being SOUGHT OUT, FIRST.

If some ASSERTION aligns WITH some ALREADY HELD PRESUMPTION or BELIEF, and 'that ASSERTION' FITS IN WITH or could be 'beneficial' for one's ALREADY "one-side" perspective and view of 'things', then 'that one' WILL just GO ALONG WITH 'the ASSERTION', WITHOUT EVER STOPPING for even just 'one second' to CONSIDER what was ASSERTED, SAID, and CLAIMED.

THE DEFECTS of 'human beings', in the past, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here ARE and WERE EXTREMELY OBVIOUS. That is; once one learns, or discovers and KNOW, HOW TO LOOK, and WHAT TO LOOK FOR, EXACTLY.

I had an old friend, who is no longer with us, and we went over this are they conscious or unconscious about what they are doing and is there a difference and if so what is it and are there degrees and what does it mean to be conscious (willful) about doing things.

'you', human beings, do 'things' 'consciously', 'unconsciously', AND 'subconsciously'.

KNOWING the DIFFERENCES HELPS in LEARNING, and UNDERSTANDING, MORE ABOUT 'you', and thee REAL and True, ONLY, 'I'.

I think I have always been on the 'they know not what they do' side too far.

Does 'this' here INCLUDE 'you', "iwannaplato"?

AND, did telling 'us' that 'your' so-called 'old friend' is supposedly 'no longer with us' have ANY implication on 'your story and your view' here?

If yes, then 'what', EXACTLY?

[Age]

And what's even worse, looks like she absolutely believes (without any doubt and uncertainty) that she's demonstrating our defects to future people with these interactions. I hesitate to accept that someone can be this clueless, I think there's likely a degree of wilfullness to it.

She's a she. I didn't know that.
I had an old friend, who is no longer with us, and we went over this are they conscious or unconscious about what they are doing and is there a difference and if so what is it and are there degrees and what does it mean to be conscious (willful) about doing things. I think I have always been on the 'they know not what they do' side too far.

Often it serves their purpose to feign unconscious behaviour.

'Does it'?

And, 'you' KNOW 'this' HOW, EXACTLY?

We don't know Age's gender, comes across initially as a male of course and had a male username before this one.

I NEVER EVER had a so-called 'male username' before 'this one'.

LOL the amount of PRESUMPTIONS that these human beings made, back in 'those days', were like 'never-ending'.

But on second thought I think a heavily autistic female with multiple other major issues would fit Age better.

Okay. BUT 'you' have PRESENTED 'this view' of 'yours' "atla" PREVIOUSLY. So, what do 'you' mean by 'on second thought', exactly?

[Age]

Often it serves their purpose to feign unconscious behaviour.

I tend to think of it as mainly unconscious, but actively avoiding the regular flickers that what they are saying about themselves is not correct.

Of which 'these posters' here have CONSISTENTLY SHOWN that they ARE 'actively avoiding' a LOT of my CHALLENGES and QUESTIONS.

NOTICE how 'these people', back then, appeared to LOVE to talk ABOUT "another/others" and NOT, DIRECTLY, WITH 'them'. Unless, OF COURSE, 'they' were speaking WITH "another" ABOUT "another one".

As EVIDENCED and PROVED here, ONCE MORE.

IOW the unconsciousness is maintained by a regular avoidance choice.

ANOTHER DEFECT that 'these people' had STILL NOT YET RECOGNIZED and NOTICED that it IS 'I' who WAS, and IS, CONTINUALLY ASKING TO BE QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED, while it WAS 'them' who continually REFUSED, for AVOIDED, to ANSWER ALL of the ACTUAL QUESTIONS that I ASKED 'them'.

As can be CLEARLY PROVED True by their OWN writings and responses.

So, there is a lot of responsibility, despite the unconsciousness. In the case of Age, there has to be a constant avoiding noticing that there isn't really a caring atittude. There may be the idea of a caring attitude in his or her mind, but the actual attitude is condescending, smug and most happy when given 'reasons' to talk down to people.

1. I do NOT have a mind. And the belief that a 'him' or a 'her' HAS 'his' or 'her' mind, was just AS ABSURD as believing that the earth is flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, or that the Universe began and/or is expanding.

2. This one CONSTANTLY BELIEVES that 'I' have an ACTUAL 'condescending and smug attitude', and am MOST 'happy' when 'I', supposedly, are given 'reasons' to talk DOWN to 'those people'. Which, OBVIOUSLY, Truly AFFECTED the way 'it' LOOKED and SAW 'my words'. Which is REALLY quite AMUSING considering that 'it' has CLAIMED that 'it' does NOT read 'MY WORDS' anyway anymore.

3. This one CLAIMS to have IGNORED 'me', but continually joins in conversations and discussions WITH "others" ABOUT 'me'. ALL while, OBVIOUSLY, NOT SEEKING OUT and OBTAINING ACTUAL CLARIFICATION ABOUT 'me' FIRST.

Or that Age could use the word 'belief' in an idiosyncratic way that somehow allows him/her to think he/she has but one belief, but otherwise believes nothing.

LOL 'this one' is ACTUALLY CLAIMING here that 'it' KNOWS the ONE and ONLY 'definition' for A word here.

'This one' ACTUALLY BELIEVES that 'it' HAS TO BELIEVE MANY 'things' and that 'it' could NOT live WITHOUT HAVING TO BELIEVE 'things'.

'This' is ANOTHER REASON WHY 'these people' TOOK SO LONG TO PROGRESS and MOVE FORWARD SUCCESSFULLY.

It would take work for Age not to realize that he/she doesn't have a vast range of beliefs and is constantly indicating these.

It has taken ALL of 'this time' to NEVER PRESENT A SINGLE ONE of these SUPPOSED 'beliefs', which 'I' AM SUPPOSEDLY MEANT TO HAVE here.

And, it would take WORK for 'this one' to REALIZE that it takes NO ACTUAL WORK AT ALL to JUST NOT BELIEVE 'things' ARE TRUE.

BUT 'this one' can NOT REALIZE and SEE this Fact BECAUSE 'it' CONTINUES TO BELIEVE that one MUST HAVE BELIEFS in order for 'it' TO LIVE and SURVIVE.

Thus the HYPOCRISY and CONTRADICTION here, that is; 'this one's' OWN BELIEF that 'it' MUST HAVE BELIEFS STOPS and PREVENTS 'it' FROM SEEING and REALIZING that ACTUALLY there is NO ACTUALLY NEED to have BELIEFS and BELIEVE 'things' AT ALL.

'This one' has ALSO FAILED TO RECOGNIZE and NOTICE that 'it' BEGAN 'life' WITH ABSOLUTELY NO BELIEFS AT ALL Which, OBVIOUSLY, in and of itself, PROVES ABSOLUTELY True that one does NOT NEED BELIEFS AT ALL and therefore does NOT NEED TO BELIEVE 'things' NEITHER.

In their work to fend off feelings of confusion and cognitive dissonance and then also fears about what they actually are like and doing, they accrue a lot of responsibility for what ends up being rather nasty.

'This' here is what was called 'PROJECTION'.

'This one' speaks of 'things' that 'it' and "other" adult human beings ACTUALLY DO, and present 'them' as though 'I', of ALL 'things', does THE SAME.

BUT, as can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED here it is ONLY GENERALIZED TALK, and NEVER EVER ANY ACTUAL specific example is GIVEN in regards to when 'I" have SUPPOSEDLY EVER DONE such 'thing/s'.

LOL I have NO feelings of CONFUSION NOR COGNITIVE DISSONANCE here, as can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True by my CONSTANT CLAIM that I CAN, and WILL, back up and support what I SAY and CLAIM here, in this forum. Which, is the VERY OPPOSITE of what 'you', posters, DO.

VA has a lot of the same kind of pattern. Though he, at least, does manage to actually put some things to discuss on the table.

I put 'on' the so-called 'table' 'you', human beings, do NOT have 'minds'. BUT the reason WHY 'you' BELIEVE that 'this' is NOT up for discussion IS BECAUSE 'you' BELIEVE the opposite IS ABSOLUTELY True.

Here in philosophical discussions online they are about as harmless as pop up ads.
But they follow the same patterns that some fairly harmful people out in the real world carry out.

We don't know Age's gender, comes across initially as a male of course and had a male username before this one. But on second thought I think a heavily autistic female with multiple other major issues would fit Age better.

I don't know. I assumed male. Whatever that may say about me or Age.

LOL i ASSUMED some 'thing'.

BUT NEVER EVER ONCE EVER CONSIDERED TO JUST SEEK OUT and OBTAIN ACTUAL CLARIFICATION.

Which WAS one of the BIGGEST DEFECTS of the adult human being, BACK in the 'OLDEN DAYS' when this was being written.

There IS, and WAS, NO WONDER WHY 'they' did NOT KNOW 'things'. 'They' VERY RARELY, if EVER, SOUGHT OUT and OBTAINED ACTUAL CLARITY, FIRST.

[Atla]

Often it serves their purpose to feign unconscious behaviour.

I tend to think of it as mainly unconscious, but actively avoiding the regular flickers that what they are saying about themselves is not correct. IOW the unconsciousness is maintained by a regular avoidance choice. So, there is a lot of responsibility, despite the unconsciousness. In the case of Age, there has to be a constant avoiding noticing that there isn't really a caring atittude. There may be the idea of a caring attitude in his or her mind, but the actual attitude is condescending, smug and most happy when given 'reasons' to talk down to people.
Or that Age could use the word 'belief' in an idiosyncratic way that somehow allows him/her to think he/she has but one belief, but otherwise believes nothing. It would take work for Age not to realize that he/she doesn't have a vast range of beliefs and is constantly indicating these.
In their work to fend off feelings of confusion and cognitive dissonance and then also fears about what they actually are like and doing, they accrue a lot of responsibility for what ends up being rather nasty. VA has a lot of the same kind of pattern. Though he, at least, does manage to actually put some things to discuss on the table.
Here in philosophical discussions online they are about as harmless as pop up ads.
But they follow the same patterns that some fairly harmful people out in the real world carry out.

We don't know Age's gender, comes across initially as a male of course and had a male username before this one. But on second thought I think a heavily autistic female with multiple other major issues would fit Age better.

I don't know. I assumed male. Whatever that may say about me or Age.

Age only puts her crazy beliefs on the table, mainly that she's talking as God, and from a future standpoint of absolute harmony. But her beliefs are facts and not up to debate at all, nor will she admit that they are beliefs, nor will she admit that they are her beliefs, nor will she admit that she even exists, nor will she allow the possibility that you exist. Absolutely everything you try do is your fault, and will prove how defective you are, which is what Age is here to show and she claims to be completely successful.

So it's a total no-win situation from the start for anyone. I just don't think that someone can get to this point without some wilfullness. Even if Age is heavily autistic and then in addition to that, she develops some sort of schizophrenic God complex, there seems to be some intentionality to this. It's the opposite of a caring attitude, and perversely masks itself as a caring attitude by pretending to be here to help humans live in perfect harmony which will supposedly inevitably happen. Personally I think this whole scheme is all just a big revenge on the world that didn't understand her.

[Iwannaplato]

Age only puts her crazy beliefs on the table, mainly that she's talking as God, and from a future standpoint of absolute harmony. But her beliefs are facts and not up to debate at all, nor will she admit that they are beliefs, nor will she admit that they are her beliefs, nor will she admit that she even exists, nor will she allow the possibility that you exist. Absolutely everything you try do is your fault, and will prove how defective you are,

Which is typical narcissist behavior. A few years back I had a drawn out interaction with what I realized was a narcissist. A covert version. And I would mull over how much this person knew about what they were doing. I knew she had gone through a terrible childhood and my sense was that she didn't really get the general picture of herself. I am sure she knew when she was twisting things, making up stuff and to some degree contradicting herself. But I think she truly believed the general conclusion that she was 95% in the right and so it was ok to fudge stuff. The horrible thing was that when I finally got angry I could see how the little girl who had been mistreated was suddenly the only part of her present in the room. So, there was simply no way to move forward. And that was the end of the interaction. We were not a couple but worked in the same group. She went on to create similar dynamics with others and finally had to leave the group.

It was almost like there was a rather vicious entity attached to a damaged person. There was no real way to convince the entity of anything and the damaged person would end up feeling victimized.

which is what Age is here to show and she claims to be completely successful.

at what?

So it's a total no-win situation from the start for anyone.

Yes.

I just don't think that someone can get to this point without some wilfullness. Even if Age is heavily autistic and then in addition to that, she develops some sort of schizophrenic God complex, there seems to be some intentionality to this.

I think there's generally these people confuse their official thinking with what they are actually feeling and doing in relation to others. Pretty thoughts, nice ideals. Those ideals are what I am doing. And can't really feel/see what is actually happening.

It's the opposite of a caring attitude, and perversely masks itself as a caring attitude by pretending to be here to help humans live in perfect harmony which will supposedly inevitably happen.

Yeah.

Personally I think this whole scheme is all just a big revenge on the world that didn't understand her.

I wonder if years and years of conflict and talking down to people and the inevitabler reactions people have to that will ever have lead to him or her questioning his or her current assessment. I mean how much feedback can one get from so many people without ever stopping to consider (let alone revealing this) that you might be missing something important.

It's really rather amazing. And the online interaction exacerbates the problem, because one can always hide the complexity of one's reactions. In person it is much harder to pretend.

[VVilliam]

The meanings you give words define the accuracy, truthfulness, and correctness of the statements you use.

Yes.
This is only really useful in terms of understanding "self" re the environment (body and universe body is in)
Statements which remain internal ( "self-talk" ) do consist of one's "meaning" of the words used in said statements.
Often though, I find that even these internalized statements are accompanied by explanatory points. ( are not "pointless" statements. )

For example, the statements, 'The Universe is infinite and eternal', and, 'The universe is finite and limited', are both accurate, truthful, and correct, all depending on the meanings and definitions that you have and are using.

Any statement which logically contradicts another statement similar in context ( such as the examples you gave ) cannot therefore both be truthful - unless one has found a way it which to make it so.
Even then, while the information would be know by you internally, in order for it to be known/potentially understood by others (readers of the statement published/made available) in the same way, one would have to offer a comprehensive statement involving the points which allowed one to internally come to that conclusion, rather than simply externalize that as the ( pointless ) statement.

iow - any statement of such nature which is not accompanied by explanatory points, can only be accepted by readers as "unsupported statements of opinion".
Not that these in themselves are useless (they potentially trigger attention/interest) but the use of such has to expand (with points of explanation) in order for communication between the writer and the reader to ever "get on the same page" - whereby - intelligent interaction through words has the best chance of continuing to unfold in productive ways for all involved.

And it is just these different meanings and definitions that 'you', human beings, have and use, why 'you', adult human beings, were still somewhat lost and confused, back in the days when this was being written.

Yes. Imagine being a personality reading these "ancient writings" in some far off future!
I think ( my personal preference ) I would prefer to be understood by such future readers, as being "wise for my time".

However, because 'you' all are, or more correctly, were, and can be again, truly intelligent beings, becoming less lost and less confused is really a very simple and very easy process to learn, and do.

To those future readers in some far-off time as well, ( as present company ) I would point to the above as "statement of opinion which prompts curiosity" but does not have accompanying points which show the statement is more than "words" one can/or not, be "curious" about.

"Easy" in itself is a subjective concept which means different things to different personalities. The same applies to "learn".
So, even if the writer ( "Age" ) had provided accompanying "points", these still might not assist every personality reading the pointed statement in understanding what the statement "means".

That is the limitation of human language - it is unfolding along with the rest of the universe...so we have to be clever in making do with what we have to offer and what others have to offer, while at the same "time" attempt to find ways to make communication with one another - "better".

For 'you' to gain the True understanding of, and for, all, 'you' just have to learn how to know what 'you' actually mean.

All well and good while largely internalized...but once "we" externalize ( through - in this case - the use of writing ) "we" are wise to recognize and adjust accordingly. "I" may internally know "exactly" what "I" mean as the sound of "my" words are "heard" within the mind that "I" am, through the personality "I" am growing through said process.

"We can call each others "idiot" or "psychopath" et al and come no nearer to "solving" the "problem" ( perhaps because it is no "problem" throwing insults at one another - like apes throw pooh ) perhaps even due to fears we are unconscious of that the "other" will not accept "me" as "I" "AM" - but whatever the reason - I look to my imaginary "friends" in those "future readers" and decide NOW, to at least attempt to inject reasonable wisdom into the conversations I have NOW with "others".

[Age]

The meanings you give words define the accuracy, truthfulness, and correctness of the statements you use.

Yes.
This is only really useful in terms of understanding "self" re the environment (body and universe body is in)

So, HOW do 'you', "vvilliam", UNDERSTAND 'self', EXACTLY?

Statements which remain internal ( "self-talk" ) do consist of one's "meaning" of the words used in said statements.

AND, the meanings you give, internal OR external, words define the accuracy, truthfulness, and correctness of the statements you use, ALSO, and AS WELL.

Often though, I find that even these internalized statements are accompanied by explanatory points. ( are not "pointless" statements. )

Okay. Do you feel somewhat better sharing 'this information', with 'us'?

For example, the statements, 'The Universe is infinite and eternal', and, 'The universe is finite and limited', are both accurate, truthful, and correct, all depending on the meanings and definitions that you have and are using.

Any statement which logically contradicts another statement similar in context ( such as the examples you gave ) cannot therefore both be truthful - unless one has found a way it which to make it so.

But there is NO contradiction here AT ALL.The example I gave here is IRREFUTABLY True.

This can be CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTOOD by the USE of the two DIFFERENT words 'universe' AND 'Universe'.

See, IF and WHEN one SEEKS CLARITY, then 'this' is the EASIEST, SIMPLEST, QUICKEST, MOST EFFICIENT, and thus BEST WAY to GAIN ACTUAL FULL CLARITY, which CAN and WILL BE OBTAINED.

Even then, while the information would be know by you internally, in order for it to be known/potentially understood by others (readers of the statement published/made available) in the same way, one would have to offer a comprehensive statement involving the points which allowed one to internally come to that conclusion, rather than simply externalize that as the ( pointless ) statement.

The ACTUAL POINT, and REASON WHY, I do NOT FURTHER or MORE WORDS to JUSTIFY ANY of my positions is BECAUSE if one is NOT INTERESTED IN the first statement, or thinks or BELIEVES that the first statement IS POINTLESS, from the outset, then I would OBVIOUSLY just be WASTING 'time' AND 'energy'.

See, I just provide STATEMENTS, and just WAIT for those who ARE Truly INTERESTED, BEFORE I WILL back and support those statements WITH IRREFUTABLE PROOF, and/or Facts.

iow - any statement of such nature which is not accompanied by explanatory points, can only be accepted by readers as "unsupported statements of opinion".

IF that is THE WAY 'you' WANT TO, ONLY, 'accept' ANY of my statements, then that IS PERFECTLY FINE WITH me, BECAUSE 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO CHOOSE to LOOK AT and SEE absolutely ANY 'thing' here in absolutely ANY WAY 'you' LIKE.

Not that these in themselves are useless (they potentially trigger attention/interest) but the use of such has to expand (with points of explanation) in order for communication between the writer and the reader to ever "get on the same page" - whereby - intelligent interaction through words has the best chance of continuing to unfold in productive ways for all involved.

So, to 'you', 'the reader', is the WHOLE RESPONSIBILITY of 'the writer' to PROVIDE THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF WORDS, which WILL 'spark, trigger, and enlighten your interest', right?

By the way, if 'you' EVER 'get on the so-called same page' is of NO real interest AT ALL to 'me'.

Also, one of the VERY 'things' I AM WANTING TO SHOW and REVEAL here is that I could express an IRREFUTABLE Truth, like for example, 'the Universe IS infinite and eternal', just like the IRREFUTABLE Truth, 'the earth revolves around the sun and NOT the other way around' was expressed, and IF one BELIEVES otherwise, then they WILL SHOW NO REAL INTEREST, AT ALL, in LEARNING and UNDERSTAND 'the IRREFUTABLE Fact'.

And it is just these different meanings and definitions that 'you', human beings, have and use, why 'you', adult human beings, were still somewhat lost and confused, back in the days when this was being written.

Yes. Imagine being a personality reading these "ancient writings" in some far off future!

One could ALSO IMAGINE if 'the one' who was SAYING and CLAIMED that, 'Actually the earth revolves around the sun, and NOT the other way around', had SHOWN and REVEALED the ACTUAL WAY that "others" were, REALLY, RESPONDING to 'that one', in the so-called "ancient days, or ancient writings", in the so-called 'far off' 'now', when this is being written.

What would MAKE it FAR EASIER and SIMPLER to for a 'particular period of time' people to SEE, and KNOW, FOR SURE, HOW, EXACTLY, ANOTHER 'particular period of time' people REALLY THOUGHT and SAW 'things' BACK THEN?

Through IMAGINATION? Or, through the PRESENCE OF the ACTUAL WORDS/THOUGHTS that WERE EXISTING, back then?

I think ( my personal preference ) I would prefer to be understood by such future readers, as being "wise for my time".

'you' can PREFER to be 'understood', by people in the future, to you, as so-called "wise", in so-called "your time", but what can ACTUALLY HAPPEN is that NOW that can just READ 'your' ACTUAL WORDS, and thus 'your' ACTUAL THINKING, here and SEE, FOR SURE, just how 'wise', or 'unwise', 'you' REALLY WERE, back then.

Also, what 'you', human beings, ACTUALLY PREFER is NOT necessary what 'you' will ALWAYS get.

However, because 'you' all are, or more correctly, were, and can be again, truly intelligent beings, becoming less lost and less confused is really a very simple and very easy process to learn, and do.

To those future readers in some far-off time as well, ( as present company ) I would point to the above as "statement of opinion which prompts curiosity" but does not have accompanying points which show the statement is more than "words" one can/or not, be "curious" about.

BUT, OBVIOUSLY, MY WORDS here, in the days when this was being written, have NOT prompt ENOUGH CURIOSITY TO 'this one' yet anyway, FOR 'this one' to start ASKING absolutely ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS AT ALL, NOR for 'it' to even begin to CHALLENGE in ANY WAY.

Also, WHY do 'you' ASSUME 'in some far off time'?

"Easy" in itself is a subjective concept which means different things to different personalities. The same applies to "learn".

In what different ways can the subjective concept of 'learn' be, exactly, to you?

So, even if the writer ( "Age" ) had provided accompanying "points", these still might not assist every personality reading the pointed statement in understanding what the statement "means".

VERY True, and what IS ALSO VERY True is the Fact that IF one is Truly INTERESTED in WANTING TO LEARN some 'thing', then 'that one' WILL DO what it takes to in order TO LEARN 'that thing'.

That is; people who Truly WANT TO 'learn' some 'thing', do NOT just WAIT for "others" to PROVIDE what it is that 'that one' WANTS TO LEARN.

That is the limitation of human language - it is unfolding along with the rest of the universe...

But I do NOT see ANY, suggested, limitation of human language here. But this is JUST BECAUSE ANY 'perceived' 'limitation of human language' is just 'an opinion' and/or just a 'subjective concept', right?

so we have to be clever in making do with what we have to offer and what others have to offer, while at the same "time" attempt to find ways to make communication with one another - "better".

WOW, REALLY?

Have you noticed that some suggest that 'they' communicate with "others" perfectly fine and alright ALREADY?

Were you YET AWARE that one of the VERY REASONS WHY I am here, in this forum, is to LEARN how to communicate BETTER, with 'you', human beings?

For 'you' to gain the True understanding of, and for, all, 'you' just have to learn how to know what 'you' actually mean.

All well and good while largely internalized...

REALLY?

Can you NOT, YET ANYWAY, externalize the thoughts and thinking WITHIN 'that body', FULLY and Correctly?

but once "we" externalize ( through - in this case - the use of writing ) "we" are wise to recognize and adjust accordingly.

We are 'wise' to recognize 'what', exactly, and to adjust 'what' accordingly, exactly?

Also, who does the 'we' word here refer to, exactly?

Are 'you' one of that 'we', who are, supposedly, 'wise' here?

"I" may internally know "exactly" what "I" mean as the sound of "my" words are "heard" within the mind that "I" am, through the personality "I" am growing through said process.

What is this 'mind' 'thing', which 'you' speak of here, which, supposedly, sounds of 'your' words are said to be 'heard' WITHIN?

Also, what IS 'the personality', which 'I' AM, supposedly?

And, HOW do 'I' 'grow', exactly?

Also, if 'you', or 'I', may internally KNOW, EXACTLY, what 'I', or 'you', mean, as the sounds of words are, so-called, 'heard', WITHIN 'a body', then WHY can 'you', or 'I', supposedly, NOT just EXPLAIN those EXACT SAME 'sounding meanings', to "others"?

"We can call each others "idiot" or "psychopath" et al and come no nearer to "solving" the "problem"

We can also keep TELLING "each other" that 'we' are NOT getting ANY nearer to 'solving the problem'. However, if 'you', or 'I', NEVER INFORM the "other" of what the ACTUAL 'problem' here IS EXACTLY, then the "other" may well NEVER have ANY clue NOR idea of what, supposed and alleged, 'problem' even actually exists. Exactly like 'I' have absolutely NO clue NOR idea in regards to 'what problem' 'you' are even talking ABOUT and referring TO here.

Would you like to SHARE with 'me' what the ACTUAL 'problem' is that 'you' are SEEING and REFERRING TO here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

( perhaps because it is no "problem" throwing insults at one another - like apes throw pooh ) perhaps even due to fears we are unconscious of that the "other" will not accept "me" as "I" "AM" - but whatever the reason - I look to my imaginary "friends" in those "future readers" and decide NOW, to at least attempt to inject reasonable wisdom into the conversations I have NOW with "others".

Okay, But WHY would 'you' even talk ABOUT 'throwing insults', especially considering that I have NEVER done 'this' even ONCE throughout this WHOLE forum?

Also, one HAS TO KNOW WHO and WHAT 'I' AM, FIRST, BEFORE they could Truly EXPECT "another" TO KNOW.

Are 'you', "vvilliam", ABLE TO INFORM 'us' of what THE ANSWER to THE QUESTION, 'WHO AM 'I'?' IS, EXACTLY?

WHEN do 'you' think or BELIEVE that 'you' have INJECTED 'reasonable wisdom', INTO 'the conversation' that 'you', supposedly, have NOW, with "others"?

And, when 'you' write the word 'now' in capital letters, what does doing 'this' ACTUALLY MEAN?

[VVilliam]

Were you YET AWARE that one of the VERY REASONS WHY I am here, in this forum, is to LEARN how to communicate BETTER, with 'you', human beings?

No. But if that is part of your reason for writing "here, in this forum" to "LEARN how to communicate BETTER, with human beings" that is information which may or may not be relevant to "me" having the human experience NOW.

WHY would 'you' even talk ABOUT 'throwing insults', especially considering that I have NEVER done 'this' even ONCE throughout this WHOLE forum?

I have seen what can be referred to as "insults thrown" although "you" may not recognize these as "insults". I did not write about these with anyone in mind, so please cease taking that personally. It wasn't about "you" specifically. Rather it was opinion about "why" such occurs.

See, I just provide STATEMENTS, and just WAIT for those who ARE Truly INTERESTED, BEFORE I WILL back and support those statements WITH IRREFUTABLE PROOF, and/or Facts.

We all have our particular "method" of learning but most of what you state is already understood by me through my own experience, in my own unique way. We do not really "have" to be on the same page - that may just be a thing which occurs when both parties interact at less mundane levels but is not necessarily a REQUIREMENT.

So - "I" am not missing out on anything IF I do not follow the limitations of the "rules" another stipulates - such as showing "you" I have "true interest" ( by your rule ) "BEFORE" you will "back and support your statements" with "irrefutable proof."

Why?

Because I walk my own path and learn through any device capable of unconditionally helping me to learn, and do not waste my temporary human time and experience with any device which places conditions upon that particular system of learning.

Do you feel somewhat better sharing 'this information', with 'us'?

My emotions have no fundamental thing to do with my writing/sharing what I do.

I am simply here to learn and pass on knowledge to the best of my current human abilities.

Discussion on Language, Communication, and Understanding