The Paradox of Understanding

[Fairy]

So, AGAIN, I will suggest JUST STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS. OBVIOUSLY, there is NO ACTUAL REASON TO.

Oh, and by the way, the ASSUME word IS FREQUENTLY USED by me. As can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout MY WRITINGS, here.

To use the ''ASSUME'' word, is to assume there are 'assumptions' being made.

OBVIOUSLY, 'this' is NOT NECESSARILY SO, AT ALL.

When there is no actual reason to make them.

There is ONLY One Mind, ONLY.

This is necessarily so.

The word ASSUME, is a concept known in consciousness, the word itself informs information is present, the word 'assume' generates a meaning. And so it is necessarily so. Otherwise words would have no meaning, and we'd all just be talking to each other zero any meaning. We might as well just be making woof woof noises as each other. Barking dogs is Hardly the recipe for human coherent meaningful conversation, is it.

[Age]

To use the ''ASSUME'' word, is to assume there are 'assumptions' being made.

OBVIOUSLY, 'this' is NOT NECESSARILY SO, AT ALL.

When there is no actual reason to make them.

This is necessarily so.

The word ASSUME, is a concept known in consciousness, the word itself informs information is present, the word 'assume' generates a meaning. And so it is necessarily so. Otherwise words would have no meaning, and we'd all just be talking to each other zero any meaning. We might as well just be making woof woof noises as each other. Barking dogs is Hardly the recipe for human coherent meaningful conversation, is it.

Okay, if you say so, but there is nothing in what you said, here, that relates to what I have been saying, and meaning, here.

[Fairy]

OBVIOUSLY, 'this' is NOT NECESSARILY SO, AT ALL.

This is necessarily so.

The word ASSUME, is a concept known in consciousness, the word itself informs information is present, the word 'assume' generates a meaning. And so it is necessarily so. Otherwise words would have no meaning, and we'd all just be talking to each other zero any meaning. We might as well just be making woof woof noises as each other. Barking dogs is Hardly the recipe for human coherent meaningful conversation, is it.

Okay, if you say so, but there is nothing in what you said, here, that relates to what I have been saying, and meaning, here.

Then you'll have to make clearer what it is you are actually saying and meaning to others, else they will be unable to relate, as it is, in this particular case.

[Age]

This is necessarily so.

The word ASSUME, is a concept known in consciousness, the word itself informs information is present, the word 'assume' generates a meaning. And so it is necessarily so. Otherwise words would have no meaning, and we'd all just be talking to each other zero any meaning. We might as well just be making woof woof noises as each other. Barking dogs is Hardly the recipe for human coherent meaningful conversation, is it.

Okay, if you say so, but there is nothing in what you said, here, that relates to what I have been saying, and meaning, here.

Then you'll have to make clearer what it is you are actually saying and meaning to others, else they will be unable to relate, as it is, in this particular case.

Are others relating to what you are saying, here?

Also, is there an irony or a paradox in you NOT understanding in, 'The paradox of understanding', thread?

[Fairy]

Okay, if you say so, but there is nothing in what you said, here, that relates to what I have been saying, and meaning, here.

Then you'll have to make clearer what it is you are actually saying and meaning to others, else they will be unable to relate, as it is, in this particular case.

Are others relating to what you are saying, here?

Also, is there an irony or a paradox in you NOT understanding in, 'The paradox of understanding', thread?

Understanding data can sometimes veer off topic. And you Age are an expert at veering topics off topic.

You use the word ASSUME many times in all your interactions with others .. You must already know what this word means, or else you wouldn't project it onto others as if they are assuming things. All you are doing is doing the exact thing that you accuse others of doing.

That's all I'm pointing out to you.

You Age are just one of the biggest balls of confusion known to man, when attempting to communicate to others whatever it is you are attempting to communicate. You need to recognise this yourself, until then, nothing will change.

[Belinda]

Then you'll have to make clearer what it is you are actually saying and meaning to others, else they will be unable to relate, as it is, in this particular case.

Are others relating to what you are saying, here?

Also, is there an irony or a paradox in you NOT understanding in, 'The paradox of understanding', thread?

Understanding data can sometimes veer off topic. And you Age are an expert at veering topics off topic.

You use the word ASSUME many times in all your interactions with others .. You must already know what this word means, or else you wouldn't project it onto others as if they are assuming things. All you are doing is doing the exact thing that you accuse others of doing.

That's all I'm pointing out to you.

Maybe, but a good communication is one which uses language that is mutually understandable by both transmitter of the message and receiver of the message.

Sometimes a communication is unclear because the transmitter tries to present a new or a difficult idea. However there is nothing of that creative kind happening in our philosophy forum!
In a philosophy forum especially the onus is on the transmitter of the message to make themself clear. Age specialises in asking questions, in itself a useful spur to get us thinking. Unfortunately Age's vocabulary is not one of academic philosophers and so Age is imprecise. It's now Age's responsibility to ask himself the question what does he mean by "assume" and reply with a definition and examples.

[Fairy]

Age is imprecise.

That's it. That's why many people at this forum either put it on ignore list, or they get bored and frustrated, eventually forcing them to ignore it all together.

It, being Age.

While that does not take away the obvious truth that Age is in alignment with the one truth, there is no doubt about that. That's not the issue, the issue is when Age engages with other peoples unique ideas and how they choose to express and put into words their own way of what constitutes the one truth to them. Age doesn't seem to understand that we each and all tend to speak the one truth in our own unique way, and that it's perfectly fine to do that.

Age is probably a lovely person, I like Age as a person, but the problem is, for me personally, is when Age and others get into a two way dialog where they are both talking about the same one truth, and yet each and the other do not seem to understand what each and the other are saying. Or, they do understand what each and the other are saying, but then a situation always seems to arise, whereby Age will just reply to someone by telling them that they do not understand what is being said, and Age will also say things like, that's not what was meant, that's not what was said...So that's when it gets tedious, that's when the discussion with Age starts to get chaotic.

[Age]

Then you'll have to make clearer what it is you are actually saying and meaning to others, else they will be unable to relate, as it is, in this particular case.

Are others relating to what you are saying, here?

Also, is there an irony or a paradox in you NOT understanding in, 'The paradox of understanding', thread?

Understanding data can sometimes veer off topic. And you Age are an expert at veering topics off topic.

If you say and BELIEVE so.

You use the word ASSUME many times in all your interactions with others

Okay.

.. You must already know what this word means, or else you wouldn't project it onto others as if they are assuming things.

If this is what you want to ASSUME and/or BELIEVE, then okay.

All you are doing is doing the exact thing that you accuse others of doing.

I WILL, ONCE AGAIN, suggest that BEFORE ANY one makes A CLAIM, here, like you just did, then it is BEST that that one, and you, have the ACTUAL PROOF, which backs up and supports THE CLAIM, BEFORE the CLAIM is made.

Do you have the ACTUAL PROOF for your CLAIM, here?

If yes, then WHERE is 'it', EXACTLY?

WHEN and WHERE have I ASSUMED some thing, here?

That's all I'm pointing out to you.

you ARE CLAIMING that I AM MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, here. Now, unless you just SAY and CLAIM things, WITHOUT HAVING ANY ACTUAL PROOF, then you WILL, ALREADY, HAVE the PROOF that I AM MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, here. So, 'now' WILL you PROVIDE the ACTUAL PROOF you HAVE?

BECAUSE if you do NOT, then some WILL ASSUME that you do NOT have ANY PROOF, AT ALL, FOR your CLAIM, here.

You Age are just one of the biggest balls of confusion known to man, when attempting to communicate to others whatever it is you are attempting to communicate. You need to recognise this yourself, until then, nothing will change.

LOL

Even AFTER I POINT OUT TO them OF what THE MESSAGE IS, EXACTLY, they, STILL, DO NOT RECOGNIZE and SEE what I AM DOING, here. AND, this is even AFTER I INFORM them of 'this' AS WELL.

AGAIN, if absolutely ANY one WANTS TO KNOW what ANOTHER is ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING, then JUST ASK them CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

[Fairy]

Even AFTER I POINT OUT TO them OF what THE MESSAGE IS, EXACTLY, they, STILL, DO NOT RECOGNIZE and SEE what I AM DOING, here. AND, this is even AFTER I INFORM them of 'this' AS WELL.

Do you have the ACTUAL PROOF for your CLAIM, here?

If yes, then WHERE is 'it', EXACTLY?

[Fairy]

WHEN and WHERE have I ASSUMED some thing, here?

When you use the word ''ASSUME'' which you do often, is when you are projecting the message, the information that there are other people who are making assumptions.

How difficult is that for you to understand?


When you project the idea that there are other people making assumptions ..who on earth are these 'others' you are referring to as human beings, when you have already claimed there to be ''ONLY One mind, ONLY''

Just keep it simple, why don't you.

[Age]

Are others relating to what you are saying, here?

Also, is there an irony or a paradox in you NOT understanding in, 'The paradox of understanding', thread?

Understanding data can sometimes veer off topic. And you Age are an expert at veering topics off topic.

You use the word ASSUME many times in all your interactions with others .. You must already know what this word means, or else you wouldn't project it onto others as if they are assuming things. All you are doing is doing the exact thing that you accuse others of doing.

That's all I'm pointing out to you.

Maybe, but a good communication is one which uses language that is mutually understandable by both transmitter of the message and receiver of the message.

And, let 'us' NOT FORGET that IF the language, and/or words, being used is 'mutually understandable' this can ONLY EVER BE DONE when CLARIFICATION IS SOUGHT OUT, and OBTAINED, FIRST.

Sometimes a communication is unclear because the transmitter tries to present a new or a difficult idea.

VERY, VERY True.

For example, like when PRESENTING that the sun does NOT revolve around the earth idea, or, there are NOT many minds idea, there are just some people who are, obviously, NOT YET OPEN to these 'new ideas', and as such communication is UNCLEAR.

And, the REASON WHY the communication is UNCLEAR is JUST BECAUSE some people are NOT YET READY FOR 'new ideas'.

However there is nothing of that creative kind happening in our philosophy forum!

LOL
LOL
LOL

ONCE AGAIN, 'we' can CLEARLY SEE, here, EXACTLY, WHERE BELIEFS get IN 'the way' and make communication VERY UNCLEAR.

In a philosophy forum especially the onus is on the transmitter of the message to make themself clear.

This is NOT a prerequisite AT ALL.

IF, and ONLY IF, people are Truly INTERESTED in LEARNING, and UNDERSTANDING, what another is SAYING, and MEANING, then, and ONLY THEN, will those people SEEK OUT and OBTAIN, and GAIN, the UNDERSTANDING.

I HAVE, ALREADY, EXPRESSED, MANY TIMES OVER, that I AM JUST WAITING, PATIENTLY, for those who ARE INTERESTED, and Truly DO WANT TO LEARN MORE, and ANEW.

See, I HAVE LEARNED that is there NO USE EXPRESSING 'new ideas' if NO one is INTERESTED IN LEARNING NEW, or MORE, things.

Age specialises in asking questions, in itself a useful spur to get us thinking. Unfortunately Age's vocabulary is not one of academic philosophers and so Age is imprecise.

AGAIN, 'we' have, here, ANOTHER one who is MAKING A CLAIM ABOUT 'me'.

So, WHERE, EXACTLY, AM I, supposedly and allegedly, IMPRECISE.

And, let 'us' NOT FORGET that it is so-called "academic philosophers" who ARE UNCLEAR ABOUT the definitions of the words that they, and others, ARE USING.

As can be VERY EASY and VERY SIMPLY PROVED True.

It's now Age's responsibility to ask himself the question what does he mean by "assume" and reply with a definition and examples.

But, am 'i' NOT a "women"? Some people, here, in this forum, ASSUME or BELIEVE 'i' AM.

And, is it your responsibility "belinda" to ask "yourself" the question, 'What do you mean by the words that you write and use, here, and then reply with the definitions and examples?

If no, then WHY it is, supposedly, MY RESPONSIBILITY, here, EXACTLY?

And, LOL these ones, here, have, ONCE AGAIN, COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED just about EVERY thing that has HAPPENED and OCCURRED, here.

These people get SO SIMPLY and SO EASILY MISLED, and DETRACTED.

[Age]

Age is imprecise.

That's it. That's why many people at this forum either put it on ignore list, or they get bored and frustrated, eventually forcing them to ignore it all together.

It, being Age.

If ABSOLUTELY ANY one would like to 'TRY TO' PROVE that it is 'I' who IS IMPRECISE, here, then LOL GO AHEAD, and 'TRY TO'.

SHOW the readers, here, that it 'you', ANY one of you, who IS PRECISE, and that it is 'I" who IS IMPRECISE.

I, for One, would LOVE TO SEE absolutely ANY one of you human beings 'TRY TO' DO it.

And, OBVIOUSLY, NOT A one of you will even EVER TRY.

While that does not take away the obvious truth that Age is in alignment with the one truth, there is no doubt about that. That's not the issue, the issue is when Age engages with other peoples unique ideas and how they choose to express and put into words their own way of what constitutes the one truth to them.

If one WANTS to EXPRESS 'their truth', here, then by ALL MEANS DO that. However, I will, ONCE MORE, suggest that 'that one' HAS the ACTUAL PROOF, which could and WOULD back up and support 'their claim, their Truth, and/or their belief' BEFORE they begin to even just think about EXPRESSING 'their views or ideas' on a PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY FORUM, of ALL places.

And, AGAIN, if ANY one DOES, then EXPECT TO BE QUESTIONED and/or CHALLENGED OVER 'your words', here.

Age doesn't seem to understand that we each and all tend to speak the one truth in our own unique way, and that it's perfectly fine to do that.

you are ABSOLUTELY FREE TO PERCEIVE and/or PRESUME things. HOWEVER, please do NOT FORGET that what 'seems', to you, could be COMPLETELY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrectly, or partly.

Age is probably a lovely person, I like Age as a person, but the problem is, for me personally, is when Age and others get into a two way dialog where they are both talking about the same one truth, and yet each and the other do not seem to understand what each and the other are saying.

The REASON WHY I QUESTION you people, here, AS OFTEN AS I DO IS SO that I can BETTER UNDERSTAND what each of you is SAYING, and MEANING.

Unfortunately though I RARELY EVER GET THIS RESPECT. I ALSO RARELY GET ANY CLARIFICATION AT ALL. As can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout this forum.

Oh, and by the way, MOST of what you people, here, are 'TRYING TO' SAY, and MEAN, is ALREADY KNOWN, by I.

Or, they do understand what each and the other are saying, but then a situation always seems to arise, whereby Age will just reply to someone by telling them that they do not understand what is being said, and Age will also say things like, that's not what was meant, that's not what was said...So that's when it gets tedious, that's when the discussion with Age starts to get chaotic.

LOL

NOTICE HOW these ones GET DISTRACTED, and MISLED, SO EASILY and SO SIMPLY, here.

It only took "atla" to INTRODUCE some little completely off topic MADE UP 'crap', as some would say and call 'it', and then 'the others' GET COMPLETELY MISLED and DECEIVED.

I talked ABOUT how:

More and more people, who lacked the knowledge of HOW to USE ACTUAL INTELLIGENCE, were turning to 'artificial intelligence, of all things, to obtain so-called 'answers' FROM.

And, what 'these people' were NOT FULLY AWARE OF, was that what these so-called 'artificial intelligent' programs were programmed to do was to just bolster, or boost, these people's own 'egos'.

The machines were instructed to appear like a human being, appear as though 'they' understood what the human being meant, and worse what the human being was 'feeling', and then to 'agree with' the human being who was OBVIOUSLY seeking out REASSURANCE, in and with their BELIEFS.

The 'artificial programs' that most people were using were created so that people would 'come back', to 'them', for 'reassurance'.

Just about EVERY thing that was created, in the days when this was being written, was done for monetary gain, ONLY. 'Artificial intelligence' being created for the EXACT SAME REASON.

And the saddest part was watching and observing these, supposed, 'adult human beings' being continually TRICKED, FOOLED, and DECEIVED. Even when being LED TO their OWN DEMISE.

YET NOT a SINGLE part of 'this idea' being PRESENTED was ACKNOWLEDGED, nor ADDRESSED. NOT that it has to be. But, TAKE NOT of just HOW SIMPLY and EASILY you human beings can GET DISTRACTED and DECEIVED, here.

[Age]

Even AFTER I POINT OUT TO them OF what THE MESSAGE IS, EXACTLY, they, STILL, DO NOT RECOGNIZE and SEE what I AM DOING, here. AND, this is even AFTER I INFORM them of 'this' AS WELL.

Do you have the ACTUAL PROOF for your CLAIM, here?

YES.

If yes, then WHERE is 'it', EXACTLY?

IN YOUR VIEWS and ANSWERS.

See, I ONLY just have to ask you, 'What IS 'the message', EXACTLY, in which I just WROTE and SPOKE ABOUT?

YOUR ANSWER WILL PROVIDE the PROOF, FOR MY CLAIM.

EITHER 'you' WILL PROVE 'me' Wrong, OR, 'I' WILL BE PROVED Right.

Also, and by the way, NOTICE HOW this one WILL NOT ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS that I ASK 'it'?

But, then GOES ON TO ASK me CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

[Age]

WHEN and WHERE have I ASSUMED some thing, here?

When you use the word ''ASSUME'' which you do often, is when you are projecting the message, the information that there are other people who are making assumptions.

JUST WRITING the word 'ASSUME', itself, is NOT projecting ANY thing AT ALL.

What THE INTENTION, and/or MEANING, BEHIND WRITING that word, or ANY other word, is ANOTHER thing.

But SAYING and CLAIMING that when 'you' [meaning 'i'] use the word 'ASSUME' is NOT necessarily when I am projecting 'the message', AT ALL.

AGAIN, just because you ASSUME some thing, NEVER MEANS that what you ARE ASSUMING is TRUE or RIGHT.

If I SAY and CLAIM that you people ARE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, then that IS WHEN I AM SAYING and CLAIMING you ARE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS. But just USING the word 'ASSUME' does NOT NECESSARILY MEAN that I am SAYING and CLAIMING you people ARE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, AT ALL.

How difficult is that for you to understand?

BUT it IS you "fairy" who appears to be NOT UNDERSTANDING, here.

And, AGAIN, this IS BECAUSE you ARE ASSUMING things that were NEVER SAID and MEANT.

AGAIN, and SEE IF you CAN UNDERSTAND 'this time'. Just because I use the 'ASSUME' word, this does NOT MEAN, EVERY TIME, that I am projecting 'the message' that there are other people who are making assumptions.

Can you UNDERSTAND 'this'?

When you project the idea that there are other people making assumptions ..who on earth are these 'others' you are referring to as human beings, when you have already claimed there to be ''ONLY One mind, ONLY''

LOOK AT HOW MANY 'things' I HAVE TO try to UNSCRAMBLE, here.

1. Who, (on earth), are these 'others', 'they' ARE, EXACTLY, who 'you' just SAID 'they' ARE. That is; 'other people', or 'you', human beings.

Now, I suggest you be MUCH, MUCH MORE CLEARER in your QUESTIONING, here, in this forum.

2. What has CLAIMING that there is just One MIND, ONLY, got to do with who, (on earth) are these 'others', which I refer to as human beings.

There is SO MUCH TO UNRAVEL, and UNPACK, here.

Are you ABLE TO MAKE your QUESTION, MUCH CLEARER, here?

Just keep it simple, why don't you.

KEEP 'it' SIMPLE is A GREAT IDEA.

But, WHY did 'you' ASK 'me' this QUESTION, here?

WHY did you NOT keep your QUESTION SIMPLE from the outset?

[Fairy]

I give up Age, I have absolutely no understanding of what you are trying to communicate to myself, or others.

Everything you say is a message that is just too complicated for my simple brain to compute.