Universal Consciousness

[Age]

LOL...are you sure you are not rationalizing things to fit in with your own bias?

What do you ASSUME, or BELIEVE, is 'my own bias'?

What do you mean by assume and believe?

'Assume', suppose to be the case, or more or less, just guessing as being true, without actual proof.

'Believe', accept as being true, again also maybe without actual proof.

[Age]

1. If you ask then it must be the correct question, correct?

If I ask 'what', EXACTLY, then 'what' must supposedly be the so-called 'correct question'?

2. And what is the benefit of comprehension and understanding?

NONE for 'you', human beings, REALLY.

BUT being CURIOS and WANTING TO LEARN MORE and ANEW is the NATURAL 'instinct' of the human being. So, CONTINUALLY LEARNING, COMPREHENDING, and UNDERSTANDING MORE WILL KEEP CONTINUING, whether there is ANY benefit or NOT.

3. That is your belief.

ONCE AGAIN, I have absolutely NO idea NOR clue as to what YOUR numbers are REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

SO, whatever you are SAYING and CLAIMING is 'my belief' here, ONLY you KNOW, for now.

1. And "what" means?

2. So if "benefit or not" in comprehension leaves us with things occuring just as they are?

3. If you do not know what my numbers are referring too then you are not one with all things (as other awarenesses are things)?

I have NEVER even thought i am one with all things, let alone said or claimed 'it' anywhere.

[Dontaskme]

Observation is interaction, the two are inseperable giving both rely on action and reaction. As such the universe is self-aware, because of not only the interactions occur within it, but also because only "everything" exists. Only "everything" exists results in self-referentiality as there is no comparison, there is no other "everything" otherwise it would not be "everything". This singularity necessitates a universal consciousness as all things, including the phenomenon of consciousness, are connected.

There's dualism (1's and 0's) but they're all really just the same everything. From dualism everything can emerge. When one thing is known, everything is known. One is Everything. Everything is One. Non-duality is duality, both, yet neither.

[Eodnhoj7]

What do you ASSUME, or BELIEVE, is 'my own bias'?

What do you mean by assume and believe?

'Assume', suppose to be the case, or more or less, just guessing as being true, without actual proof.

'Believe', accept as being true, again also maybe without actual proof.

Are you assuming and/or believing these definitions?

[Eodnhoj7]

If I ask 'what', EXACTLY, then 'what' must supposedly be the so-called 'correct question'?


NONE for 'you', human beings, REALLY.

BUT being CURIOS and WANTING TO LEARN MORE and ANEW is the NATURAL 'instinct' of the human being. So, CONTINUALLY LEARNING, COMPREHENDING, and UNDERSTANDING MORE WILL KEEP CONTINUING, whether there is ANY benefit or NOT.


ONCE AGAIN, I have absolutely NO idea NOR clue as to what YOUR numbers are REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

SO, whatever you are SAYING and CLAIMING is 'my belief' here, ONLY you KNOW, for now.

1. And "what" means?

2. So if "benefit or not" in comprehension leaves us with things occuring just as they are?

3. If you do not know what my numbers are referring too then you are not one with all things (as other awarenesses are things)?

I have NEVER even thought i am one with all things, let alone said or claimed 'it' anywhere.

Then you cannot state all is one.

[Eodnhoj7]

Observation is interaction, the two are inseperable giving both rely on action and reaction. As such the universe is self-aware, because of not only the interactions occur within it, but also because only "everything" exists. Only "everything" exists results in self-referentiality as there is no comparison, there is no other "everything" otherwise it would not be "everything". This singularity necessitates a universal consciousness as all things, including the phenomenon of consciousness, are connected.

There's dualism (1's and 0's) but they're all really just the same everything. From dualism everything can emerge. When one thing is known, everything is known. One is Everything. Everything is One. Non-duality is duality, both, yet neither.

Reality is neither dualistic nor non dualistic.

[Age]

What do you mean by assume and believe?

'Assume', suppose to be the case, or more or less, just guessing as being true, without actual proof.

'Believe', accept as being true, again also maybe without actual proof.

Are you assuming and/or believing these definitions?

NO.

Now, WHEN are you going to ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION I ASKED you?

Or, are you just going to KEEP 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT?

[Age]

1. And "what" means?

2. So if "benefit or not" in comprehension leaves us with things occuring just as they are?

3. If you do not know what my numbers are referring too then you are not one with all things (as other awarenesses are things)?

I have NEVER even thought i am one with all things, let alone said or claimed 'it' anywhere.

Then you cannot state all is one.

But I do NOT state 'all is one'.

'you' ALSO are OBVIOUSLY CLEARLY MISSING and/or MISUNDERSTANDING what I am ACTUALLY SAYING here. But WHY 'you' ARE DOING 'this' can be CLEARLY SEEN and thus is ALREADY KNOWN.

[Eodnhoj7]

'Assume', suppose to be the case, or more or less, just guessing as being true, without actual proof.

'Believe', accept as being true, again also maybe without actual proof.

Are you assuming and/or believing these definitions?

NO.

Now, WHEN are you going to ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION I ASKED you?

Or, are you just going to KEEP 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT?

Who said the questions weren't answered? Who says I owe you can answer? It would be like casting pearls to swine.

[Eodnhoj7]

I have NEVER even thought i am one with all things, let alone said or claimed 'it' anywhere.

Then you cannot state all is one.

But I do NOT state 'all is one'.

'you' ALSO are OBVIOUSLY CLEARLY MISSING and/or MISUNDERSTANDING what I am ACTUALLY SAYING here. But WHY 'you' ARE DOING 'this' can be CLEARLY SEEN and thus is ALREADY KNOWN.

So all is not one? Or is it?

[Age]

Are you assuming and/or believing these definitions?

NO.

Now, WHEN are you going to ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION I ASKED you?

Or, are you just going to KEEP 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT?

Who said the questions weren't answered?

The 'reader/s' who can SEE that you have NOT ANSWERED the QUESTIONS.

Who says I owe you can answer?

If the 'can' word here was meant to mean 'an', then the ANSWER IS NO one.

I was just ASKING you ANOTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION, which, by the way, you just, ONCE AGAIN, 'tried to' DEFLECT AWAY FROM.

It would be like casting pearls to swine.

[Age]

Then you cannot state all is one.

But I do NOT state 'all is one'.

'you' ALSO are OBVIOUSLY CLEARLY MISSING and/or MISUNDERSTANDING what I am ACTUALLY SAYING here. But WHY 'you' ARE DOING 'this' can be CLEARLY SEEN and thus is ALREADY KNOWN.

So all is not one? Or is it?

In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

[Eodnhoj7]

NO.

Now, WHEN are you going to ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION I ASKED you?

Or, are you just going to KEEP 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT?

Who said the questions weren't answered?

The 'reader/s' who can SEE that you have NOT ANSWERED the QUESTIONS.

Who says I owe you can answer?

If the 'can' word here was meant to mean 'an', then the ANSWER IS NO one.

I was just ASKING you ANOTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION, which, by the way, you just, ONCE AGAIN, 'tried to' DEFLECT AWAY FROM.

It would be like casting pearls to swine.

And who are the reader(s)?

If I don't owe you an answer then why ask questions?

[Eodnhoj7]

But I do NOT state 'all is one'.

'you' ALSO are OBVIOUSLY CLEARLY MISSING and/or MISUNDERSTANDING what I am ACTUALLY SAYING here. But WHY 'you' ARE DOING 'this' can be CLEARLY SEEN and thus is ALREADY KNOWN.

So all is not one? Or is it?

In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

The "all".

[Age]

Who said the questions weren't answered?

The 'reader/s' who can SEE that you have NOT ANSWERED the QUESTIONS.

Who says I owe you can answer?

If the 'can' word here was meant to mean 'an', then the ANSWER IS NO one.

I was just ASKING you ANOTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION, which, by the way, you just, ONCE AGAIN, 'tried to' DEFLECT AWAY FROM.

It would be like casting pearls to swine.

And who are the reader(s)?

The ones who read, OBVIOUSLY.

If I don't owe you an answer then why ask questions?

To SEE if you are OPEN and Honest, or NOT.