Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 8:18 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 7:29 pm
1. And how do you know you are sure?
BECAUSE absolutely EVERY 'thing' could agree.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 7:29 pm
2. Are you sure that is the right question?
'We' again WAIT.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 7:29 pm
3. I am neither right nor wrong.
Okay.
1. That fact that everything "could" agree only points to the potential of agreement.
NO it DOES NOT.
you REALLY DO LOOK AT and SEE 'things' FROM the VERY NARROWEST and SMALLEST of perspectives sometimes "eodnhoj7". While ALSO NOT exhibiting ANY CURIOSITY NOR OPENNESS AT ALL.
The words 'could agree' could ALSO REFER TO the Fact that, ACTUALLY, EVERY 'thing' IS ALREADY IN AGREEMENT, but that SOME are just NOT AWARE OF 'this' YET.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 3:32 pm
If it exists potentially then it is unactualized, otherwise it would not be potential but actual.
LOL 'it' is ONLY 'potential', to you, BECAUSE 'you' are ONLY 'see things', as usual, from ONE position, perspective, or viewpoint ONLY, and ALONE.
'it' is NOT 'potentially', ONLY, as you would LOVE to BELIEVE is true.
'Could agree' CAN ALSO MEAN, for example, that 'at the moment' you do NOT YET REALIZE that you DO ACTUALLY ALREADY AGREE.
'you' just NEED TO BE WOKEN UP, or MADE AWARE OF, this Fact.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 3:32 pm
There is no actual agreement under these terms.
And like USUALLY WITH 'you', "eodhnoj7", 'these terms' are ALWAYS your VERY OWN 'terms', and the ONLY 'ones' that you CAN 'see' FROM that VERY NARROWED and LIMITED VIEW of YOURS.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 3:32 pm
2. And who is we?
Those of 'us' WHO ARE, STILL, WAITING.