The Paradox of Observation

[Age]

Are you sure these are the right questions to ask if everyone is connected as one?

I was NOT aware that there even could be right and wrong questions, to ask.

Are you sure there are right, and wrong, questions, to ask?

If yes, then what is the 'rightness' and 'wrongness’ here judged upon and from, EXACTLY?

If all is one then the problems of others are share by everyone.

I suppose you could argue for this, that is if the word 'others' would even apply here, but which it would obviously NOT. See, if all is one, then there are NO 'others'.

Are you sure if there is a right and wrong?

YES I AM ABSOLUTELY SURE.

If there is then the question of "is this the right question to ask?" stands.

Is 'what' the right question, to ask, and WHERE and in regard to 'what', EXACTLY?

If not then I am not wrong in what I state.

But you are NEVER wrong in what you STATE, right?

[Agent Smith]

I believe the OP's idea can be,quite easily, monetized. Eodnhoj7, did ya make the call yet?

[Eodnhoj7]

I was NOT aware that there even could be right and wrong questions, to ask.

Are you sure there are right, and wrong, questions, to ask?

If yes, then what is the 'rightness' and 'wrongness’ here judged upon and from, EXACTLY?


I suppose you could argue for this, that is if the word 'others' would even apply here, but which it would obviously NOT. See, if all is one, then there are NO 'others'.

Are you sure if there is a right and wrong?

YES I AM ABSOLUTELY SURE.

If there is then the question of "is this the right question to ask?" stands.

Is 'what' the right question, to ask, and WHERE and in regard to 'what', EXACTLY?

If not then I am not wrong in what I state.

But you are NEVER wrong in what you STATE, right?

1. And how do you know you are sure?

2. Are you sure that is the right question?

3. I am neither right nor wrong.

[Age]

Are you sure if there is a right and wrong?

YES I AM ABSOLUTELY SURE.

If there is then the question of "is this the right question to ask?" stands.

Is 'what' the right question, to ask, and WHERE and in regard to 'what', EXACTLY?

If not then I am not wrong in what I state.

But you are NEVER wrong in what you STATE, right?

1. And how do you know you are sure?

BECAUSE absolutely EVERY 'thing' could agree.

2. Are you sure that is the right question?

'We' again WAIT.

3. I am neither right nor wrong.

Okay.

[Eodnhoj7]

YES I AM ABSOLUTELY SURE.


Is 'what' the right question, to ask, and WHERE and in regard to 'what', EXACTLY?


But you are NEVER wrong in what you STATE, right?

1. And how do you know you are sure?

BECAUSE absolutely EVERY 'thing' could agree.

2. Are you sure that is the right question?

'We' again WAIT.

3. I am neither right nor wrong.

Okay.

1. That fact that everything "could" agree only points to the potential of agreement. If it exists potentially then it is unactualized, otherwise it would not be potential but actual. There is no actual agreement under these terms.

2. And who is we?

[Age]

1. And how do you know you are sure?

BECAUSE absolutely EVERY 'thing' could agree.

2. Are you sure that is the right question?

'We' again WAIT.

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.

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.

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.

2. And who is we?

Those of 'us' WHO ARE, STILL, WAITING.

[Eodnhoj7]

BECAUSE absolutely EVERY 'thing' could agree.


'We' again WAIT.


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.

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.

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.

2. And who is we?

Those of 'us' WHO ARE, STILL, WAITING.

You accuse me of narrow mindnessness when your continual questioning narrows everything to your own subjective curiosity.

[Age]

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.

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.

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.

2. And who is we?

Those of 'us' WHO ARE, STILL, WAITING.

You accuse me of narrow mindnessness when your continual questioning narrows everything to your own subjective curiosity.

1. I have NEVER accused 'you' of so-called 'narrow mindedness'.

AND this is BECAUSE I KNOW what the 'Mind' IS, EXACTLY. So, I would NEVER USE such a MISNOMER, MISGUIDED, MISLEADING False, Wrong, and Incorrect phrase and term as 'that word' IS.

2. LOL If 'you' ONLY KNEW WHERE MY QUESTIONING IS LEADING 'us' here "eodhnoj7". If ONLY 'you' KNEW.

3. By the way, WHY NOT just ANSWER MY QUESTIONS from a Truly OPEN, and Honest perspective, and then FIND OUT WHERE MY QUESTIONING ACTUALLY LEADS 'us' TO, EXACTLY? Or, do 'you' have some 'thing' to HIDE or FEAR here if you were to DO 'this'?

[Eodnhoj7]

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.


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.



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.


Those of 'us' WHO ARE, STILL, WAITING.

You accuse me of narrow mindnessness when your continual questioning narrows everything to your own subjective curiosity.

1. I have NEVER accused 'you' of so-called 'narrow mindedness'.

AND this is BECAUSE I KNOW what the 'Mind' IS, EXACTLY. So, I would NEVER USE such a MISNOMER, MISGUIDED, MISLEADING False, Wrong, and Incorrect phrase and term as 'that word' IS.

2. LOL If 'you' ONLY KNEW WHERE MY QUESTIONING IS LEADING 'us' here "eodhnoj7". If ONLY 'you' KNEW.

3. By the way, WHY NOT just ANSWER MY QUESTIONS from a Truly OPEN, and Honest perspective, and then FIND OUT WHERE MY QUESTIONING ACTUALLY LEADS 'us' TO, EXACTLY? Or, do 'you' have some 'thing' to HIDE or FEAR here if you were to DO 'this'?

1. "you REALLY DO LOOK AT and SEE 'things' FROM the VERY NARROWEST and SMALLEST of perspectives sometimes "eodnhoj7""

2. And how do you know that you know where the questions lead?

3. Are you sure your questions are really open if you know where they lead?

[Age]

You accuse me of narrow mindnessness when your continual questioning narrows everything to your own subjective curiosity.

1. I have NEVER accused 'you' of so-called 'narrow mindedness'.

AND this is BECAUSE I KNOW what the 'Mind' IS, EXACTLY. So, I would NEVER USE such a MISNOMER, MISGUIDED, MISLEADING False, Wrong, and Incorrect phrase and term as 'that word' IS.

2. LOL If 'you' ONLY KNEW WHERE MY QUESTIONING IS LEADING 'us' here "eodhnoj7". If ONLY 'you' KNEW.

3. By the way, WHY NOT just ANSWER MY QUESTIONS from a Truly OPEN, and Honest perspective, and then FIND OUT WHERE MY QUESTIONING ACTUALLY LEADS 'us' TO, EXACTLY? Or, do 'you' have some 'thing' to HIDE or FEAR here if you were to DO 'this'?

1. "you REALLY DO LOOK AT and SEE 'things' FROM the VERY NARROWEST and SMALLEST of perspectives sometimes "eodnhoj7""

you OBVIOUSLY did NOT read the next two sentences. Or, if you DID, then you ARE TO BLIND, and DEAF, to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND here.

2. And how do you know that you know where the questions lead?

AGAIN, BECAUSE of what EVERY 'thing' could agree upon.

ALSO, I USE the 'could' word here NOT for the ONLY reason you supplied earlier, NOR even for the example I provide earlier either, but for ANOTHER reason.

3. Are you sure your questions are really open if you know where they lead?

They are ASKED FROM A Truly OPEN perspective, WHICH, WHEN, and IF, EVER 'they' are ANSWERED Truly OPENLY, and Honestly, WILL DELIVER 'you' to WHERE 'you', human beings, WANT TO BE anyway.

But, as I continually SAY, I am in NOR rush AT ALL. I AM ALREADY HERE, SITTING and WAITING, ANYWAY.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. I have NEVER accused 'you' of so-called 'narrow mindedness'.

AND this is BECAUSE I KNOW what the 'Mind' IS, EXACTLY. So, I would NEVER USE such a MISNOMER, MISGUIDED, MISLEADING False, Wrong, and Incorrect phrase and term as 'that word' IS.

2. LOL If 'you' ONLY KNEW WHERE MY QUESTIONING IS LEADING 'us' here "eodhnoj7". If ONLY 'you' KNEW.

3. By the way, WHY NOT just ANSWER MY QUESTIONS from a Truly OPEN, and Honest perspective, and then FIND OUT WHERE MY QUESTIONING ACTUALLY LEADS 'us' TO, EXACTLY? Or, do 'you' have some 'thing' to HIDE or FEAR here if you were to DO 'this'?

1. "you REALLY DO LOOK AT and SEE 'things' FROM the VERY NARROWEST and SMALLEST of perspectives sometimes "eodnhoj7""

you OBVIOUSLY did NOT read the next two sentences. Or, if you DID, then you ARE TO BLIND, and DEAF, to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND here.

2. And how do you know that you know where the questions lead?

AGAIN, BECAUSE of what EVERY 'thing' could agree upon.

ALSO, I USE the 'could' word here NOT for the ONLY reason you supplied earlier, NOR even for the example I provide earlier either, but for ANOTHER reason.

3. Are you sure your questions are really open if you know where they lead?

They are ASKED FROM A Truly OPEN perspective, WHICH, WHEN, and IF, EVER 'they' are ANSWERED Truly OPENLY, and Honestly, WILL DELIVER 'you' to WHERE 'you', human beings, WANT TO BE anyway.

But, as I continually SAY, I am in NOR rush AT ALL. I AM ALREADY HERE, SITTING and WAITING, ANYWAY.

1. You obviously didn't read the thread or if you did then you are to blind and deaf to comprehend and understand here.

2. And what do you mean by "thing"?

3. And what is your proof that human beings need delivered if the universe 'just is'?

[Age]

1. "you REALLY DO LOOK AT and SEE 'things' FROM the VERY NARROWEST and SMALLEST of perspectives sometimes "eodnhoj7""

you OBVIOUSLY did NOT read the next two sentences. Or, if you DID, then you ARE TO BLIND, and DEAF, to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND here.

2. And how do you know that you know where the questions lead?

AGAIN, BECAUSE of what EVERY 'thing' could agree upon.

ALSO, I USE the 'could' word here NOT for the ONLY reason you supplied earlier, NOR even for the example I provide earlier either, but for ANOTHER reason.

3. Are you sure your questions are really open if you know where they lead?

They are ASKED FROM A Truly OPEN perspective, WHICH, WHEN, and IF, EVER 'they' are ANSWERED Truly OPENLY, and Honestly, WILL DELIVER 'you' to WHERE 'you', human beings, WANT TO BE anyway.

But, as I continually SAY, I am in NOR rush AT ALL. I AM ALREADY HERE, SITTING and WAITING, ANYWAY.

1. You obviously didn't read the thread or if you did then you are to blind and deaf to comprehend and understand here.

What EXACTLY made you SAY and CLAIM 'this'? Or, do 'you' just like COPYING 'me'?

AND, what part/s of YOUR thread do you think or BELIEVE I am MISSING or MISUNDERSTANDING here?

Now, we AGAIN WAIT for YOUR ANSWER/S.

2. And what do you mean by "thing"?

In relation to which sentence, EXACTLY?

But I usually use the word 'thing' to mean an object, or subject, which I did not wish to give a specific name or names to.

What did you think I meant by 'thing'?

What do you mean by 'thing'?

3. And what is your proof that human beings need delivered if the universe 'just is'?

Did I say, 'need delivered'?

AND, BECAUSE the Universe and Life 'just IS', 'you', human beings, WILL BE DELIVERED. To WHERE I have been POINTING OUT TO and SHOWING THE WAY TO here also, I will add.

[Eodnhoj7]

you OBVIOUSLY did NOT read the next two sentences. Or, if you DID, then you ARE TO BLIND, and DEAF, to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND here.


AGAIN, BECAUSE of what EVERY 'thing' could agree upon.

ALSO, I USE the 'could' word here NOT for the ONLY reason you supplied earlier, NOR even for the example I provide earlier either, but for ANOTHER reason.


They are ASKED FROM A Truly OPEN perspective, WHICH, WHEN, and IF, EVER 'they' are ANSWERED Truly OPENLY, and Honestly, WILL DELIVER 'you' to WHERE 'you', human beings, WANT TO BE anyway.

But, as I continually SAY, I am in NOR rush AT ALL. I AM ALREADY HERE, SITTING and WAITING, ANYWAY.

1. You obviously didn't read the thread or if you did then you are to blind and deaf to comprehend and understand here.

What EXACTLY made you SAY and CLAIM 'this'? Or, do 'you' just like COPYING 'me'?

AND, what part/s of YOUR thread do you think or BELIEVE I am MISSING or MISUNDERSTANDING here?

Now, we AGAIN WAIT for YOUR ANSWER/S.

2. And what do you mean by "thing"?

In relation to which sentence, EXACTLY?

But I usually use the word 'thing' to mean an object, or subject, which I did not wish to give a specific name or names to.

What did you think I meant by 'thing'?

What do you mean by 'thing'?

3. And what is your proof that human beings need delivered if the universe 'just is'?

Did I say, 'need delivered'?

AND, BECAUSE the Universe and Life 'just IS', 'you', human beings, WILL BE DELIVERED. To WHERE I have been POINTING OUT TO and SHOWING THE WAY TO here also, I will add.

1. The first post.

2. Does it matter?

3. If the universe "just is" delivery or no delivery just are and both can be accepted.

[Harbal]

The more something is observed the more complex it becomes. The more complex it becomes the less sense it makes because not all of it can sensed. The deeper something is sensed the less it is sensed.

The more your threads are observed, the less sense they make.

[Eodnhoj7]

The more something is observed the more complex it becomes. The more complex it becomes the less sense it makes because not all of it can sensed. The deeper something is sensed the less it is sensed.

The more your threads are observed, the less sense they make.

That is the whole point. That is why they begin with "contradiction" or "paradox".