Creation - Evolution

[Age]

Why do you believe this assertion of yours here?

You are relaying a truth that you neither believe nor disbelieve.

So, do you believe that all so-called 'oracular situations' 'a truth' is being relayed that is neither believed nor disbelieved?

You do have one belief and this was not it.

If you say so.

Oh, is that statement not correct?

No. I never said nor implied that it was.

Did you infer that I was?

Is it possible you would ever change your mind about that one belief?

One would have to have 'a mind' before they could change 'their mind'. I do not have 'a mind' so there is 'no mind' here, to change.

I assume this means that one belief you have is not like whatever these assertions above are'.

Why do you keep 'assuming' things, when just asking for clarification is so much simpler, quicker, and easier?

To show you what your elicits.

And, what did I 'elicit' here, exactly?

Also, could I also be showing and/or revealing what you are 'eliciting' here?

Is it not like these assertions here. There is the one thing you believe. You have a belief in that. Here you neither believe or disbelieve these other assertions you make. Is you belief open to revision? Might you no longer believe it at some point? Is it not proven?

How these questions here are completely and utterly moot will be clearly understood when, and if, you ever come to know what 'it' is that I believe here.

Which, by the way, I have written and expressed many, many times here, already.

It seems also as if when something is proven and you notice that it is proven one does not believe in it.

What seems to you here is also not Right and not True.

You do not believe those assertions that you consider proven. You said you neither believe them, nor disbelieve them. You also say they have been proven or proved. Does your sense they have been proven mean that they are in a category you do not believe or disbelieve the members of?

Not necessarily so, at all.

Also, you seem to be far astray and way off track here, as well.

And there is no word for the relation. IOW you clearly say you do not believe or disbelieve them above. But there is no other verb for your relation with the idea.

But, there is and are. Which, by the way, I have clearly expressed.

What is that verb for the relation to those statements you said have been proved and can be proved to be correct but which you neither believe nor disbelieve?

What does the word 'verb' even mean?

Just so you become aware I have no clue what the words 'verb', 'adjective', 'noun', 'pronoun', or any of those other types of words, which describes words, even mean.

So you have the relation of belief to your one belief.

If you say and believe so, then okay.

What is your relation to your one belief? Do you believe it to be true?

It would be rather contradictory to not believe the belief one has, would it not?

But you don't say what your relation is to these things that are proven to you.

But, I do, and have on numerous occasions.

Great: what verb would you use? Or if it is a description of the relation without verbs, what is that?

Again, I will await your clarification of what a 'verb' is, exactly, before I answer.

Or you recognize their truth. Is there any word for your relationship to these things that have been proven?

Yes.

And, as I have explained previously it relates to what the word 'prove' means and refers to, to me, exactly.

And what is that word or words?

Know, for sure, exactly, or fully.

[Age]

Okay. So, again, why say things that you do not, literally, mean, and especially so in a philosophy forum of all places?

My point in that post and when I mentioned the metaphorical aspect of 'to' in a previous post was to point out that we are all using metaphorical language.

1. If you all, supposedly use 'metaphorical language', this still does not answer and clarify my clarifying question about why do you say thing that you do not, literally, mean, and especially more so, why do you do this in a philosophy forum of all places?

2. Who and/or what is the 'we', which supposedly all of you use metaphorical language?

3. Do you notice how many tangents you go on to and with, and how far off topic and astray you also go?

There is a big misconception that there is some distinct line between trope-based language and literal language.

Is this so-claimed 'big misconception' held by all others?

Also, if you do not know the actual distinct line between trope-based language and literal language, then this helps greatly in explaining how and why you use trope-based language so often here, in a philosophy forum, and why you are still lost, confused, and are still looking for answers here.

Even the word literal is a metaphor in this context, ironically.

Okay.

It means to take exactly as written in the original text. But here we are not writing about texts. We now use this metaphor for direct quoting as a metaphor for not speaking about something through something else. But that process is being spoken about through a metaphor

This explains, again greatly, how and why these human beings, back then, took so, so long to come to, find, and know the actual Truth of things.

But metaphors that get called dead metaphors affect our thinking in ways we are less conscious of and take for granted assumptions we may not even be aware of as one possible way of seeing things.

Is that any word or thing that does not, literally, affect 'your thinking'?

If yes, then will you list 'those words or things'?

It depends what you mean by literally. Any word I hear and read affects my thinking - taken in the broad sense of 'affects my cognitive processes'.

Okay. This is what I was thinking also.

But does it affect them literally or some other way?

I was just meaning if there was any word, or thing, that does not affect 'your thinking'. But, if any word you hear and read affects 'your thinking', then that is all I was asking, and meaning.

I would say that given that our words and even grammar have been created out of our particular way of interacting with and experiencing the universe, that is via human sensory systems, human experience of time in sequence, human experience of being in one place and not all places, and that we co-opted the motor cortext when we started making words ALL communication has trope aspects.

If that is what you would say, then okay.

Not all of it is metaphorical, since that is a specific type of trope. But they do not match the connotations in intended in literal - again, itself, a metaphor. If one actually tracks what happens when one reads/listens, one finds something other than the representational or correspondence theories of truth going on. That's a huge topic. I don't know if you have ever studied the various models for truth or engaged in the phenomenology of language with both openly trope based language compared to what is called literal language, but which is in fact dead metaphors and also inherently tropic because it is built through a specific kind of mind brain that made its language out of tropes and subjectivity.

If you do not yet know this, then okay.

I'm not sure exactly what you meant by 'Is that any word....' that full sentence.

Okay.

I am guessing that you meant 'Is there any word or thing...etc.'

you answer already implied that this is what you were guessing.

If that's what you were asking and you also meant 'any word that I take literally', then my answer is 'not in its entirety.' Since any word is focused on facets of what it referring to or even the phenomenon of my experience of it. Which is not literally what it labels. The moment we have sentences, which have grammar, there is a whole other category of tropish communication going on: reifications, subject object splits of specific kinds, all the dead metaphoric nuances in prepositions, for example, and even articles, and so on.

Okay. But, if there is any word, or any thing, that does not affect the thinking within that head, then will you list it/them?

It's a huge topic.

Only if one wants to make it so.

If you're interested I could recommend some works to look at. If not, fine, of course.

Okay.

I'm not interested enough to explain it here, now. But I can help, if you are geniunely interested, lead you to works that explain these things and are the products of careful thinking and editing.

Which those so-claimed 'careful thinking' was effected by previous bodily experiences. Which, again, provides only a very limited perspective of all-there-is.

[Iwannaplato]

You do have one belief and this was not it.

If you say so.

Oh, is that statement not correct?[/quote]

No. I never said nor implied that it was.

So, it was correct, then. And not because I said so. The 'if you say so was a communication that could have been more clear.

Is it possible you would ever change your mind about that one belief?

One would have to have 'a mind' before they could change 'their mind'. I do not have 'a mind' so there is 'no mind' here, to change.

I assume this means that one belief you have is not like whatever these assertions above are'.

Why do you keep 'assuming' things, when just asking for clarification is so much simpler, quicker, and easier?

To show you what your elicits.

And, what did I 'elicit' here, exactly?

You quoted it.

Also, could I also be showing and/or revealing what you are 'eliciting' here?

Let me know if you want to.

Is it not like these assertions here. There is the one thing you believe. You have a belief in that. Here you neither believe or disbelieve these other assertions you make. Is you belief open to revision? Might you no longer believe it at some point? Is it not proven?

How these questions here are completely and utterly moot will be clearly understood when, and if, you ever come to know what 'it' is that I believe here.

Ah, a philosophical promissory note. I don't respect those.

What seems to you here is also not Right and not True.

You do not believe those assertions that you consider proven. You said you neither believe them, nor disbelieve them. You also say they have been proven or proved. Does your sense they have been proven mean that they are in a category you do not believe or disbelieve the members of?[/quote]

Not necessarily so, at all.

Also, you seem to be far astray and way off track here, as well.

Actually, I found out a number of things I wanted to.

And there is no word for the relation. IOW you clearly say you do not believe or disbelieve them above. But there is no other verb for your relation with the idea.

But, there is and are. Which, by the way, I have clearly expressed.

What is that verb for the relation to those statements you said have been proved and can be proved to be correct but which you neither believe nor disbelieve?

What does the word 'verb' even mean?

Just so you become aware I have no clue what the words 'verb', 'adjective', 'noun', 'pronoun', or any of those other types of words, which describes words, even mean.

Well, it's impressive that you use the word 'literally' given your lack of knowledge here.

So you have the relation of belief to your one belief.

If you say and believe so, then okay.

What is your relation to your one belief? Do you believe it to be true?

It would be rather contradictory to not believe the belief one has, would it not?

I would think so, yes.

But you don't say what your relation is to these things that are proven to you.

But, I do, and have on numerous occasions.

Great: what verb would you use? Or if it is a description of the relation without verbs, what is that?

Again, I will await your clarification of what a 'verb' is, exactly, before I answer.

Well, you answer below with a verb.

Or you recognize their truth. Is there any word for your relationship to these things that have been proven?

Yes.

And, as I have explained previously it relates to what the word 'prove' means and refers to, to me, exactly.

And what is that word or words?

Know, for sure, exactly, or fully.

'...or fully' Not both at the same time. Interesting.

Well, I certainly hope people in general don't shift to saying they have know beliefs because they know [their beliefs]. It happens enough already. Thank you for answering the question that you refused to answer earlier unless I defined 'verb' for you. See how easy that was? A step in the direction of collaboration.

Things are looking up.

[Iwannaplato]

Is this so-claimed 'big misconception' held by all others?

No.

Also, if you do not know the actual distinct line between trope-based language and literal language, then this helps greatly in explaining how and why you use trope-based language so often here, in a philosophy forum, and why you are still lost, confused, and are still looking for answers here.

If you don't know how much your own language is filled with tropes, then I understand why you have to ask me why I use language with them. You're unaware, then, if that's the case, of what you're doing and share that fairly common misconception about language.

This explains, again greatly, how and why these human beings, back then, took so, so long to come to, find, and know the actual Truth of things.

Well, it certainly explains some misunderstandings, yes.

But metaphors that get called dead metaphors affect our thinking in ways we are less conscious of and take for granted assumptions we may not even be aware of as one possible way of seeing things.

Is that any word or thing that does not, literally, affect 'your thinking'?

If yes, then will you list 'those words or things'?

It depends what you mean by literally. Any word I hear and read affects my thinking - taken in the broad sense of 'affects my cognitive processes'.

Okay. This is what I was thinking also.

Great.

But does it affect them literally or some other way?

I was just meaning if there was any word, or thing, that does not affect 'your thinking'. But, if any word you hear and read affects 'your thinking', then that is all I was asking, and meaning.

OK.

I would say that given that our words and even grammar have been created out of our particular way of interacting with and experiencing the universe, that is via human sensory systems, human experience of time in sequence, human experience of being in one place and not all places, and that we co-opted the motor cortext when we started making words ALL communication has trope aspects.

If that is what you would say, then okay.

Not all of it is metaphorical, since that is a specific type of trope. But they do not match the connotations in intended in literal - again, itself, a metaphor. If one actually tracks what happens when one reads/listens, one finds something other than the representational or correspondence theories of truth going on. That's a huge topic. I don't know if you have ever studied the various models for truth or engaged in the phenomenology of language with both openly trope based language compared to what is called literal language, but which is in fact dead metaphors and also inherently tropic because it is built through a specific kind of mind brain that made its language out of tropes and subjectivity.

If you do not yet know this, then okay.

Yes, I don't know what you've studied in that area. And yes, it's ok.

I'm not sure exactly what you meant by 'Is that any word....' that full sentence.

Okay.

I am guessing that you meant 'Is there any word or thing...etc.'

you answer already implied that this is what you were guessing.

Well, we'll just have to disagree on that. But since you don't believe that it implied it, it doesn't really matter. You lack that belief. So, there's no need for us to communicate more on that assertion of yours. Unless you've proven that it implied that and the other assertions, that aren't beliefs but views.

If that's what you were asking and you also meant 'any word that I take literally', then my answer is 'not in its entirety.' Since any word is focused on facets of what it referring to or even the phenomenon of my experience of it. Which is not literally what it labels. The moment we have sentences, which have grammar, there is a whole other category of tropish communication going on: reifications, subject object splits of specific kinds, all the dead metaphoric nuances in prepositions, for example, and even articles, and so on.

Okay. But, if there is any word, or any thing, that does not affect the thinking within that head, then will you list it/them?

Asked and answered.

It's a huge topic.

Only if one wants to make it so.

If you say so, then that is how your view it. But since you don't believe this assertion, there's no need for us to discuss it. If you believed the assertion, that would be a different matter, at least potentially.

If you're interested I could recommend some works to look at. If not, fine, of course.

Okay.

I'm not interested enough to explain it here, now. But I can help, if you are geniunely interested, lead you to works that explain these things and are the products of careful thinking and editing.

Which those so-claimed 'careful thinking' was effected by previous bodily experiences. Which, again, provides only a very limited perspective of all-there-is.

Sure, they're not competition for oracular proclamations.

Anyway, break time. I do understand a bit more of why Atla reacts to you the way he does.

These last exchanges revealed a lot. I know, you've said much of it before, but contexts, or as you might say, evolve.

[Iwannaplato]

You do have one belief and this was not it.

If you say so.

Oh, is that statement not correct?

No. I never said nor implied that it was.

So, it was correct, then. And not because I said so. The 'if you say so was a communication that could have been more clear.

Is it possible you would ever change your mind about that one belief?

One would have to have 'a mind' before they could change 'their mind'. I do not have 'a mind' so there is 'no mind' here, to change. Writing 'if you say so' is bringing in a conditional structure, hinging the truth of the assertion on the fact that I asserted something. Rather than, for example, that it would have been true regardless of what I asserted. So, it ends up not being confirmation, because it makes no sense.

I assume this means that one belief you have is not like whatever these assertions above are'.

Why do you keep 'assuming' things, when just asking for clarification is so much simpler, quicker, and easier?

To show you what your elicits.

And, what did I 'elicit' here, exactly?

You quoted it.

Also, could I also be showing and/or revealing what you are 'eliciting' here?

Let me know if you want to.

Is it not like these assertions here. There is the one thing you believe. You have a belief in that. Here you neither believe or disbelieve these other assertions you make. Is you belief open to revision? Might you no longer believe it at some point? Is it not proven?

How these questions here are completely and utterly moot will be clearly understood when, and if, you ever come to know what 'it' is that I believe here.

Ah, a philosophical promissory note. I don't respect those.

What seems to you here is also not Right and not True.

You do not believe those assertions that you consider proven. You said you neither believe them, nor disbelieve them. You also say they have been proven or proved. Does your sense they have been proven mean that they are in a category you do not believe or disbelieve the members of?[/quote]

Not necessarily so, at all.

Also, you seem to be far astray and way off track here, as well.

Actually, I found out a number of things I wanted to.

And there is no word for the relation. IOW you clearly say you do not believe or disbelieve them above. But there is no other verb for your relation with the idea.

But, there is and are. Which, by the way, I have clearly expressed.

What is that verb for the relation to those statements you said have been proved and can be proved to be correct but which you neither believe nor disbelieve?

What does the word 'verb' even mean?

Just so you become aware I have no clue what the words 'verb', 'adjective', 'noun', 'pronoun', or any of those other types of words, which describes words, even mean.

Well, it's impressive that you use the word 'literally' given your lack of knowledge here.

So you have the relation of belief to your one belief.

If you say and believe so, then okay.

What is your relation to your one belief? Do you believe it to be true?

It would be rather contradictory to not believe the belief one has, would it not?

I would think so, yes.

But you don't say what your relation is to these things that are proven to you.

But, I do, and have on numerous occasions.

Great: what verb would you use? Or if it is a description of the relation without verbs, what is that?

Again, I will await your clarification of what a 'verb' is, exactly, before I answer.

Well, you answer below with a verb.

Or you recognize their truth. Is there any word for your relationship to these things that have been proven?

Yes.

And, as I have explained previously it relates to what the word 'prove' means and refers to, to me, exactly.

And what is that word or words?

Know, for sure, exactly, or fully.

'...or fully' Not both at the same time. Interesting.

Well, I certainly hope people in general don't shift to saying they have know beliefs because they know [their beliefs]. It happens enough already. Thank you for answering the question that you refused to answer earlier unless I defined 'verb' for you. See how easy that was? A step in the direction of collaboration.

Things are looking up.

Most importantly, the confusion you have about language is something that can be corrected. If you are indeed Ken and unique neurologically as he claimed, this can lead to making this a more entrenched confusion, since people like Ken can have trouble understanding what gets called figurative language - along with irony, sarcasm and more. Thus there is even greater than usual reluctance to notice that so-called literal language is also trope-filled.

Even the most amazing, full light, can be changed by the filter it has to pass through.
A extremely large man cannot enter a house through a hobbits doorway.
Even the channeled deity must make do.

[Age]

Anyway, the Universe, Itself, is always evolving, in Creation.

[Iwannaplato]

Here, then, I'll say:

But, it is not what is 'exhibited' but what is 'intended'.

See, you can 'see' some 'thing' being 'exhibited', but what is what is behind the exhibition might not be what you perceive it is.

Any one who has gone to an art gallery and 'looks at' and 'sees' 'the exhibitions' can express that the 'same behavior' can be 'exhibited', however 'the intention' can be very, very different.

And, what was 'intended', or 'meant', by what was 'said', 'exhibited', or even a 'behavior' will never ever be known, for sure, until actual clarification is sought after and obtained and gained.

1) Oh, look, Age manages to clarify without being asked. A tiny step in the direction of collaboration. Your claims that I will not know more unless I ask for clarification were false, even in relation to you.
2) Here we are in a situation where words on the screen are what we have. No tone of voice, no posture, not the look in the other person's eyes. You know this, but what you choose to exhibit is not the intention, but what you exhibited. If you want to improve your communication, as you have claimed, then at the very least when you choose to do this, you will make it clear, with words, what you are really doing, behind the scenes. Now you have been informed about this. Perhaps you will improve your communication perhaps not.

If that were true or not true, you will never ever know. Unless, of course, you do something first.

If you actually want to communicate better, you will change your communication, or perhaps you will question your own awareness of what you are actually doing or you will avoid communicating better.

you also need to remember;

1. That hinting or alluding to 'something', which is exactly what you have done here once more, is not the best nor an effective way of communicating.

LOL. If you can manage to be aware of this, then you must be aware that using insulting, critical, judgmental language without at the very least explaining the intention is not the best or most effective way to communicate whatever you intended.

I will suggest, once again, that you learn how to and just say what you actually mean by using the actual words that you actually mean, instead.

LOL. I wonder if you can see the irony of this statement.

Are you, still, believing that I criticize here?

Until you demonstrate otherwise, I see criticism, judgment, ridicule etc.. It's possible that it's terrible communication, sure.

This is confused just as much as if someone hit me but really this was, according to them, love.

Do not forget that it is you adult human beings who when punishing children through hitting or not call that 'love', or 'tough love'.

False. I have never his a child and I do not call it love when others do. I am sorry about whatever you went through, if there is something in your childhood that makes you aim a generalization, in fact a universal claim, so poorly. Yes, you may have intended to say/do something else. But your communication here was terrible.

But, I know, exactly, what I am doing, intending, and meaning. So, who would 'I' be clarifying for, exactly?

If you don't know that, then you don't know the purpose of communication.

Remember, when you criticized humans you used verbs to describe their behavior. Those verbs, except, as far as I know the last one, apply to your behavior here. If, really, inside you, your intention is not to do these things, your communication was terrible. I also note your overconfidence in your ability to assume correctly other people's intention when they perform those actions.

[Age]

Here, then, I'll say:

But, it is not what is 'exhibited' but what is 'intended'.

See, you can 'see' some 'thing' being 'exhibited', but what is what is behind the exhibition might not be what you perceive it is.

Any one who has gone to an art gallery and 'looks at' and 'sees' 'the exhibitions' can express that the 'same behavior' can be 'exhibited', however 'the intention' can be very, very different.

And, what was 'intended', or 'meant', by what was 'said', 'exhibited', or even a 'behavior' will never ever be known, for sure, until actual clarification is sought after and obtained and gained.

1) Oh, look, Age manages to clarify without being asked. A tiny step in the direction of collaboration.

Did you really have to be told that what another intends or means is not known, for sure, by you, until you seek out and obtain and gain actual clarification?

If yes, then there is no wonder why you are so, so far behind here.

Also, and as I have been continually informing you already, 'collaboration' involves the asking of clarifying questions, instead of just assuming or believing things. you, obviously, are failing, falling way behind, and even going in the wrong direction here, in regards to the direction of collaboration here.

Your claims that I will not know more unless I ask for clarification were false, even in relation to you.

Now, here 'we' can 'see' a prime example of the 'ego' at work, and of one who believes that it already absolutely knows the thoughts and emotions within other bodies.

This one is so assured of "itself" that it believes, without any doubt at all, that what it considers and believes about others is absolutely true, right, accurate, and correct.

This one is showing and revealing its grandiose self view here. This one actually believes that it knows more about you and others than you and others do.

2) Here we are in a situation where words on the screen are what we have.

Well obviously.

No tone of voice, no posture, not the look in the other person's eyes.

And, here 'you' are believing that 'you' know the meaning and intention by just 'the words' on a screen in front of you.

You know this, but what you choose to exhibit is not the intention, but what you exhibited.

And, what every writer or artist does is to choose to exhibit, what they exhibit.

What you have been completely and utterly missing here, although I have expressed the same thing numerous times already, is exactly what I have chosen to exhibit here.

If you want to improve your communication, as you have claimed, then at the very least when you choose to do this, you will make it clear, with words, what you are really doing, behind the scenes.

I will say and write this, once again for you "iwannaplato". What I am here to learn how to communicate better, with you human beings, is not necessarily to be communicated at all here.

I have said and expressed this multiple times already. Not that you were expected to have seen, recognized, comprehended, nor realized this, already.

Now you have been informed about this. Perhaps you will improve your communication perhaps not.

Perhaps you will, one day, come to comprehend and understand that it is not you "iwannaplato" who I necessarily want to communicate better with.

After all you are not showing any signs at all that you, really, do want to comprehend, learn, and understand here. So, once more, it is not you that I am necessarily wanting to even communicate with, let alone better with.

If that were true or not true, you will never ever know. Unless, of course, you do something first.

If you actually want to communicate better, you will change your communication, or perhaps you will question your own awareness of what you are actually doing or you will avoid communicating better.

I know, exactly, what I am doing, here. I speak and write here, exactly, as I do for very specific reasons. So, 'I' know My own Awareness here.

I am not here to change my communication for you here. I am here to learn how to communicate better with you human beings. That you presume or believe that this is in regards to 'here', in this forum, is because of your own pre-exiting preconceptions, prejudices, presumptions, or beliefs. If you had sought out and obtained and gained actual clarification, first, then you would have already known this. But, because you just wanted to keep going on your own pre-existing assuming or believing alone, I allowed you to.

What 'I' am actually doing here is using 'you' posters here to show and prove how adult human beings used to think and mis/behave, back in the days when this is being written, to show and prove what to do and what not to do.

Showing and revealing how and why it took you human beings, back then, so long to learn how to just obtain actual clarity, and thus be able to 'see' what the actual Truth is, will reveal and show what not to do in the future.

you need to remember that you have also claimed you came here to improve your communication.

you also need to remember;

1. That hinting or alluding to 'something', which is exactly what you have done here once more, is not the best nor an effective way of communicating.

LOL. If you can manage to be aware of this, then you must be aware that using insulting, critical, judgmental language without at the very least explaining the intention is not the best or most effective way to communicate whatever you intended.

But, 'the point' you keep MISSING here is that I have never used insulting, critical, judgmental language AT ALL.

you are only presuming or believing I have. Again, because you have made assumptions, jumped to conclusions, and carried on without ever just stopping and considering to just seek out and obtain and gain actual clarification first.

you have been MISSING out on the actual meanings, and intentions, behind my purposely chosen words here. And, thus you have been MISSING out on the actual Truth of what I have been doing here as well.

See, for example;
An actual meaning of the word 'stupid' I use is just CLOSED. This is not a criticism, insult, nor judgment about what one is doing. It just is, what 'it' is and just 'what is being done', only. If one is CLOSED, then they are just being stupid.

There is absolutely nothing necessarily wrong nor bad with doing this. This is just what all of 'us', older ones, do, from time to time.

And,

The actual intention of the words I use is to highlight and show just how often the adult human being, in the days when this is being written, will presume or believe things, first, before they will ever even just consider finding out what the actual Truth is, instead.

Again, this is just some thing that 'we', older ones, are all prone to do, and without even thinking nor realizing this, previously. But, once it is recognized and realized how much 'we' do 'do it', then 'we' can stop it, and change our ways. But, one has to first 'see', and realize, how much they do this, before they could even begin to want to stop and change 'that way'.

I will suggest, once again, that you learn how to and just say what you actually mean by using the actual words that you actually mean, instead.

LOL. I wonder if you can see the irony of this statement.

I have told you many, many times previously, I do this 'on purpose', because of 'the intent' behind what I am doing here.

you do not seem to have noticed the 'irony' in me many times over saying that I, purposely, write alluding to things to find those who are Truly curios and interested in wanting to know more about what I am actually saying, and meaning. Whereas, even when I go out of my way to ask multiple different clarifying questions, in an attempt to better understand 'the other' and what 'they' are saying and actually meaning, I am ignored or told that I ask too many questions here.

The more that I have been saying, and actually meaning, and even my intention here, becomes known, then the more of what I have been saying and writing so far will be far better understood.

2. That you still have absolutely no idea nor clue in regards to what 'it' is that, exactly, that I am learning how to communicate better.

Good that you at least realize you need to do this.

you, really, do have a very severe disability in being able to 'look at' "yourself" right "iwannaplato"?

See, what 'you' do not yet realize 'I' have done far more work than you could even imagine, yet. And, 'I' am here not for what 'you' have been so far imagining.

Do you not 'see' the 'irony' is saying, 'Good that you at least realize you need to do this', which I said you are 'free to learn', while it has been 'me' who has continually said and stated that 'I' am here to learn how to communicate better, with you human beings?

you have never ever said that you need to learn how to do absolutely any thing here. And, the way you speak and write here you come across as though you do not need help in any thing, nor need to learn absolutely any thing else, also. you come across as though 'you' are "the teacher", and that is your own role, in Life.

Saying that it is good that I, at least, realize you need to learn things here shows that you are, really and truly, been MISSING what I have been saying, and meaning, here all along.

Although what you were trying to do here was deflect, off 'you', and 'put the light' back on to 'me', as some might say, what you actually accomplished here was showing and proving just how much you are actually missing and/or misunderstanding here.

Until you demonstrate otherwise, I see criticism. It's possible that it's terrible communication.

But, it is never ever 'you', is it "iwannaplato"?

It could never ever be "iwannplato's" misunderstanding, misinterpretations, misreading, nor missing anything here.

It is never ever "iwannaplato" making wrong assumptions nor ever believing anything wrong here.

It is absolutely, always, 'my communication' that is bad, terrible, wrong, or incorrect, and always right "iwannaplato"?

False generalization.

Is it?

Are you here trying to suggest that when parents give children a belting, for example, that the parents do not call this 'tough love', or that when parents punish, humiliate, or ridicule children that the parents do not call this 'tough love' neither?

I have never his a child and I do not call it love when others do.

Did your parents ever hit you, punish you, humiliate you, or ridicule you?

If no, are you sure?

But, if yes, then did they 'try to justify' this Wrong behaving as 'you needed this', or, 'I do this because I love you', or, 'It's tough love'?

Could they have done this kind of 'attempts at justification' without you ever hearing those exact words?

Also, why have you never hit a child? Do you have children?

I am sorry about whatever you went through, if there is something in your childhood that makes you generalize so poorly.

'Look at' the actual words I have just used above here.

'We' wait, to 'see', if 'you' ever provide 'us' with clarification, and thus actual clarity here.

Also, have 'you' been showing 'us' how poorly you 'generalize' or presume things?

If no, then can 'we' be sorry about whatever you went through, if there is something in your childhood that has made you 'assume' so poorly here, as well?

If 'i' was brought up, exactly, how you were, why would 'you' be sorry about what 'i' went through?

Did 'you' have that much of a bad or horrific 'upbringing' that 'you' feel sorry for, and about?

Or, do you believe that there is absolutely nothing from your childhood that has made you so poor at assuming things here?

If you don't know that, then you don't know the purpose of communication.

Once again, you completely and utterly missed or misunderstood 'the point'.

But, again, this is just because you began to presume Wrong things, and jumped to a Wrong conclusion, before you ever actually obtained actual clarity, first.

If you are continually so poor at assuming things Correctly, then you do not realize just how poorly you are communicating here, either.

Remember, when you criticized humans you used verbs to describe their behavior.

Remember I never criticized you human beings. Remember you just Wrong presume I did. And, remember that since you jumped to the conclusion that I did, you have been believing that this is the absolute truth here.

Those verbs, except, as far as I know the last one, apply to your behavior here. If, really, inside you, your intention is not to do these things, your communication was terrible.

OF COURSE IT IS 'MY COMMUNICATION' THAT WAS TERRIBLE.

From the outset with 'you' it has always been, right?

[Age]

Anyway, the Universe, Itself, is always in an evolving action/reaction - creation - process.

[Iwannaplato]

But, it is not what is 'exhibited' but what is 'intended'.

See, you can 'see' some 'thing' being 'exhibited', but what is what is behind the exhibition might not be what you perceive it is.

Any one who has gone to an art gallery and 'looks at' and 'sees' 'the exhibitions' can express that the 'same behavior' can be 'exhibited', however 'the intention' can be very, very different.

And, what was 'intended', or 'meant', by what was 'said', 'exhibited', or even a 'behavior' will never ever be known, for sure, until actual clarification is sought after and obtained and gained.

1) Oh, look, Age manages to clarify without being asked. A tiny step in the direction of collaboration.

Did you really have to be told that what another intends or means is not known, for sure, by you, until you seek out and obtain and gain actual clarification?

Of course, I know that. Not the point. Unasked, you offered more information. You added one more piece without being asked. That's collaborative.

Also, and as I have been continually informing you already, 'collaboration' involves the asking of clarifying questions, instead of just assuming or believing things. you, obviously, are failing, falling way behind, and even going in the wrong direction here, in regards to the direction of collaboration here.

Yes, asking for clarification and clarifying can be part of collaboration also. I have been pointing out a tool you tend not to use, but used here.

Now, here 'we' can 'see' a prime example of the 'ego' at work, and of one who believes that it already absolutely knows the thoughts and emotions within other bodies.

Projection.

This one is so assured of "itself" that it believes, without any doubt at all, that what it considers and believes about others is absolutely true, right, accurate, and correct.

Projection.

This one is showing and revealing its grandiose self view here. This one actually believes that it knows more about you and others than you and others do.

Age, projecting here and assuming and when Age has asked before, Age has been given confirmation that this is incorrect. But he goes on doing precisely what he is accusing me of doing.

2) Here we are in a situation where words on the screen are what we have.

Well obviously.

No tone of voice, no posture, not the look in the other person's eyes.

And, here 'you' are believing that 'you' know the meaning and intention by just 'the words' on a screen in front of you.

As do you. All the time and not only that you attribute this to absolute beliefs. Projection.

You know this, but what you choose to exhibit is not the intention, but what you exhibited.

And, what every writer or artist does is to choose to exhibit, what they exhibit.

Obviously, but that's not what I was pointing out was missing.

I will say and write this, once again for you "iwannaplato". What I am here to learn how to communicate better, with you human beings, is not necessarily to be communicated at all here.

Peachy, but clearly you are not communicating what you are trying to communicate here well.

Now you have been informed about this. Perhaps you will improve your communication perhaps not.

Perhaps you will, one day, come to comprehend and understand that it is not you "iwannaplato" who I necessarily want to communicate better with.

Well, you sure have a counterproductive way of using your time. But thank you for saying that you do not necessarily want to communicate with me. I can only suggest that other people will read your sentences of criticism, ridicule, insults, judgments much like I do. But I am now getting the impression that communicating better does not matter to you.

After all you are not showing any signs at all that you, really, do want to comprehend, learn, and understand here. So, once more, it is not you that I am necessarily wanting to even communicate with, let alone better with.

I don't want to learn from someone who insults, etc., claims to want to learn but refuses to learn about how people will interpret his communication at this time, who cannot find a way to communicate his intentions and doesn't necessarily want to communicate with anyone, for all I know or see. I can look at all the dialogues you have had here and find nearly the same patterns.

I am not here to change my communication for you here.

Obviously. And for quite a while this was true also around your capitalization mania. But you learned, despite telling people that their reactions were not right to that pattern for a long time.

I am here to learn how to communicate better with you human beings. That you presume or believe that this is in regards to 'here', in this forum, is because of your own pre-exiting preconceptions, prejudices, presumptions, or beliefs. If you had sought out and obtained and gained actual clarification, first, then you would have already known this. But, because you just wanted to keep going on your own pre-existing assuming or believing alone, I allowed you to.

More mind reading. I would have been happy if the pattern had changed. I was extremely pleased by your stopping all that silly capitalization - though on one level the fact that you were unique was also pleasant is was such an overall improvement. You don't know what I want.

What 'I' am actually doing here is using 'you' posters here to show and prove how adult human beings used to think and mis/behave, back in the days when this is being written, to show and prove what to do and what not to do.

And the powerful confirmation bias in that goal shows in most of your posts.

Showing and revealing how and why it took you human beings, back then, so long to learn how to just obtain actual clarity, and thus be able to 'see' what the actual Truth is, will reveal and show what not to do in the future.

And more revelations without my asking.

So, you have come here to confirm your negative judgments of humans at the time this is being written.

Thank you for saying this openly instead of hinting at it all the time.

[Age]

Anyway, the Universe, Itself, is always in an evolving action/reaction - creation - process.

[Iwannaplato]

False generalization.

Is it?

Yes. You said you adults to me. That includes me. And it is incorrect.

Are you here trying to suggest that when parents give children a belting, for example, that the parents do not call this 'tough love', or that when parents punish, humiliate, or ridicule children that the parents do not call this 'tough love' neither?

Some do sure. Some don't. You said you adult humans to me. That is saying I do this. Either you communicated terribly or you are very confused. And you seem to lack the integrity to apologize for saying I did something I did not.

I have never his a child and I do not call it love when others do.

Did your parents ever hit you, punish you, humiliate you, or ridicule you?

Beside the point and no they didn't. It seems you will avoid apologizing even when you say I did something I did not do.

If no, are you sure?

But, if yes, then did they 'try to justify' this Wrong behaving as 'you needed this', or, 'I do this because I love you', or, 'It's tough love'?

Could they have done this kind of 'attempts at justification' without you ever hearing those exact words?

More distraction.

Also, why have you never hit a child? Do you have children?

More distractions. Yes, I have children. And I didn't hit them for a variety of reasons, generally I lack the motivation to do it, to believe that that's ok and so on.

But OK, I can see you don't have the integrity to take back what you said about me

Anyway, the Universe, Itself, is always in an evolving action/reaction - creation - process.

And some parts develop a habit of reaction, like you have here, and remain stagnant for long periods of time.

[Age]

False generalization.

Is it?

Yes. You said you adults to me. That includes me. And it is incorrect.

Could have you misinterpreted absolutely anything here or assumed something falsely here?

Are you here trying to suggest that when parents give children a belting, for example, that the parents do not call this 'tough love', or that when parents punish, humiliate, or ridicule children that the parents do not call this 'tough love' neither?

Some do sure. Some don't. You said you adult humans to me.

No I did not.

That is saying I do this.

But I never even say that for that to be saying, or you, you do this.

Either you communicated terribly or you are very confused.

Once again, to this one, it never ever is its own misinterpretations, wrong or incorrect presumptions, nor ever its own false or wrong beliefs. It is always 'my terrible communication' or that it is always 'I' who is confused here.

And you seem to lack the integrity to apologize for saying I did something I did not.

you will first have to prove that you do not do what it is that you are presuming I am saying that you do.

Are you able to do this?

I have never his a child and I do not call it love when others do.

Did your parents ever hit you, punish you, humiliate you, or ridicule you?

Beside the point and no they didn't.

This one claims and believes that its parents never ever in its whole life ever punish it, nor the other things here.

I wonder if any other human being, in the days when this is being written, has also never ever been hit, punished, humiliated, nor ridiculed in their whole life by a parent, or guardian.

It seems you will avoid apologizing even when you say I did something I did not do.

If this is what it seems to you, then this is what will remain.

If no, are you sure?

But, if yes, then did they 'try to justify' this Wrong behaving as 'you needed this', or, 'I do this because I love you', or, 'It's tough love'?

Could they have done this kind of 'attempts at justification' without you ever hearing those exact words?

More distraction.

But it was you who is not clarifying here, and so, distracting 'now'.

Also, why have you never hit a child? Do you have children?

More distractions. Yes, I have children. And I didn't hit them for a variety of reasons, generally I lack the motivation to do it, to believe that that's ok and so on.

Okay.

But OK, I can see you don't have the integrity to take back what you said about me

Have you yet proved that you do not do what you say you claim and believe you do not do?

Anyway, the Universe, Itself, is always in an evolving action/reaction - creation - process.

And some parts develop a habit of reaction, like you have here, and remain stagnant for long periods of time.

Okay. If this is what you believe is true, then this is true, right?

Also, are you distracting here.

What the Universe, Itself, does is what was being talked about here.

What the parts like you do is a whole other matter.

[Atla]

Age was hit as a child because of her/his inability to understand basic human? Would explain a lot..

[Iwannaplato]

Could have you misinterpreted absolutely anything here or assumed something falsely here?

Could you have written poorly and miscommicated?

No I did not.

You're lying or a very confused person or both.

But I never even say that for that to be saying, or you, you do this.

1) and this sentence is an example of poor communications 2) you either communicated terribly when you wrote indicating I beat children or you are a liar. And if you read through your responses you evade the issue several times, suddenly bringing up my parents, as if that was relevant to you saying you humans hit children and call it tough love.

Once again, to this one, it never ever is its own misinterpretations, wrong or incorrect presumptions, nor ever its own false or wrong beliefs. It is always 'my terrible communication' or that it is always 'I' who is confused here.

Projecting and not moving it forward.

you will first have to prove that you do not do what it is that you are presuming I am saying that you do.

Oh, so you are a pedophile and a terrorist who hits and kills children. Prove that you are not these things.