You know, when a method fails in its capacity to reach the desired end, it demonstrates its own faultiness. — Metaphysician Undercover

A tree produces a seed in order to produce another tree. If you just look at the seed and say "oh that's not a tree, obviously it failed let's destroy this tree" one quickly notices an error in judgement. Belief systems call this arrogance or pride. Society calls this impatience and imprudence. Science calls this just being wrong. Remember that.

I have zero idea what you’re talking about. — Wayfarer

The average person needs to be governed.

If people did a good job in doing so on their own without "authority", people would trust their most valuable possession (which for most is one's child) with any random member of said society. Yet few people (basically nobody) in any democracy does. That's what I'm talking about.

I feel you're being more ideological or sentimental than logical in your reply, considering you seem to be a fair amount more intelligent than I, which is fine. But for anybody else, the logical observation stands unopposed.

As I said, people are naturally flawed and so should not be allowed to unilaterally act as something they're not, that something being lords or forms of monarchy. That said, surely democracy has intrinsic value other than "well at least these horrible things happening over there aren't happening over here". I dunno. Just thought you'd address that first and foremost is all. No big deal.

While I'm not absolutely certain of every person in every situation, I'm fairly certain most citizens in places like Russia or China live there by choice. That is to say, provided they are not poor and have average means, can leave anytime to go anywhere. If I'm mistaken about that, I apologize. But in relation to the topic, well, to put it simply "different strokes for different folks." So again, a true supporter and believer of democracy ought be able to defend something they believe superior with something other than "well at least it's not like X, Y, or Z" without much effort, is all.

only one of whom is a democratically-elected leader. Russia and China are both authoritarian dictatorships — Wayfarer

I mean, if you can't honestly say you'd trust your young kid alone with one person picked at random from your society, how can you really say you trust in people to govern their own affairs. You can't.

Not to make it seem ordinary humans should be allowed monarchy, they absolutely should not. Bad genetics that lead to corruption. But that said, you should value an apple for all it is and not just because it looks or smells good, that is to say, defend it with substance and not just "oh at least it's not this or that."

“Without consciousness there would, practically speaking, be no world, for the world exists for us only in so far as it is consciously reflected by a psyche. Consciousness is a precondition of being.” — Hanover

So: "If a tree falls in the woods...", basically.

Matter exists. Planets exist. If you have an atypical definition of "the world", I suppose we can just go about redefining any word vague enough if we so please. What of it?

He meant only that our world, what we know, live, and breathe, what it is to be, is rooted in our consciousness. — Hanover

I think "our idea of the world" would be best suited in place of "our world". The world existed before this hypothetical observer was even born, and would have existed if that never happened, and continues still to exist long after we're gone. I can have an idea about anything that exists, doesn't exist, or may come to exist. It should go without saying "my opinion" or "what I think to be a fact because it seems like it" are very different concepts that do not necessarily have anything to do with the physical matter and constitutional makeup of the universe, let alone how other people may view such.

I just don't see the basic elementary idea of "one's opinion" or "worldview" coming anywhere near traversing such depths of the metaphysical or anything remotely profound. Sure, most people fail to realize that. But as far as academia is concerned, this is, or at least I would hope should be, common knowledge.

This quote is being taken out of context. — L'éléphant

This (if accurate) is likely the most important post in this thread (in relation to what it is that inspired the OP, at least).

Well that's definitely a valid (if not fringe and unique) counter-example of such. I suppose not unlike some earlier culture's practice of neck elongation or lip rings, etc. and other forms of body modification.

One might argue foot binding is a form of beautification by minimization or (simplification), not unlike how the mind of most all persons may find a modern rounded smartphone more "attractive" than a blocky 90s model clunker. Perhaps this has roots in biology where the (male?) mind is attracted or otherwise especially observant of curves as they are often present in the desirable female form. That of course has little to no relation to foot binding, other than perhaps large feet on a female is generally seen as unattractive or perhaps even "mannish"? What do you think? Maybe or too far of a reach?

Beauty is subjective, not objective. — DifferentiatingEgg

True but I find it beyond plausible that mammalian brains have ingrained biological mechanisms that result in a universal (albeit large and scattered) pattern or tendency to prefer certain types and physical proportions of, not just faces, but anything observable in general. "Vastness" is not a physical quality in the way traditional beauty as far as objects are, but we are generally universally "taken away" by things such as overlooking a cliff or a wide valley. We may not call it "beautiful" in specific detail, but it certainly provokes a unique yet consistent response in the brain of not just humans but animals as well.

Are we not universally mesmerized by things such as a kaleidoscope? Do the vast majority of people find super models or such as "attractive"?

No, but you're right. My whole premise is a bit of an unintentional derail. Beauty is not the same thing as physical attractiveness. However, you and I would be in the minority as far as those who realize that, I'd wager. :wink:

So yeah, a definition I've given before, beauty being conformity to one's expectations (or perhaps simply what one is used to) is a subjective objectivity, of a sort. No? :confused:

Beauty is symmetry. Conformity. If you weren't put off by jagged rocks or something otherwise seemingly unpredictable, you likely died. If you weren't put off with someone who's face was deformed (often but of course not always a sign of genetic abnormality and likelihood of other unwellness), you likely didn't end up reproducing at much, if at all.

It's all the same sickness. Sorry, "reality" of the world.

I can't help you here. — Banno

You can, easily. Yet choose not to. Like always.

As a general rule I avoid people who believe they have created system for understanding reality - it's usually the hallmark of a crank and monomaniac. — Tom Storm

Mm, surely you see there is ample room for a bit of irony or "reversing the argument" (whichever seems more apt) here.

Challenge: reply first without clicking 'Reveal'.

Why can't a car have 3 wheels and why wouldn't a broken car still be a car? — Hanover

Why wouldn't a car of any state or component missing be anything but a "piece of metal?" Because a knife is a piece of metal. You can't expect someone to buy or barter for a "piece of metal" without some sot of deeper and thorough designation, could you?

This is interesting, really. Is a pure metal shell of a car with no furnishing, engine, or internal infrastructure a car? Average person would say no (or would they?). Is a car with all those things but that doesn't start or function a car? Average person would say yes and of course call that a "broken car" or a "lemon" or a "clunker," But it's interesting because while one is considered a car that fails to perform the function of a car (yet can be made or altered to do so) the same is true of the shell of the car without any other parts. So explain that, eh?

Aristotle again. — Banno

Your rebuttal is valid. Above me head, perhaps.

But it doesn't change the fact that it's possible the person you're replying to is introducing a concept or argument not specifically addressed by the argument or belief system you refer by name of one person.

You pass it off as if it were so simple, something so casual, like a child commenting on how something far beyond his capability yet is enjoying such, soon to be taken away due to lack of appreciation, would make. Why? Why do this? Why not just explain it in adequate and sufficient detail? You're clearly capable of such. This low IQ frat-boy type of response of "No duh you should know it" is beneath you. I know it and so do you. So why not just explain it properly.

I too see room for improvement. What is a "thing", in the simplest most "thingly" sense. Something that is noticeably or observably distinct from its environment. Take a bucket of paint. The smallest subatomic molecule of paint is in fact a unique object from the next molecule right next to it. It has its own "system". per se. that, while exactly identical to the molecule next to it, is theoretically possible to either be or become different, whether or not by external influence. That said, no human person will be able to distinguish the two and see anything more than "some paint in a bucket."

Reminds me of a different topic of "what is art" which led to one opinion of "that which is distinct from its environment and has been made so intentionally." Ooh, that's good. I feel that to be of great relevance. Not to toot my own horn here but, this is great stuff. Hope y'all are paying attention.

Edit: For context, the quoted user made a (now strangely deleted) post commenting on his (hard to say) either disapproval or genuine sense that the definition can be improved as far as the 2nd post on this topic by @Baden

does philosophy have a definition of a system — Pieter R van Wyk

Established, mainstream philosophy? Most assuredly. Such definitions can be found strewn about this discussion.

All philosophies in general? Some do, some don't.

A system, in general, is two or more entities or "points" that operate in recognition of one another with the intent to perform or otherwise reach an expected outcome or function. They can be simple, take "the buddy system" or "the honor system." They can be complex such as the human immune system or what is commonly referred to as "The System" (ruling power or influence in governed society).

What they all have in common is they either handle or process expected (and often unexpected) input, influence, material, or resource and attempt to output a certain desired outcome, result, or product.

There are also inherently or perhaps intentionally chaotic systems that are somewhat of the opposite affect. Say psychological warfare, for example. The goal of that system is disruption, chaos, confusion, and decrease in moral. It doesn't matter how it's done, yet it still demands or at least attempts to reach a single final outcome or product, that product being chaos and disarray. Not unlike a heckler at a political rally or entertainment venue.

We often don't even know we're part, or otherwise performing the functions perfectly, of many systems. A system can be physical, such as your bodily functions. A system can also be ideological, such as systems of belief, including karma or divine punishment. A great much can be said in further detail to expand the definition or idea of a system or systems, but what's important before attempting to do so is to establish what the "bare bones" definition or criteria for such are, which I believe I have done for you quite nicely.

Think back to your first memory; the very first and earliest memory you can remember.

Do you remember much about your thoughts and sense of consciousness (or self/awareness) at the time, or do you mostly remember yourself just being there, almost as if you were an observer?

I reckon it's the latter. So that means, different beings capable of consciousness can have varying states of consciousness. Compare a young child capable of basic conversation and decision making and a full grown intellect such as yourself. You're both conscious, but your depth or recognition of your own consciousness is simply far greater almost to the point of it being an entirely unrecognizable or distinct depth and level of existence. Same with someone mentally handicapped versus someone "neurotypical." It's also possible they may be able to experience the same things you do but for whatever physical or other reason are unable to express or share that they do.

Kilograms. That is how we do physics. — I like sushi

Telegram from the future. He will reply something along the lines of "weight is not mass, neither is size, necessarily". And likely how mass is merely a phenomenon of gravity or some business like that.

How do you measure a 6 inch solid stone and a 6' empty box? There are dimensions and weight. And the two computed together do offer more or less the mass of such, but there's no reliable measurement because it wouldn't mean anything effectual or useful but for physical beings in a physical world of elements that only care about size and weight.

It's like stepping off into the void into a world where everything is different. It's just not something many people do because, by all observable information, would be a waste of time.

For example, antimatter is a thing that exists, mostly in space. It basically defies all definition of matter, while at the same time technically obeying all the rules, just, per se, it's own special version of said rules.

Still, antimatter is a thing that exists so it's not "nothing" as in lack of something, per se, therefore, in some usages of the word, is still matter that cannot be measured by traditional means.

I did say;
‘ I don’t hold beliefs other than what beliefs are necessary to live a life.’ — Punshhh

That much should have been unmistakable. For that I apologize. You must understand, I rarely have the gall to interject myself into such established arguments (60 pages and counting!) unless, shall we say, the wine glass has been broken out. :smile:

That said, however. That said. This sentence of yours is interesting. One might consider such a sentence to be superfluous considering, surely, there are people alive, perhaps even living quite well, who don't hold the beliefs you do. Are there not? It's just interesting, is all. Not to deviate, but only an interesting short thought experiment in the context that it relates to the overarching theme of the discussion, of course.

So, I suppose, not to nitpick, but for debate for debate sake, one might ask, what are these beliefs "necessary to live a life" you hold, specifically and in detail? Are you certain all people living life hold them as well? Could they not have different interpretations that fundamentally change the idea of such concepts from your own? :chin:

Also beliefs are intellectually defined and held positions, or loyalties. — Punshhh

Loyalty, eh. Heh. Sorry. such terms distract me due to the complex history of my own life experience. I might say, for some, loyalty exists only in the form of distraction from willfully and intentionally placed fear, often from the same person who claims to relieve such. Ah, no matter. Ignore that. For now.

I am relegating such things to the chitta chatta of my mind while continuing to go about living my life. — Punshhh

Aren't we all, more or less? :grin:

I have tried a variety of practices and understandings from schools and took only what fitted my path and kept the remainder at arms length. So don’t adhere to a belief system. — Punshhh

Au contraire my friend. Is this not a belief system in and of itself? "Momentary (or perhaps rather conditional) utilitarianism"? Sure this might be watered down or reduced to mere "common sense" and "logic" itself. But it remains a system, whether ingrained to all intelligent, thinking beings or naturally adopted by such out of necessity, it remains a system in its own right and of its own merit.

None of which are helpful or even relevant, sadly. — Baden

The man with the golden touch who would be king in one world, would be but another lowly bricklayer in another whose streets are paved with such.

I'm so grateful to be alive at this time, to be in the middle of this epochal event. — RogueAI

Well to be fair, one could likely point to any innovation (or at least, the localized introduction of an innovation) in any reasonable "generational period" of 50 years as something truly "revolutionary" and groundbreaking. In 50 years, assuming we haven't blown ourselves up yet and irradiated the world beyond repair, which is a risky bet all things considered, they'll be saying the same thing. Just as those 100 years ago said about the refrigerator. And those 100 years before that about the steam engine. And 100 years before that about the pistol or the first vaccine. And 100 years before that with the toilet. And so and and so on and blah. It just gets tiresome. Everything is amazing. Let's leave it at that.

Are we saying these Ai's then are like school children? — RogueAI

No, I suppose not. :grin:

However, one might find value in the following analogy, be it "weak" or not. An AI or LLM is essentially a brain waiting to be trained (filled with knowledge). Consciousness in human beings is essentially a brain. Perhaps one may liken AI or LLM to a brain without a body. Schoolchildren have brains waiting to be filled with knowledge. So the two have at least that much in common, one might say? :confused:

I like to think of AI as a medical device; like a brace or a crutch that takes the burden off the musculoskeletal frame. Over time this unburdening is detrimental to the muscles that normally carry the weight, causing a certain amount of atrophy. Similarly AI is like a crutch but for your own thoughts if you use it to do your thinking for you. — DifferentiatingEgg

Deep. :100:

As far as armchair science goes, this is top notch. :razz: :grin: :strong:

--

Also, to OP:

You and me are in the same boat as far as being overwhelmed with some of the stuff that gets posted here and the discussions brought about as a result. So don't even sweat that for a second.

I'd say a good 80% of topics here are over my head (at least my comfortable, casual level of confidence to have a debate in, if nothing else). I mostly enjoy reading the exchanges with the hope of learning something I didn't know before. You'll notice most of my posts on actual discussions are inquiries seeking clarification to a point or to bring attention to a possible fallacy in one's argument (which it's usually not but rather my own misunderstanding).

Something I'd say is true as far as this place goes is, you can always ask questions about something if you're genuinely curious about it, don't understand, or want to gain a better sense of understanding or insight. Most of the heavy hitters here are fairly nice and do reply to novice questions, even in the midst of heated discussions. Just be prepared for the obligatory "I don't really see how that's relevant", usually prefacing a detailed and simplified explanation as to why their point stands and how your concern does not invalidate or otherwise put their argument into question.

But aside from that, most people here are very charitable and understanding as far as their time and intellect goes into explaining things if you simply ask with polite inquisitiveness or curiosity.

If those posts are of better quality than us humans here (and they probably would be), isn't human philosophical discussion a bit of mockery? — RogueAI

Is the teacher who brought about a pupil who rivals or even surpasses his or her own intelligence a failure?

Because it's a forum for people to talk with other people. — Outlander

I don't understand how clearer I can make that sentence.

The site owner doesn't seem to like AI taking the place of genuine, organic human discussion and discourse, despite its many imperfections and tendency to lead to less than productive exchanges.

Frankly I enjoy your presence here, as well as your posts and discussions. But that's nothing to do with the question you've asked.

Because it's a forum for people to talk with other people.

"If you can't explain your idea to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."
- (some dead guy)

Take a certain thread that one lone OP keeps posting on on the front page that has been told multiple times makes no sense yet only replies with insults. Stuff like that, is why.

Males tend to prefer people who resemble mommy and females tend to prefer people who resemble daddy (or sometimes, in the event of loss, their respective ideas of such). And of course vice-versa as far as one's parents and therefore sensory development is concerned.

Beyond that, evolution (or if a theist, the Curse Upon Man), made it so those who are unfamiliar, do not conform, or are otherwise bizarre, ended up reproducing less until given societies ended up more or less uniform and conforming to one another.

It's really not that exciting nor complicated beyond that.

Some discover this and are able to transcend it, whilst most others will inevitably fail to. And that's just how it is.

You are dismissing my framing — Illuminati

I've done nothing of the sort. We call this the classic 'Qualia' argument. One can have 1,001 views of how we process the 'color' that is commonly referred to as 'red.' One can have a million views as to what the experience of watching a sunset is. It's no longer about right or wrong, it's true to you, and that's fine for you. But when you expect it to be something of worth to another, it requires pure logistical or otherwise practical, feasible, and pragmatic content. At the end of the day, red is red, and a sunset is a sunset. It does, in fact, have a virtually infinite number of definitions or meanings to other persons. I'm simply underscoring the fact you don't seem to have any personal conviction or distinct definition of the term that hasn't already existed and would exist whether you were involved in it or not.

If you bring new truth to the world, then good. This truth, that has become independent of you and who you are, should be allowed to benefit the world, and you sitting by silently rewarded with nothing but the gratitude that any good person should have by doing so. People who seek recognition, power, and the like, are often the least who deserve it, the worst of the worst. And if this is not you, fine. My (highly warranted) scrutiny is simply misplaced, and you should think nothing of it. Yet you do. Why is that? Only you can answer. And I doubt it will be anything close to what you reply here for all to see.

You are gaslighting my passion — Illuminati

Buddy, I don't care about you or your passion. (I'm just kidding they just teach us to say that in law enforcement). But seriously, let me make this quite simple. This is a philosophy forum. We discuss, debate, attack, and praise ideas. Not people. For all intents and purposes, you don't even exist. Can your ego understand that? If not, you're in an arena high above your current level of ability, shall we say. And it can be dangerous if you continue to dwell here.

Cant imagine how hard life must be in that drunk head of yours. — Illuminati

I can't even get drunk anymore these days, honestly. Ah, I almost miss those days. Almost. Nothing like waking up in your underwear at a place you don't remember falling asleep at to scare you straight. I'm a strict beer man these days. Nothing more. Nothing less. :grin:

I mean furthermore, let's look at what a random person would gather from this little interaction we had. First, you know nothing about me other than I mentioned I had a drink last night. And this small bit of knowledge, in your mind, feels it necessary to attack me as some sort of habitual offender when in reality all you know is that I did one thing one time. This is what your so-called philosophy and view of the world has led you to. Misery. Hostility. Just, everything mankind wishes to avoid. Attacking people at the slightest reason to do when the slightest bit of resource or "ammunition" is available. It just doesn't support your argument if you're so right yet remain so petty, aggressive, and hostile toward someone who, supposedly, by your claim, is just wrong, ignorant, and mistaken. Good people help people who are lost and need guidance. And instead, you attack them. Why? I'll tell you why. Because It's a disease. A plague. This is what your so-called truth and belief causes you to be like? Hard pass, mate. Hard pass. I disagree fully. Wordsmithing or even right or wrong or not, if this is you and how you respond to those who question and wish to know truth, it should be banned from all public venue and burned in a pile as the rubbish it is. Real talk.

On a serious note, once you abandon this nonsense, may your soul, if there is such a thing, be saved. I cannot wait until the final realm, where all of us, not just you, or I, but all of us, are free from the illusions and lies that seem so truthful and permanent in this realm we call life and reality. :halo:

In all seriousness, OP. You are loved. By me, if no one else. I hope you remember this. :heart:

the broader metaphysical structure Im proposing. — Illuminati

It's an old concept, mate. "You" are not proposing anything. You're speaking of concepts that existed long before you, and would exist even if you were never born. You need to understand that. It's not personal, people just don't agree with the idea in the context and "holy light" you attribute to it.

It doesn't mean it's not a sound idea. It doesn't mean it's not right. All those who don't hold the same view you do believe is, there's much more to the world and life and existence than what you currently believe. That's all. It's very simple. Not provocative. Not rude. Just a mere difference in opinion.

If you were so confident and faithful in your idea, you would feel no frustration in others ignoring or condemning it as false, only pity. Unfortunately, every person believes what they do or think is right, otherwise, they would not be doing or thinking it. So the natural biological chain of events occur in one's brain when one's idea of reality is challenged or disregarded, or yes even disproved, refusal to accept evidence to the contrary. Which is not necessarily childlike and illogical, perhaps they're wrong and the evidence they have shown, while factual, will inevitably be superseded by new evidence. This is literally the history of science itself.

You're too emotionally invested in an idea that seems to make emotion and belief irrelevant. People do this all the time for a sense of peace and stability in this world. And for those who can sniff that out, those such as myself, and many other posters here, it just doesn't support the underlying premise. That's all I can say and wish for you to understand as far as those who doubt or simply disagree with what you believe to be true.

To be precise, he did not say that, but rather the following: “A human being is part of the whole we call the Universe—part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and his feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, which restricts us to our personal desires and to the affection of a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”"

Now this is the benefit, freedom from the illusion cast upon us by our own brains. What I said regarding space is true, the same goes for time and other claims I made. These things are not composed of what they constitute, colours, distances, time are illusions and today we can prove it by using science and logic. Absolutelly no reason not to do the same with philosophy when it has already been done in the past and was regarded as top tier theology by some. — Illuminati

I just read this again (likely for the first time). I must have glossed over it in the heat of debate.

This reminds me of the Shakespeare quote: "All men are but actors on a stage, they play their parts, and have their entrances and have their exits." (paraphrased)

But while there may be a good amount of truth in the idea that "his experience of himself, his thoughts, and feelings are separate from the rest but is merely a delusion" there remain many reasonable objections and arguments to this blanket assertion.

A person raised from birth in a starving country who knows nothing but war, poverty, and suffering, who sees death and horror daily and becomes accustomed to it, will certainly have a different experience of "himself" and the idea of the world itself than someone raised in wealthy family who's never seen a day of honest work in their life. Or, actually, someone who is mentally deficient or just really "non self-contemplative" (goes through life without a care) versus someone who meticulously examines every thought and aspect of their being. So, one's experience of himself is in fact quite different, depending on the person and circumstances that surround or otherwise affect them.

I've often said, we all have the same base desires, fears, and emotions. You become angry when there is something that frustrates us. We become happy when there is a source that brings us joy, whatever that idea may be, for some it's a child strolling, for others it's something very morbid. But yes, joy is joy. Our brain receives and responds or rather disperses the elements into our body that gives us these base, elemental, and universal feelings (joy, pain, fear, etc.). That much is correct. But one cannot reduce the human experience and life itself into something so simply, some sort of cookie cutter, prepackaged formulae that fits every single individual, every place, every time, regardless of circumstance. Can you? I don't think so.

It's all in good fun. I really enjoy this discussion we've had, and for that I thank you. I apologize for some of my less than intellectual opinions expressed and unwarranted frustrations. I drink a lot. Not really, just, when I do, I tend to keep to myself to avoid... less than moral decisions. And so, the internet, specifically this fine venue I cannot seem to stay away from. :sweat:

Well than you can surely give them again and provide how they specifically verify that which is otherwise a random shout in the arena of fact.

You posted a thread. I've been here for years, with thousands of posts. You have... a few dozen. How nice. Surely such confidence asserts itself by virtue and effort, lest it become arrogance and silliness.

Yes, other people and what they have to say are nice. But, you might find, one day. It's just you and Another. Shall we call him.

A man, ignorant, cannot come up to you and ask a simple question and get a straight answer?

This is the overwhelming "weirdness" of this entire thread.

You keep pointing to this and that and that and this, and I'm sure enough to answer a question. But, it's inhumane. This a discussion forum where if one asks a question one can ask to clarify and hope to expect a human response. And you deny that. Why? It just.. doesn't make any type of sense.

See, I swear I'm not trying to invoke the ire of any mod (or worse, the site owner) but it seems like the entire keyword of this thread (this so-called, unable to be defined by OP's own admission: "One") may be equated with something like "a rubbery potato." And we can just continue indefinitely attributing concepts that are naturally ever-reaching onto this "random rubbery potato" and be able to discuss it for all time. He refused to define it. Other than copypasta quotes that seem to align with intellect and philosophy, yet when questioned, just turns into an attack. It's kinda not cool. And spammy.

Philosophy is all about recognizing the forces that shaped you and trying to peep beyond them. — frank

But is it really? If one is aware, truly, of what shapes not only one's self but the entire world, is it not something perhaps a bit more internal? :chin:

You know, when I first realized that Christians lied — Paula Tozer

Let's put this idea and heartfelt feeling into generational context. Such was felt thousands, if not tens of thousands of years ago.

When good men claimed to make a "government" to repel the evils and ills of human existence: death, violence, robbery, rape, crime, etc.

Most were formed in good intent. But unfortunately., just like every Kingdom formed by the Rule and Power of a Just King. He, at least his body, is still mortal, and so will one day pass away, just like the lowliest thief. We attempt to have education, and more often than not it provides more or less the attempt is was envisioned to. But. There's always the possibility of a bad apple.

So, did "random kingdom xyz" that in fact prevented untold and unfathomable amounts of suffering and led to countless arrests and executions of those unfit to live moral life... such a great legacy, "lie" because it succumbed to the fate all human institutions inevitably succumb to. Corruption? I think not. But it's a fair assessment. And why things are, just a bit different now, shall we say.

You are extremely toxic, annoying, impolite, sarcarstic, off topic constantly, you keep making overly long sentences(I meant messages), and generally rude. — Illuminati

I am, in fact, none of these things. What I am, generally is unrelenting, ferocious, dedicated, and above all, pious. Toward, like I said ideas not the persons who hold such ideas. Now, if you hold such easily disproved ideas as part of your identity, that will rightfully initiate a hostility or aggression response in your brain. This is basic knowledge. If these things trouble you, it is perhaps you who are these traits you claim to project on others who shine a light on your darkness, darkness that is falsehood you have embraced as truth. Everything just short of fear and admission that all you know is wrong, and therefore, all your choices are much of the same.

But, I'm not one to degrade. I'm one to lift up. So let's analyze this, rationally. If I be wrong, I'm wrong and it is fo no consequence to you. But... oh, but, if I may be correct, it is not you who resists the Truth I not only try but fight (risk to my own presence here) to bring to you, at all costs. Nevertheless, both options being plausible, why does it worry you such? This is just a random site, not a very popular one, frankly. So what is it that truly excites or rather concerns you? Only you can answer that. Or can you? Perhaps you wish a greater truth that only others can offer. And if that be true, all you need is ask. I hope you remember this, my good acquaintance...

I wont be answering any of your messages from now on. — Illuminati

Best course of action when painted into a corner by your own material. :snicker:

Colours are signals that are interpreted by your brain, they do not exist as "colours" in nature. What we call colours is a relation of particles. — Illuminati

This is a largely prevailing truth in many areas of philosophy and consciousness specifically, yes.

Now, for the sake of argument, that does mean, perhaps a more advanced species would process colors in a higher form by their intrinsic physical presence than we as humans do. You don't know that. It's only realistic to say "well sure, maybe there's a boogeyman under my bed that has supernatural powers." Which is understandable, why imagine that which cannot be proven. Oh wait. Except, for the fact. That one small fact. The entire scientific method and every resulting discovery was a result of imagining that perhaps, just perhaps, there's more to know than is currently know. This idea, this so called "rudeness" or "ignorance", was actually the spark that led to the culmination of every great invention, including what allows us to communicate today. So fancy that!

But let's continue. What, therefore, is "not" a relation of particles? Can you name something that you can't sophomore-ically reduce into something uselessly simple? What is the idea of me and you speaking but a relation of particles in the brain? What is your idea of your first name and the address of your house and the memory of who your parents are but a mere "relation of particles."

So you describe the phenomena, but fail to offer a reasoning for it. Don't you get it? Yours is a tired generation. A type that takes what you're given as if it were a King's feast whilst simultaneously taking applause like a needle. Neurosis! Pure neurosis is what this lack of understanding proliferates.

I'm sorry, you're clearly provocative and you unleash that quality in myself. Perhaps we're kindred spirits. I apologize, if you feel it necessary. But let us continue on. To brave the true new frontier. Whatever it may be.

For example PH is defined as a way to tell how acidic or basic a liquid is by measuring tiny charged hydrogen particles, pure water naturally splits into equal amounts of hydrogen and hydroxide ions, giving it a neutral pH of 7, the midpoint on the scale that runs from 0 (very acidic, lots of hydrogen ions) to 14 (very basic, few hydrogen ions).

This means that "PH" is not "made of" PH instead it consists of a relation between particles, laws of physics and etc.

Do you understand so far? Do you have any questions or disagree with something? — Illuminati

This is all well and good. But it doesn't really "add" anything to the table. And has little to no relevance to this OP of pseudo or quasi-spiritual essence.

Sure, 1 plus 1 is 2. That's fine. Which is all the pH example offers, in bare essence. But again, there's 1,001 random claims in the esoteric non-scientific (and in my opinion non-philosophic) near-rambling the OP offers. None of which is satiated or placated, let alone rationally proven.

You're basically like "1 +1 = 2, water is 2 particles hydrogen one oxygen, oh and by the way there's this crazy one singularity that has nothing to do with any of that, but it somehow does, for some reason, but i can't or otherwise refuse to prove it. Therefore, logic!"

It's just not good form, dude. It's just not good form.

Are you getting emotional again? — Illuminati

My patience is as eternal as the winds and waves of this realm. My understanding as far and unyielding as the deepest valleys and fjords.

Once again the topic of my post is the One — Illuminati

No, your topic of your post is your specific, lone (and as many would say, randomly specific and possibly incorrect) understanding of "the One."

Just so we're on the same page. So now. Let's go from there.

Explain it to someone who has no idea or understanding of the concept as you do. If you can, of course. Unless it's just more dogma. Uselessness disguised as anything but.

all your questions are off topic — Illuminati

Dude. I like jokes as much as the next guy. But you're pushing the limits.

Lilterally my questions in bold:

are the ideas and concepts or beliefs expressed simply for entertainment or do they offer tangible benefit?

Specifically, how have they benefited you?

Either you don't know what English sentences are, or you're really, and i mean, REALLY, pushing your limits here bub.

All you have to do is say "I don't know" or "I have no idea", "I have no point I'm just regurgitating text of which I have no other understanding of" and be done with it.

This... thing. This lie, you keep trying to prop up despite it not catching any wind in the proverbial sails. It's frustrating. First, the idea you actually be serious about it, yet are so cognitively disassociated with reality that the idea of straight and continual non-answers seems normal. Otherwise, hey, I like pranks too. It's fun to waste peoples time and watch them seriously invest real effort, energy, and emotion into what they assume is a person in need of guidance. But it gets old dude.

Please, once again. How has your life been changed by reading, understanding, and embracing the ideas your OP contains? Can you even describe them without copying and pasting the same sentences that have sat there stagnant for ages? Do you even know what you're talking about? Is the real question. It's hard to tell if you even do if you can't answer such simple questions and offer every single runaround tactic in the book in lieu of a straight answer.

Oh my, have myself and OP have been having a good (and pleasant, might I add) conversation in the Private Message function. Which he initiated, of course (by the way). Nice for someone to reach out to me on this platform for once, quite frankly. :lol:

Anyway, to summarize I have since apologized and explained that when one makes a foolish argument they are in fact a "fool" in that specific moment and context, no different than when one enters a running shower they become "wet" and when they remove themselves form said shower (let's compare the shower to ignorance) they are no longer "wet", per se.

Oh my, you should see our pleasantries and nonchalant back and forths in PM. Like giddy little school girls we giggle and discuss truths and virtue. Not really. That's mostly just me.

But anyway, as he requested. To ask "the question" which, I mean, I swore was simple enough. Perhaps not.

Let me do my best to ask it again.

It's just so difficult seeing as it's a book. So, let me offer one line of text, and one simple question if that line of text fails to encapsulate the idea of the text in anyone's mind.

Imagine two people. One who studies, knows, and believes the idea and concepts this text offers. And one person who does not.

What benefit does the one who knows, studies, and believes the ideas and concepts have over the other?

Is the other damned? Or unfortunate? Or some kind of word you know you shouldn't say because it would be ridiculed? I'm curious.

Is it just for fun? The concepts offered? No different than learning a quick life hack that may or may not offer some benefit, somehow, someday?

I suppose, in short: are the ideas and concepts or beliefs expressed simply for entertainment or do they offer tangible benefit? And if so, what are these benefits that others can hope to (perhaps possibly) gain in their own life by embracing (or understanding)?

Specifically, how have they benefited you? What difference in your life has their been since their discovery? And, as a bonus, how can one be sure they weren't simply side effects of knowledge and life experience in general? :chin:

I haven't read that one actually. I've only read "Infocracy". I'm a bit sceptical that the book you mention is that close to my essay in content, but I am tempted to read it to check. — Baden

[4 hours later]

So, I've read about half of that book already — Baden

Props. Or yikes. :grimace:

Hard to tell. Bit envious of the schedule, access to resources, and quality of life, if nothing else. :razz: