In regards to OP. Let's see if "I know" what you meant by your questions.

Some people say "I know" in a vague way, especially when you already have not clarified what there is to be known. They say quite flippantly "I know", but later evidence shows that they did not know. In this case,fear of being judged as naive, or ignorant, urges the person to shutdown any further dialogue that might reveal what they fear. Though they cannot see it, they are keeping themselves in ignorance by ignoring what they don't know.

To decrease their vagueness about "I know" is to add a qualifier; as in, "I know that . . , or "I know if ...."
If the person cannot add a qualifier, then their "I know' is just a reaction from a fear of judgement.

The one explaining may know that the other does not know, and may actually say "Hear me out"...to create a pause in the listener.

Most people who say "I know" when they don't, are young people who still carry falsehoods such as shame (believing they are a mistake), usually introduced by their piers.

Evil is a phantom generated from those who fear (False Evidence Appearing Real). Their fear wastes their own life energy on what is not real, yet the energy invested into it makes it seem real. Evil people feed of others to gain energy towards their unreal fantasies, which seems real to them.

Most people practice evil by exploiting others to exploit themselves. We can see this in the many forms of dishonesty, revenge, shaming, bullying, co-dependency, and so on.

Most humans live a life based on fear. Fear feeds what we call evil.

Can consciousness be simulated?
Not if it cannot feel what is right, regardless if its unreasonable and illogical.

Evil is exploiting others, through dishonesty, to feel okay. Like the person who gets pleasure from the fears of others. Getting revenge, in its many forms, is a good example.

Free-will, points to having a choice to be either honest or dishonest.

The only power we, as self, have is choice. Anything else from self, except letting go, is by force (trying to change anything to fill its wants and needs).
The only power we, as innermost being, have is truth.

Experiencing truth, and unconditional love, can only come from what is true, not from anything the self can come up with. The experience comes from our innermost to our outermost of consciousness, not the other way around where we are consciously trying to be true and unconditional. To experience truth and unconditional love is to warmly let be.

Thank you all for your explanations, suggestions, and referred discussion link. :up:

Thanks for the guidelines.

They really restrict philosophical exploration to reasoning and logic, which is only the beginning of wisdom. The guidelines leaves no room to explore beyond what we already know. It does not make it easy for a poster to open an OP on what we intuitively know is true, but cannot be grasped by current standards of philosophical reasoning or logic.

Breaking through perceived limits requires a leap of faith, as unphilosophical that may sound. One small step beyond any limitation is to go beyond the limitations of reasoning and logic. To start an OP only using those limitations will keep philosophy within those limitations, and no one is none the wiser.

Philosophy, as we currently know it, is not the be-all and end-all of wisdom. IMHO.

Truth is unconditional love. Both share the same descriptives. When truth merges with our consciousness (awareness) it does so without us having to think about it. It can even just pop into our consciousness, and does so when we were not, or no longer, seeking it.

How can something unreal/untrue have meaning?
Whatever meaning the self attaches to it is fantasy and so is the attached meaning. It becomes meaningless due to its own deception. To claim something untrue/unreal as having meaning is the same as saying nothing is something.

Only the invalid self could deceive itself to believe that invalidity has meaning. But even so, the self knows it is invalid, just a self-fabricated identity story to believe in. That is why it always seeks validity, to gain meaningfulness for its invalidity, but always finds it lacking.

Intrapsychic self.

Yes, it is the self which is limited, and not the truth. Whenever self looks for truth, and/or expresses it, it is limited by its own limitations. Truth cannot be limited. There is no such thing as a half/part/limited truth, for it then becomes a deception, and not a truth. Truth is the only reality, and what is not true is unreal. The best the limited self can express only seems true and real.

A true human being is a consciousness of honesty, where truth expresses itself onto our thoughts and feelings. The self had no part in creating the thoughts and feelings to make it seem true and real. When truth reveals itself, uncensored, onto our thoughts and feelings, it is understood without reason or logic attached. It is doubtless, obvious, fearless, and restorative. It even heals what limitations the self has at that time.

When the trains of New York City appeared covered in loud, garish graffiti they absolutely reflected the chaotic state of New York City at the time. — Brett

This is not true.

They were traveling billboards from one graffiti group 'home' to another. The graffiti were hidden messages specifically for their own 'home members', sub-culture, and nobody else. Their locations where the art was found marked out the groups boundaries, and other groups usually respected each others space. The trains were used to send a message to the other group down the track, as if to say: 'Can you do better than this piece of artwork'. They competed against each other. Also it was a way to get their artworks outside of the home territory, and into the outer-worlds so to speak.

Thanks.

What is a ‘false human being’?... — Possibility

A dishonest one.

The limit of ‘truth’ is in exclusions implied by the potential of its expression. — Possibility

What are the exclusion implied?

↪Invisibilis
That’s the significance of human life, as we experience it. The ‘meaning of life’ is broader than that: to pursue the ‘truth’ and express it in how we relate to the universe, regardless of the limitations of ‘being human’. — Possibility

The true human being is true. Where is the limit of truth.

...So, while pain is a natural part of life, we have the option of how we face/deal with it that may prevent suffering. What would these coping strategies look like in your opinion?

Off the top of my head, religion seems to be one. Which religion, in your opinion, provides the best coping strategy for pain?

Also what do you mean by abuse can be neither? — TheMadFool

As mentioned, suffering is a story about not coping. So change the story to something else, such as "It's only pain". Then the mind searches another meaning for pain than the one about not coping.

You might even come to a point of okayness, where it is okay to not be okay. This is not about accepting the abuse, but accepting the pain, because it already exists.

I don't know about religions providing the best coping strategy. I am simply looking at the truth of the matter.

Abuse can be neither painful nor suffering. Certain self abuses, such as malnutrition (which includes obesity), may seem painless and without suffering.

The obsession is the claiming of it, as if it would mean unconditionality of self.

If an artwork 'touches' our heart. That touch sets up a ripple of thoughts and feelings through our consciousness. The understanding of the artwork is that it is somehow alive, because it touched what is alive in us. We may not understand the story, or the truth, of the artwork, but we understand it 'touches' us.

Often creativity leaps beyond intellect, reason, and the logical; the very thing that is authentic and not artificial.

Sure, unconventional skills are also skills and can produce good art. The only problem is that it is not easily recognized. How would I know that it is skillfully made if I have nothing to compare it to and don’t understand it. Whenever an artist uses unconventional skill, he in fact introduces a new genre of art. Until we have learned to understand this new genre, there’s no way to decide if the work is good or bad. I think some artists take advantage of that and make trash hoping to be recognized by an ignorant audience. — Congau

What if the artwork, regardless of skill or content, is pleasing to the eye.

Yes, I agree with your last sentence (above). I've seen such work, and the artist always points out they are successful artists, as if that was the qualifier of good art.

However, a good artist cannot help create images which contain eye pleasure. There is a natural flow of harmony that the eye picks up, and 'knows' that it came from not-trying, as if created unconditionally.

Meaning of life is the experience the truth and express it as a true human being.

Do thoughts require a thinker?
If they do, and thoughts occur, then I exist?
But if a thought can exist without a thinker, then I may not? — Kranky

1. Not necessarily.
2. No, you only think you exist.
3. There is no "I" that exists except as a thought, a story of identity, and it is not valid. That is why the ego/self always seeks validity, to make itself seem real.

One can be conscious without using the self/I to think. When this happens, all that is left is what is true, and consciousness of the truth becomes expresses as thoughts and feelings.

non-finite

Pain is inevitable, but suffering is optional.
Suffering is a story, to believe in, about not coping with the pain.

Everybody abuses themselves in one way or another. So abuse is inevitable. — Invisibilis

What is the difference between pain and suffering? What do you mean by abuse? Does abuse cause pain or does it cause suffering? — TheMadFool

Pain is a sensation.
Suffering is a story of not coping with the sensation.
Abuse is a misuse.
Abuse can be pain and/or suffering, or neither. It depends on the type of misuse.

Do you see abuse as inevitable that you must ask about fragility and resilience to abuse? — TheMadFool

Pain is inevitable, but suffering is optional.
Suffering is a story, to believe in, about not coping with the pain.

Everybody abuses themselves in one way or another. So abuse is inevitable.

The effects of abuse
Depends on each persons beliefs about what is being abused, and how does ones consciousness relate to it.

Absolute rest is impossible - All is motion.

The visible universe is a distortion of what is rest. Visibility is vibration of energy. All what we can detect with our own vibrant parts will also be vibration. In other words, we cannot rely on our senses, thoughts and feelings to know what rest is. In physics, as we know it, rest/death is no vibration.

What if consciousness exists without vibration, without time and space, but simply 'now' for eternity. Would that not be rest?

I am just writing what comes to mind here -

Cannot an artwork which copies something still be good art. Most landscapes and portraits are copies. Or an artist recreating the same scene, dance movements, or language are making copies. What if the second version is 99.9% copy and it turns out that perhaps the 0.01% difference somehow becomes decidedly good art.

Cannot an artwork be good art without conventional art skills, such as painting, drawing, grammar, movement. What if skill is not all about rules and self-controlled. What if intuition displays more skill than can ever be learnt and/or practiced?

Yes, what if intuition of what is good and bad is the key. If so, what is it about intuition that makes good/bad art?

Okay, you have defined a bad person showing certain behaviours qualified as bad _ a moralistic stance. What about bad art? Does a moral stance have anything to do with its creativity? If not, than what is the reference point, or stance, which points to bad art, or bad creativity?

So far I am getting the message that bad art is not universal, but a personal judgment of what they already believe is unreasonable.

Well, there isn't any current new art movements.
If I am wrong, please tell me which it is/are.
If I am right, perhaps what needs to change is not the artists, but the expectations of the nation, or world stage. Perhaps artists are sick of being controlled by those who are not artists but have the money to say what is currently art.

I think what seems like a period of incubation, in terms of art movements, is perhaps an art movement of individualization, as opposed to a group of artists purposely exploring someone else's ideas.

Creativity.
We as consciousness create what we want to be conscious of.