Yesterday I asked ‘anew1’ some questions regarding his proof on the way to Peace and Harmony. Those questions are below. Under those, you can see his responses to those questions.
In response to his answers I have a few starting clarifying questions to Age:
Age,
what do you mean by ‘proof’?
in your response you say the following: Once you understand the proofs for the claims, you will also see how the claims are self-evidently proved True and Right.
My question here is: have you presented the proofs for the claims here in your responses?
is your solution to how we reach peace and harmony dependent on everyone deciding to follow those steps? if yes, how do we get everyone to follow those steps?
what do you mean by “I also don’t do ‘evidence’.” and why not?
1. Clarification on the “Proof of Peace and Harmony”
You state that you possess “irrefutable facts and proof” showing you know the way to peace and harmony. Because “proof” and “facts” are general nouns, please clarify their specific components so we can understand your statement:
1a. What is the specific identity of these irrefutable facts?
1b. What are the exact steps and structure of this proof?
1c. To clarify the logical framework of this proof: is it a deduction, and if so, what are the exact premises?
1d. To clarify your framework of evidence: Do you think the claims themselves are the proofs, or is there a proof for these at all? If there is a proof for each of these claims, what is this proof?
Experiential. For example, only a few people know for sure and absolutely whether human beings have walked on the moon or not. If human beings have walked on the moon, then only those who have directly experienced that have ‘proof’ that human beings have. For the rest of us, we can only assume or remain open.
Logical. If a sound and valid argument is presented, then that is ‘proof’.
What I mean by ‘proof’ is ‘that’, which establishes a fact or the truth of a statement beyond absolutely any doubt at all. ‘Evidence’, to me, however, does not necessarily establish a fact or the truth of a statement. But if it is shown that ‘evidence’ does establish a fact or the truth of a statement, then ‘it’ becomes ‘proof’, and not just ‘evidence’. Evidence is fallible, proof is infallible. This is why I do not use evidence to back up and support my claims.
Can you notice the difference here?
Do you accept what ‘proof’ means to me?
The answer would depend on what you mean by ‘here’.
No. I only know of one way that works; if anyone knows of other ways that work, then people can choose to go those ways.
Redundant as my answer is No.
Also, the way to peace and harmony for everyone is certainly not about getting anyone to follow anything.
For the reason I provided above. Evidence does not necessarily establish a fact or the truth of a statement. Whereas, proof does. And, to me, if evidence does establish a fact or the truth of a statement, then it has become proof. So, I do ‘proof’. I do not do ‘evidence’.
Yes, Experiential or Logical. Can you prove your claims using words in a post in this forum?
So, are you saying that no one but the men who walked on the Moon know that human beings have walked on the Moon? Is it possible that the people who claim to have walked on the Moon, hallucinated or were otherwise manipulated to believe they walked on the Moon?
The nine steps of -
Openness
Honesty
Love
Thoughts
Meaning
Understanding
Mind
Morality
Peace and Harmony
Learning and understanding each step is self-explanatory, and so the proof of each becomes obvious.
Would the above then be an experiential proof or part of one? Is it complete? In other words should someone reading this now realize that your way is proven? Are there instructions that go with this?
The first ‘here’ meant regarding what I had quoted.
The second ‘here’ meant: in your responses to questions 1a → 1d.
If the claims are self-evidently proved True and Right, why would one need someone to understand the proofs for the claims? In other words, if the claims themselves are self-evidently proved True and Right, wouldn’t one just need to read the claims to know they are True and Right?
Last question in this post: which parts of your responses in the opening post in this thread were irrefutable facts, if any?
The above is proof through both experimental experiences and logical reasoning.
For me it was.
There are no ‘shoulds’.
I certainly hope no one reading hitherto has jumped to the conclusion or come to realise that the above way is yet proven to them. Again, the above way is proven, just not to everyone yet.
I would not call them ‘instructions’, as some people might construe this to mean that someone ‘has to do them’.
What is involved with this is, let us call it, ‘a process’, which, if one ever looks at it, then shows the reasons for how and why human beings are not yet living in peace and harmony with one another. What people then do with that information is up to them. The process reveals why human beings do not live in peace and harmony, as well as reveals how they can live in peace and harmony, creating World Peace moving forward if they choose to follow their own wants and desires
And, the second ‘here’ meant regarding what exactly?
Okay. There are too many variables to answer this question of yours properly and Accurately with a Yes or No answer. For example, your " 1b. What are the exact steps and structure of this proof?", can be taken as me presenting the proofs for the claims, because the exact steps and structure of this proof is the nine-step process that I mentioned and presented.
I don’t know. Does anyone need someone to understand the proofs for the claims?
If there is, then who is that one?
Yes.
All of 1a.
Although I presented the exact steps in 1b., and the ‘structure’ of this proof, some might be expecting ‘more’ explanation and/or ‘further’ elaboration, so this part of my response might not be considered as an irrefutable fact by all. And,
So, can you prove that you know the way to Peace and Harmony without us having to go through the Experiential proof?
So, other than the men who walked on the Moon, who can know that men walked on the Moon? Who else directly experienced that? And is there any person who can know for sure that they didn’t hallucinate or aren’t for some other reason are incorrect about men walking on the Moon? Can anyone know for sure that men walked on the Moon, 100% no possibility they are wrong?
So, who knows for sure that men have walked on the Moon, if even those who experienced it most directly might be incorrect? In the earlier quote it seemed like only people who directly experienced men walking on the Moon have proof. But here it seems even those who walked on the Moon might be incorrect.
There were 10 nouns in those 9 steps. What is the process? Can one know the process by seeing those 10 nouns? What does one do with steps 1 and 2, for example?
What do you mean by steps? (the exact steps presented by you in 1b). Right now I see a list of nouns.
It is your own personal past experiences, which verifies, and thus provides, the proof.
Those who were ‘there’ and directly witnessed it happening.
Those who were ‘there’ and who directly experienced that.
Ah great, if we want to get down to the ultimate Truth and Reality Itself, then the only thing we can be absolutely sure of and know are the thoughts that arise.
We, the One, who is Aware of thoughts, and who is the ‘I am’, the ‘I’ in the quetion "Who am ‘I’? and the One who the Incorrect wording, ‘I think, therefore I am’, is referring to, is Aware of thoughts, but can never know, for sure, if what the thoughts are “seeing” or “saying” is actually True and Real.
However, if human beings, or you, for example, want to insist that there are some things that ‘we’, human beings, can verify and prove True, then that is best done through and from the experiences of Everyone and/or through logical reasoning where Everyone is in agreement and acceptance.
No. For all ‘we’ know, for sure and absolutely, is that absolutely everything could be just an illusion ‘we’ are having.
But what cannot be refuted, by anyone, is that there is Awareness. Therefore, there is Awareness, an ‘I’, Existing, and what it is Aware of are ‘thoughts’. However, if those thoughts align with some kind of Reality, or not, ‘we’, or ‘I’, could always just be imagining. For example, there might not even actually be “men” nor “moons” anyway. How could ‘we’, or ‘I’, ever Really know, for sure?
As I partly delved into before, it will always depend on what ‘you’ consider.
From the thoughts, within ‘that body’, if ‘they consider’ men and at least one moon exists, irrefutably, and you ‘trust’ ‘men’, or ‘trust’ any man who says that they walked on the moon, then, to you, that man who directly experienced going to, and walking on, the moon, then ‘that man’ would be ‘the one’ who knows, for sure, that it has walked on the moon.
Do ‘you’ personally consider that ‘men’ are Real and that the ‘moon’ Really exists?
Hopefully, I have now expressed things here in a way that you now better understand and have grasped.
But, as always, if I have not, then please just ask further clarifying questions. Like the ones you have been asking here, this really is refreshing. And, remember, the more specific your questioning and/or challenging is, the more specific my answers and responses can be.
I am not sure if I have informed you before, but I am very slow and simple. I never learned and do not know what ‘nouns’, ‘adjectives’, ‘verbs’, and other words like those mean. And, please do not inform me of what they mean. I DO NOT WANT TO LEARN and KNOW what they mean. This is also for a very specific reason regarding ‘the way’ I write.
Anyway, although it is a nine-step ‘process’, I used 11 words because the words ‘Peace’ and ‘Harmony’ are looked at, learned, and come to be understood in the ninth step. The ninth step, by the way, shows and reveals just how simple and easy it really is to live in peace and harmony with everyone. This ‘nine-step process’, by the way, I call ‘Nine steps to [add whatever you like here]’. For example, Heaven, Utopia, Nirvana, Peace, or anything else like that.
The ‘process’ is just learning more about and understanding better each one of those things. For example, in the first step, we learn more about how ‘we’ adults are not as open as we would like to believe. We come to understand how it would be more beneficial if we become more open, and we learn how to be more open. Once we have achieved this, then we move forward and up to the next step. We learn more about and better understand ‘Honesty’. We do this with each step, learning and understanding more, and as we climb ‘higher’ with each step, we become more enlightened at each one, and in a sense get uplifted to the next step, on this ‘stairway to heaven’, as some might call it. The first two steps, by the way, are the “hardest” but once we have overcome the first steps, the rest are far easier the higher we get.
If one has never seen those presented like that, then I very much doubt it. But once one has shown enough interest and has also come to understand the steps, then that one instantly knows ‘the process’ when seeing those words presented like that.
Thank you for showing some interest here now. Again, it is refreshing.
The exact same thing as with all of the nine steps. And, the more open, inquisitive, and curious one is, the more they learn and understand about what one ‘does’ with steps 1 and 2, and the rest.
Hopefully, I have already explained, but, as always, if not, then just further questions, for clarity.
If you want to look at this from this perspective, then everyone’s memories could be fallible.
And, if we want to look at this from another perspective, everyone’s memories are fallible.
If we want to look at this, in ‘the way’ you are here, then we could go off on so many tangents, if you like?
For example, I could ask you, “What do you mean by ‘proof’?” And, no matter what you say we can end up at, ‘memories are infallible’, therefore absolutely any perceived a ‘proof’ is insufficient.
What do you mean by ‘proof’?
As I said and mentioned before, No.
Can you be certain that this discussion is actually taking place?
What is your belief or view, “Can anyone be 100% certain that their memories or experience of an event are correct or that the event happened?”
But, if absolutely everything could be an illusion, then, obviously, what you perceive to be ‘evidence’ could just be an illusion as well.
Is there a point you are trying to get to here?
Again, that will depend on your views or beliefs.
Also, did you purposely write the oxymoron and self-contradiction question here? Are you suggesting we go through these steps in order? Start with ‘openness’, then move on to honesty? For example.
I suggest that for anyone interested, we start at 1 and move up numerically.
‘Openness’ - lack of restriction. ‘Honesty’ - free of deceit; truthful and sincere.
What I mean by ‘proof’ is ‘that’, which establishes a fact or the truth of a statement beyond absolutely any doubt at all.
So, I have been trying to understand how these different statements fit together.
Evidence is fallible, proof is infallible. But if anything can be an illusion aren’t we trying to find the statement or understanding that has the most evidence, even if we can’t absolutely be sure? I see proofs described as infallible and establishes the truth of a statement beyond absolutely any doubt at all. But in other places it seems like you are saying one can doubt. I am not trying to bring up something trivial. In the example of the walking on the Moon, given the fallibility of memory, even those who remember or perhaps ‘remember’ walking on the Moon have grounds for doubt.
That’s fine. But what I meant was in the actually process of moving towards peace and harmony, do you suggest one completely achieve this ‘lack of restriction’ in Step 1 before they are able to move on to Step 2 (Honesty), or do you suggest they practice them at the same time?
What do you mean by restriction here? Could you give some examples of restriction relevant to this? And once one is free from restriction, how is one different? I think examples would help me here. Regarding honesty: would you suggest you answer all questions honestly? One could, for example, avoid dishonesty by either answering a question or opting not to answer it, even though one knows the answer? Is this still maintaining honesty? A man asks a women where she lives and she feels uncomfortable with him, so she opts not to answer that question: has she maintained honesty despite this if her answers to questions, when she gives answers, are honest?
you write this like it has been something you have been ‘trying’ to understand for quite some time.
Now, what is it exactly that you are ‘trying to understand’ here?
Is there ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’ that absolutely everything could be an illusion?
If there is, then will you please provide the ‘proof’ or the ‘evidence’ for this?
Until some is presented, what I mean by ‘proof’ I have already provided.
you may well be trying to find the statement or understanding that has the most evidence, but I do not. As I said, I don’t do ‘evidence’. I do ‘proof’ instead. For the reasons I have already provided you with, one being the example of “seeing” the sun “rise”, “set”, and revolve around the earth is ‘evidence’ that the sun revolves around the earth, but some learned that actually the earth revolves around the sun instead. These people saw what they called the ‘proof’. Another example of why I do not do ‘evidence’ is some people use “redshift” as being ‘evidence’ that the Universe is expanding, but some of us learned that actually the Universe does not expand because It could not expand. Again, ‘proof’ will always outweigh ‘evidence’. But, if you are trying to find the statement or understanding that has the most ‘evidence’ and/or want to ignore the ‘proof’, then please feel absolutely free to go forth and do so.
I am not sure why you prefer to use ‘evidence’ over ‘proof’, but you are absolutely free to do so. I have provided my reasons for why I do not.
Also, if anything can be an illusion, then everything can be an illusion, including ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’.
you say that you see proofs ‘described’ in a particular way, but I asked you, “What do you mean by ‘proof’?”
I see proofs ‘described’ in many different ways, but I provided you with what I mean by ‘proof’. Will you do the same?
So, which perspective do you use?
There is not only ‘one way’ to look at and see things.
We know that you prefer to use ‘evidence’ rather than ‘proof’ as your perspective, but which perspective do you use regarding everything besides the fact that there is ‘Awareness’ and ‘thoughts’ are just illusions, or, can we know there are things that do actually exist beyond just ‘Awareness’ and ‘thoughts’?
Once you inform me, then we can move along.
So, what are you trying to bring up, exactly?
Given the fallibility of memory, even those who remember or perhaps ‘remember’ a childhood and other experiences hitherto have grounds for doubt.
But, what is the actual point that you are trying to get to and make here?
As I have said a few times previously, ‘If I recall correctly’, (which I say in ‘that way’ because memory is fallible), I have already addressed your query here. If I recall correctly, I already said and wrote:
‘For example, in the first step, we learn more about how ‘we’ adults are not as open as we would like to believe. We come to understand how it would be more beneficial if we become more open, and we learn how to be more open. Once we have achieved this, then we move forward and up to the next step. We learn more about and better understand ‘Honesty’. We do this with each step, learning and understanding more, and as we climb ‘higher’ with each step, we become more enlightened at each one, and in a sense get uplifted to the next step, on this ‘stairway to heaven’, as some might call it. The first two steps, by the way, are the “hardest” but once we have overcome the first steps, the rest are far easier the higher we get.’
In other words, the first step is about becoming ‘more open’ or ‘less restricted’. Completely achieving ‘lack of restriction’ is hopefully achieved by at least the ninth step. But if no restriction at all is achieved at any earlier step, then this will be better for all involved. I suggest that instead of just ‘practising’ being ‘open’, one become and is ‘just open’ instead. But ‘each to their own’, as some say.
Also, I do not see ‘openness’ like ‘honesty’ as things one ‘practices’. To me, they are things one is actually doing or not doing.
Free in ‘vision’, and ‘vision’ from the Mind’s Eye, and not from the physical eyes on the physical body.
For example, if ‘you’ and ‘I’ were alive and having a discussion, let us say about 150 years ago, and I said to you that relatively soon ‘we’, human beings, will be driving horseless carriages, flying in the air, and not just flying from country to country but also to the moon and back, using boxes in hands to talk to each other from anywhere on earth and even from the moon, we will be watching ourselves from the past moving on picture screens, talking to each other through written words almost instantaneously, and even living in peace and harmony with one another without warring and killing each other, would you ‘free from restriction’, and be ‘listening’ to what I am saying, or would you ‘listen’ from a perspective with ‘some restriction’?
If you are ‘listening’ and ‘looking’ from the former, then you would already ‘be open’. you would not be ‘restricted’ in your ability to learn and understand. This is what I mean by ‘restriction’ here
Hopefully, that example I just gave sufficed. But if not, then as always, please seek out more clarity.
Another example that might work is while one is assuming or believing something is true, then they are ‘not open’ and ‘restricted’ from ‘mentally’ listening, looking, and learning what else is being said and/or shown. ‘Restriction’ here is in relation to the mental ability to construct, hear, see, or understand things, and not necessarily about the physical ability of constructing, hearing, and seeing.
Quite simply, they are free to be able to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any or every thing.
For example, while one is assuming or believing that it is impossible to fly, that witches are bad people who must be burned, that we must have slaves, we can’t live without phones, or that we can’t live without money, then these people are restricted from being able to learn and understand ‘new/er’ things.
Hopefully, I have provided enough or satisfactory ones. But, as always, please seek out more clarification and clarity if needed.
Absolutely.
I suggest absolutely everyone tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth always.
Yes, one ‘could’.
But is one being ‘honest’ or ‘dishonest’ when they opt not to answer a question, when they know the answer? What do you mean by one could avoid dishonesty by opting not to answer a question that one knows the answer to?
Also, you wrote another statement with a question mark at the end of it.
Unlike you, I would not call opting to not answer a question, one knows the answer to, ‘avoiding dishonesty’.
I am not even sure how avoiding answering a question that one knows the answer to could be considered or conceived as ‘avoiding dishonesty’ or ‘honesty’.
I am not following the last part of your example and question here.
You just made these statements - in the last few days - so, no I have not been trying to understand them for quite some time.
I am trying to understand your epistemology. On the one hand you don’t do evidence, you do proofs because proofs are infallible. You gave an example of the experiential proof with the astronauts. But when I wrote about the fallibility of memory, you said yes, it was possible that the astronauts misremembered or were somehow manipulated to remember something that did not happen. So, what was presented as a proof, this particular experiential proof, could in fact be fallible. And if the astronaut agrees with you (that memory can be fallible), the astronaut cannot be sure that what he or she remembers is correct.
We don’t even have to go to the radical skepticism that everything is an illusion. It seemed clear that you agreed that even specific memories are things we cannot be 100% sure of.
Memory doesn’t have to be only about events long past; it can be what happened a minute ago. If the way to Peace and Harmony’s proof is experiential, how can we be absolutely sure that it is true?
It’s not that I prefer to use evidence in the sense of oh, there’s a proof, but I would prefer to have evidence. It’s more that I recognize that most things that are called proofs are potentially fallible, because we are fallible. So, I prefer to recognize that proofs are actually a very rigorous form of evidence. For example, wrote that the people who walked on the Moon or anyone directly experiencing them doing that were the only ones who could be sure. That they had experiential proof.
A note: I don’t have to think that the entire universe and all experience is an illusion to note that the astronaut’s memories are fallible and might be fallible in this example. Perhaps they were manipulated, hypnotized and placed on sets or some other scenario where they were mislead took place. Their memories can be and are fallible in a universe that is not all illusion. And they themselves cannot be 100% sure, given that memory is not infallible. I don’t hold the position that everything is an illusion.
To reword for clarity: only a few people know for sure and absolutely whether human beings have walked on the moon or not. If human beings have walked on the moon, then only those who have directly experienced that have ‘proof’ that human beings have.
This was part of your explanation of Experiential Proof. But later you acknowledge that no one can be sure their memory is infallible. So, here we have proof being used to cover something that is fallible..
Free in ‘vision’, and ‘vision’ from the Mind’s Eye, and not from the physical eyes on the physical body.
For example, if ‘you’ and ‘I’ were alive and having a discussion, let us say about 150 years ago, and I said to you that relatively soon ‘we’, human beings, will be driving horseless carriages, flying in the air, and not just flying from country to country but also to the moon and back, using boxes in hands to talk to each other from anywhere on earth and even from the moon, we will be watching ourselves from the past moving on picture screens, talking to each other through written words almost instantaneously, and even living in peace and harmony with one another without warring and killing each other, would you ‘free from restriction’, and be ‘listening’ to what I am saying, or would you ‘listen’ from a perspective with ‘some restriction’?
If you are ‘listening’ and ‘looking’ from the former, then you would already ‘be open’. you would not be ‘restricted’ in your ability to learn and understand. This is what I mean by ‘restriction’ here
So, one does not judge or assume it can’t be. One is not skeptical. One listens and keeps an open mind?
Is this just about ideas and assertions? Or does one choose to be open to people? You haven’t met someone before. You meet them in a park, say. You talk for a while and the other person suggests you come over to their place nearby. You have a gut feeling, a kind of warning signal, in relation to this person. Is listening to that signal and choosing not to go over to their place not being open? Or is openness in this context about ideas only?
Let me give another example. Let’s say it is someone you know. They give an explanation for something they did. You don’t really believe them, but you can’t be sure. How would being open play out in that situation?
Regardless of context? If someone asks people here for personal information, would you suggest they always answer with the whole truth?
It was related to the example I gave above. Perhaps one does not want to share personal information (in general or to a particular individual). So, one opts to not answer certain questions. It is not being dishonest. You have not said something that you know to be false, but you have not, perhaps, been open and honest according to your suggestions. That is the area I am exploring.
A woman is walking down the street. A man she does not know asks her where she lives. She opts not to answer him. Has she gone against what you would suggest being honest is? Has she shown a lack of honesty? Are there situations where one opts not to answer questions one knows the answer to, where you would still consider that person a consistently honest person? Another way to ask this is: would you suggest that she give the information, even if she feels uncomfortable with the man? He hasn’t done anything wrong, but something feels wrong to her about the situation and him, and she would prefer not to share her address with him. Are you suggesting she nevertheless tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth always.
Which is exaclty what I was referring to when I said, No, each and every time I have said, No.
I do not recall ever saying that ‘the way’ to Peace and Harmony’s proof is experiential.
What do you mean by, “how can we be absolutely sure that ‘it’ is true”?
What are you talking about or referring to exactly?
Well, they would not be ‘proof’ then, obviously.
Will you provide (an) example/s of what are called ‘proofs’, but which are also supposedly ‘potentially fallible’?
you claim you recognise that most so-called ‘proofs’ are ‘potentially fallible’. I have never recognised one. If anything was ‘potentially fallible’, I would not call it ‘proof’.
Okay
If the word ‘you’ was meant to be before the ‘wrote’ word, then okay.
I am not sure why you mentioned these two things here in ‘the way’ that you have. I also do not have to think that all experiences are an illusion to note that all human beings’ memories are fallible, as well. Was there a point you are trying to get across here?
Anyhow, are you now saying that there is actually no ‘evidence’ nor ‘proof’, or none that can be trusted, anywhere, because everyone’s memory is fallible anyway?
If there is a human being who could be manipulated, hypnotised, and/or placed on sets or in some other scenario where they were misled, then there really is something wrong with ‘that one’.
But, then again, if human beings are so easily and so simply misled, in ways like you just put forward, then this would explain why it is taking them so, so long to ‘catch up’ to seeing what the actual Truths are in Life.
Yes obviously. I thought we already went through this a few posts ago.
If you say and believe so, then okay.
Thank you. We finally got ‘here’.
Now, I also do not hold that position, so can we keep moving along?
Are you here to provide ‘clarity’ of your view, belief, or position? Or, are you asking me to ‘clarity’?
Okay. Why are you using capital ‘E’ and capital ‘P’ here?
Okay.
Do you have a better suggestion? What would you prefer to use to cover something that is fallible?
If we just use ‘evidence’ only, or instead of ‘proof’, then would that help you, and help us, here? I have recognised that some things that are called ‘evidence’ turn out not to be ‘proof’ for what they are said to be ‘evidence’ for. In fact, sometimes what is said to be true, like the geo-centric or the expanding Universe, which people are adamant there is ‘evidence’ for, turns out to be just completely False and Wrong anyway.
Which is why I wait for actual ‘proofs’ before I want to express my claims publicly, especially in a philosophy forum.
you put a quote of mine between your last written text and your written text here, so I am unsure what the ‘it’ word is in reference to exactly?
What is ‘it’, exactly, that one does not judge or assume ‘it can’t be’?
If your next two statements here, (the following one has a question mark at the end by the way), are referring to ‘free from restriction’, then I agree that, 'one is not necessarily sceptical, and they are listening from the open Mind, or as some human beings say, “keeping an open mind”, when they are just ‘open’ or ‘free from restriction’.
Good question. I would say not just about ideas and assertions only, but about any thought, which is actually a ‘banner’ that ideas and assertions ‘lie under’, along with all other mental activity. So, without any further ‘looking into’ your question, I would say becoming and remaining open always is just about thought or about all mental activity.
‘People’ are ‘thought’ and ‘emotion’, so one can choose to be open to ‘emotions’ as well.
Why do you believe and claim this?
Okay.
Okay.
I thought that ‘listening’ is ‘being open’. Why do you think ‘listening’ is or might be ‘not being open’?
The words ‘gut feeling’ are synonymous with ‘emotions’. So, I say, ‘listening to’ the thoughts, thinking, and emotions, not just within other humans but also within one’s body as well, is ‘being open’.
No.
Yes. See, if human beings before ‘these days’ has always told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then you would not ‘now’ be living in ‘a world’ where people think ‘context’ matters.
See, if people had always been open and honest previously, then there would not be ‘a world’ where people are afraid of each other.
Not yet, and not in ‘this world’.
‘This world’ is so Wrong that some people actually believe that it is perfectly fine and okay to drop bombs on other people’s houses just because those other people hold a different religion, have different views, and/or have oil under “their lands”. Some people in ‘this world’ actually believe that owning guns is perfectly fine and okay, let alone owning and building more nuclear weapons is good and right, some of these people also believe that threatening others with force and stockpiles of weapons and ammunition is perfectly fine and okay. So, I would wait until the nine steps are at least started before wondering if it is alright to share personal information with some people who might want to weaponise or cause harm and damage to you.
If people are living in ‘a world’ where some adults want to drop bombs on schools and on children, and actually enjoy doing it and celebrate when they have annihilated children, of all human beings, then I would be very concerned about sharing information in ‘that world’, so I suggest one thinks about who they share information with before they do it.
Okay.
But, maybe if you consider that since this thread is about ‘a way’ to Peace and Harmony, and we were talking about Step 1. Openness, and if absolutely anyone ever becomes interested, then what this step is about is ‘becoming more open’ than one is currently.
When you say, ‘that is the area I am exploring’, is the area in very personal and/or intimate situations, or in the area of this thread title?
See, if we are going to go to ‘areas’ of individual personal experiences, then we can go to as many different ‘areas’ as there are people, times how many different personal experiences they all have.
Choosing not to answer a question is not necessarily not being honest, although it may well be not being open.
I am not sure how just choosing not to say anything could be seen as a ‘lack of honesty’.
Maybe I will see later on.
I do not recall ever thinking or saying that there are situations where one just opts not to answer a question that one knows the answer to as being ‘dishonest’.
To me, one would have to ‘talk’ to be able to work out if they are being ‘honest’ or ‘dishonest’.
you seem to be under some sort of assumption that I consider a person who just chooses not to answer, when they either know or do not know an answer, as being ‘dishonest’. If this is what you are assuming, then where did you get this assumption from exactly?
To me, absolutely everyone is absolutely free to choose to do or not do whatever they want.
Okay.
If she does not want to, then she does not have to.
you asked me:
I said, Absolutely.
I also added that I suggest absolutely everyone else tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Remember, you were asking me regarding Step 2, ‘Honesty’, in the ‘nine-step process’, which is a way to Peace and Harmony, Paradise, Nirvana, Utopia, and Heaven. I responded in ‘that context’.
I could be completely mistaken, but you seem to be trying to get me with what some call a ‘gotcha’ moment, instead of being interested and curious about what you call, ‘My way to Peace and Harmony’.
OK. Is it a Logical or Experiential truth? Or is it a combination? If the last, what is that like?
Well, the people who walked on the Moon proof is potentially fallible, given that memory is fallible.
I brought up the issue of memory being fallible, including those of the astronauts in the walking on the Moon example. You raised the issue of the universe being an illusion.
My issue is with memory being fallible. I am not making claims that the universe is an illusion or all experiences we think we have had we haven’t. I am talking about the fact that people can be wrong about what happened in the past. I have a specific focus. The people walking on the Moon was an example of a situation where those who did it have an experiential proof. But you have talked about proof as
It’s not a radical position on my part - not that you have said that - to think that since memory is fallible, a specific memory of having done something might not be correct. Which is something you agreed with. Then how can it lead to
a statement beyond absolutely any doubt at all.
The people walking on the Moon was an example of a situation where those who did it have what you call experiential proof. But you define ‘proof’ as that which establishes a statement beyond absolutely any doubt at all. If their memories are fallible—which you agree with—then how can an experiential memory ever meet your definition of proof?
I didn’t say it would be easy. It would be extremely hard to do. Of course, people having fallible memories does not require an extreme situation.
The listening is open. The situation is that someone you don’t know suggests you come to their place. You get a warning signal, a gut feeling that leads you not to trust this person. You don’t know for sure, but you get that gut feeling. Would you suggest that one be open to that other person, since you can’t know for sure there is a problem, and accept the invitation? as long as it doesn’t interfere with something else you have planned.
OK; great.
Great. You suggest one thinks about who they share information with before they do it. And in this thinking about who to share information with, one may not have conclusive evidence or a proof - this person can be trusts while that one cannot. One may have to, for example, err on the side of caution. Would you suggest that is the case?
But before everyone becomes interested we have the situation where not everyone is interested. I think that is the situation we in the forum, for example, are in. So, understanding what these steps would be like for me or for us seems relevant to me.
But as you have pointed out This World is a specific situation we are in. So, the woman deciding not to give a stranger her address is in a similar situation to pretty much everyone. We are in that world, with people who are like those you described.
I’'m not sure how asking about that seems like I am assuming what you say there. If I assumed you considered that person dishonest, I wouldn’t ask.
Yes, my focus is on what you would suggest people do. If you would suggest that one always answer any question one knows the answer to regardless of the context. But you have made it clear above that you wouldn’t suggest this, given the way the world is now.
Right the question is would you suggest she give him the address. Suggestions precisely do not include the sense that one must do what is suggested. That would be an order. So, just so I am very sure here: would you suggest she give that information in that situation? Given that you then said the following, I just want to make sure:
What is ‘it’, which you are asking me if ‘it’ is a ‘Logical’ or ‘Experiential’ truth? What is the ‘it’ word referring to exactly in your first two questions?
Why did you put a capital ‘L’ and a capital ‘E’ in your first question?
If memory is fallible, then is there anything that could be proved to you?
Yes you did. I was aware of that when you did the first time.
I never said that. I said something different.
And, again, is there a point that you are trying to get across here?
Why is that ‘your issue’ exactly?
I also am not making that claim.
And I agreed with that, quite some time ago now.
What exactly is that specific focus?
Okay. And again, I have already agreed with that.
How long would you like to stay stuck on this issue for, exactly?
And, what is your point?
Considering memory is fallible, then absolutely everything human beings have said they have done could be Wrong and/or Incorrect. Did we not agree to this when I agreed with you that human memory is fallible?
But, did it lead to ‘that’? If I recall correctly, I said that before you brought up the fallibility of human memory.
Okay. When did I do this? Before or after?
Why do you say “their memories”? If human memory is fallible, then that includes all human beings.
Could anything be proven to you? If you say it can, then how exactly?
But if nothing can be proved to you, then okay.
There is not much use in asking, “What do you mean by ‘proof’?” If the one asking considers that ‘proof’ could not even exist.
Okay, if human beings could be misled to believe that they had walked on the moon, then this could help in explaining to them, and them understanding, why human beings are taking so long to ‘catch up’.
Considering that memory is fallible in every human, this is not an extreme situation at all.
So why did you ask, " Is listening to …, and choosing not to go over to their place ‘not being open’ "?
If the listening is open, then why are you asking me, “Is listening to something”, ‘not being open’?
If you are, however, asking if the choosing not to do something is ‘not being open’, then I do not understand the question.
I got that the very first time you presented it.
I also got that the first time.
I also got this. I also informed you of what the words ‘gut feeling’ are in relation to.
I suggest everyone be open, so I suggest they be open to each other. If the one who was invited somewhere has decided that they do not want to go, then, if they are both open, the one invited would inform the other of their decision, and the one who invited would accept the other’s decision. This, to me, is what is involved in being open.
Again, in ‘this world’, in the days when this is being written, the trust in adults has just about been diminished completely.
What does ‘conclusive evidence’ mean?
The whole point of you ‘thinking about who to share information with or not’ is that you’re ‘working out’ who can be trusted and who cannot, right?
They do not necessarily ‘have to’, but anyone can ‘choose to’, err on the side of caution, if they ‘want to’, and ‘choose to’ do so.
We are not even up to the situation where I have found anyone who is interested.
Okay. Does the situation that not everyone is interested in understanding and learning why human beings are not yet living in Peace and harmony, and learning and understanding how everyone can live in a Peaceful world, have anything really to do with some situation where one person is asking another for an address or to go somewhere and whether that one chooses to provide information or to go?
But what you or others are doing ‘now’, in ‘this world’ in the days when this is being written, and the steps that you would take ‘now’, really do not have much at all to do with what steps human beings are taking in ‘another world’.
Also, when you say, “understanding what these steps would be like for you”, are you talking about in relation to the nine steps that can and will create World Peace, or in regard to what steps you would take if someone asked you for your address or to go out?
Did I also point out and make clear that it is a very unhealthy world, at “the moment”, which could make a completely healthy turnaround as well?
So what? you are talking about a situation of what someone would do in ‘this world’.
Do you remember the title of this thread is?
This thread is ‘about me’, and ‘My way to Peace and Harmony’.
What do you mean by, “I described”?
'you described ‘those people’, in ‘those situations’, and then asked me some clarifying questions.
And, yes you are in ‘that world’, and some times appear very stuck in ‘that world’.
I can only show how ‘a world’, which everyone wants and desires to live in, can and will come to exist. you may well be in ‘that world’, but only when people want to change, for the better, is when ‘that world’ will also change for the better. But, you are free to only ‘look at’ and remain living in ‘that world’ if you like.
Okay.
If you ever become interested, then, hopefully, you now know what to do.
you writing ‘dishonest’ might show and explain to you how.
Is this because what you assume is ‘the answer’?
There are way to many variables for me to come to know first before each and every situation.
Hopefully, you now know that if one does not want to answer a question, then they do not have to.
Okay.
Can we move on now?
Okay, but what has it got to do with ‘me’?
Gosh, if you ask “atla”. ‘I’ am absolutely nothing but a vegetable under 24 hour care.
But what would it matter what I suggest “some person” do in “some situation”?
What has what I might or might not suggest regarding “some person” in the ‘current days’ got to do with this thread and its title?
I have already answered your question here clearly.
What I said there has absolutely nothing at all to do with your question.
Did you purposely leave out what I said there was in regards to exactly?
Once again, you posed to me the question:
And, once again, your question was in regard to the second step towards Peace and Harmony, and absolutely nothing in regard to what some “woman” might do in some hypothetical situation.
Maybe if you don’t conflate the two, you might stay focused on the thread title only.
So, regarding ‘honesty’, which is the second step of what you call, ‘My way to Peace and Harmony’, I suggest that everyone interested in looking into what is involved in the second step, answer all questions honestly, during the second step of the nine-step process, is open and honest.
Can I make this any clearer?
you were asking, and I was answering, regarding ‘honesty’ in the second step of a nine-step process, and I was not answering in regards to some “woman” “somewhere”.
The proof you presented in your first response to my OP. The one that includes those 9 steps.
I think anything that is memory based, such as, relevant here, whether an event happened, is potentially fallible and would not meet the definition of proof you gave.
But right now I am trying to understand your sense of whether the fallibility of memory is compatible with your definition of proof, in the example you gave.
So, you gave as an example of an experiential proof, the people who have walked on the Moon.
Experiential. For example, only a few people know for sure and absolutely whether human beings have walked on the moon or not. If human beings have walked on the moon, then only those who have directly experienced that have ‘proof’ that human beings have. For the rest of us, we can only assume or remain open.
So, how can it be a proof if there is a possibility even those who directly experienced could be wrong about what happened?
You gave me a very clear explanation to this:
The title could mean the way that only you follow for yourself or it could mean the way we all can come to Peace and Harmony. I meant the latter. If this path only works for you, please let me know. Perhaps I assumed incorrectly that the process was universal. Is it just your way?
OK, I thought you were suggesting they be open and honest in every situation. But here, from your response, it seems the context plays an important role in determining if you would suggest someone be honest and open.
Does this apply today? It sounds like you are saying, here, the process is only for you, now. Is that correct?
How do we reach the stage where the process also works for everyone?
So, you suggest to everyone that they answer all questions honestly. Here it sounds like context doesn’t matter and it seems now that it is not just your way but a way for anyone to follow.
If I were to use the 9 step process would you suggest I answer every question asked of me honestly?
I am not sure I presented any proof in my first response to your opening post here.
Even you said:
Saying, ‘I possess …’. does not mean that ‘I presented …’.
Okay.
Why?
What is the ‘it’ word referring to exactly?
If the ‘it’ word is referring to ‘experience’, then how ‘experience’ can be a proof if there is a possibility that even those who directly experienced could be wrong about what happened is through ‘Trust’ itself.
Which we look at and delve into in detail in step 8.
How do you obtain ‘that’, which establishes a fact or the truth of a statement beyond absolutely any doubt at all?
The capitals ‘P’ and ‘H’ make it mean for everyone.
It will only be known who it works for, for those who do it.
We will not know if it’s universal, for some, or just for me, until others look into it.
you first asked me in relation to: Honesty in step 2.
There are at least three different contexts, scenarios, or situations here.
The world being lived in now - That is; this war-torn, pollution-riddled, stress-full world.
The world soon to come - That is; the Peaceful and Harmonious world.
The nine-step process that leads to Peace and Harmony for everyone, also known as World Peace.
I did say be honest always, but again, you were asking in relation to Honesty - in Step 2.
So, context does play an important role in determining whether to be open and honest always.
Again, the more specific your questions are asked for clarity, the more specific my answers and clarification can be
Does ‘what’ apply today?
And, ‘when’ is ‘today’ exactly?
No.
I am not sure what I have said that would make it ‘sound’ like I am saying that.
Just be curious to learn how we all could live together, as One, in Peace and Harmony.
Just read through the nine-step process.
Just be Curious, Open, and Honest in asking and answering questions for clarity.
Just share with others what makes sense and works for you.
Now, of course, there might be other things that are needed in the process to reach the stage where everyone is living together in Peace and Harmony with one another, because no one has yet looked at the nine steps. So, it is a matter of wait and see.
There is nothing in there about ‘following’, besides following One Thing only. Maybe if you get rid of this presumption that the process is about ‘following’ me, my words, some person, or some person’s words, then you might move along here.
Again, you are basing things on what you ‘presume’ ‘it’ ‘sounds like’. If you are more specific in your questioning, from the outset, I can and will be more specific in my answers, from the beginning.
As shown and already proved in these forums, what I suggest has no bearing on what actually happens and takes place. you people will do whatever it is that you want to do anyway.
I am not sure if the word ‘use’ is appropriate here. But, if you wanted to look at and/or do the nine-step process, then I would suggest you answer every question honestly.
anew1: Experiential. For example, only a few people know for sure and absolutely whether human beings have walked on the moon or not. If human beings have walked on the moon, then only those who have directly experienced that have ‘proof’ that human beings have. For the rest of us, we can only assume or remain open.
Since you agree above, that the men who walked on the moon might in fact have hallucinated and you agree that memory is fallible, how can that experiential proof be beyond absolutely any doubt at all? This has been my question.
Thank you for introducing “Trust” as the mechanism to resolve this.
You defined “proof” as that which establishes a fact beyond absolutely any doubt at all. Does this mean we will not have proof that the 9 steps do what you say until we complete step 8? Does this mean that trust cannot be misplaced, that one cannot, once one has completed step 8 trust, for example, a memory that is partly or entirely false? Does it also mean that you cannot present a proof here in the forum, but you can give steps that will lead us to a proof?
So, after we have completed step 8 will we then have proof that you have the formula mentioend below.
I also came across a formula that, to me, shows what will lead us all into living in peace and harmony together.
or can you present in a post here in the forum proof that this is what will lead us into living in peace and harmony together? In other words, can you write a post that is a proof in itself, that this is what leads to living in peace and harmony? Or, does the proof arrive when one has completed step 8, Trust, or perhaps when one finishes all the steps?
Referring to the first post of this thread where I presented your answers to my questions in the other thread, you wrote:
The above is proof through both experimental experiences and logical reasoning.
If you have not actually presented a proof for your 9 steps, does that mean your process is currently a personal assertion in the forum rather than a demonstrated truth for people here other than you?
Great. Thank you.
I meant, following the steps, not following you.
So, if I am asked for personal information, for example, by a stranger, you would suggest I should answer honestly. This actually happens a few times a week in front of the grocery store I use.
Some people will understand the proof earlier than others. This is because some are just more intelligent than others. Those who are really intelligent might find the proof by step 1 or 2. Everyone is different, so they will find the proof whenever they do. The proof arrives when one is intelligent enough.
Is it a demonstrated truth for you?
As for everyone else I suggest you ask them.
What do you mean by “following the steps”?
Do you have some underlying fear of being asked for personal information?
Why can you not, or why do you not, focus on ‘the way’ to Peace and Harmony, instead of worrying about being asked for personal information?
Again, you are absolutely free to choose whatever you want to do. So, ‘I’ suggest that ‘you’ take responsibility and make your own decision.
Okay. But this has absolutely nothing at all to do with the thread title of this thread that you began.
Unless, of course, you started this thread because you wanted to find someone to help you decide if you should provide your personal information or not.