So, can one find the proof before one begins the steps? Can the proof be presented in words here in the forum and have you done that? So, if someone doesn’t find the proof after doing the steps, they are not very intelligent? Does this mean that not everyone will find peace and harmony? That in the future there will still be those who do not have peace and harmony, the ones who are not intelligent enough?
No. I haven’t seen a proof that demonstrates that these steps lead to peace and harmony.
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?
I have a practical caution about giving personal information to people I do not know.
I am asking about what the steps entail. If you are suggesting I give personal information to strangers if asked, then I would have other questions. I am learning about the scope of the suggestion to always answer questions with the truth. Does the suggestion cover every situation?
Of course. I am asking about what you suggest. Do you suggest that I answer all questions with the truth when I am asked? I will take responsibility for the decision. I am asking you what you suggest.
Yes, it does. I am asking about what you are suggesting in relation to the steps. I am thinking of concrete situations where I might not want to answer with the truth. For example, when a stranger asks for personal information. So, I am trying to find out what you suggest. If you say you suggest I answer their questions, even from strangers wanting personal information, with the truth, then I understand the scope better of the step ‘Honesty’. I am asking clarifying questions about that step and I am making it specific, as you suggested once earlier in the thread. Is there a reason you don’t want to answer whether you would suggest I answer with the truth the personal questions I get from strangers? If yes, what is that reason? If no, will you answer the question?
So, after completing step 8, one can still misplace one’s trust in something (like a memory) or someone. Then how does Trust in step 8
If it does lead to one knowing a fact or the truth of a statement beyond absolutely any doubt at all, how does it do that? Has one become infallible upon completing step 8 regarding recognizing the truth? Your ‘no’ two quote up indicates one can misplace trust even after Step 8. So, Step 8 doesn’t not prevent error. There seems to still be room for doubt about the truth there.
Did you notice that you again wrote a statement, with a question mark at the end?
And, what example are you referring to here exactly?
Can the proof of ‘what’ be presented in words here in the forum?
I do not know what you are talking about until you inform me. So, I have no idea if I have done ‘that’.
you are again writing statements with question marks at the end of them, thus you are again revealing your pre-existing beliefs and/or assumptions here, which, as I have been continually saying, affects ‘the way’ you then ‘look at’ and ‘see’ things.
Instead of being open here, you are searching and looking out for ‘confirmation biases’.
As can be very clearly seen here, you have already jumped to conclusions, based upon nothing but your own personal pre-existing presumptions and beliefs, before you even wait for answers and clarity.
Which is why ‘I’ thank ‘you’ so much here for providing the proofs for ‘my claims’.
Notice how this is a conclusion, dressed up as a conclusion, which this one has arrived at based upon nothing at all besides its own already obtained personal assumptions and beliefs.
Once again, just about everything you have concluded, believing, and saying here is the exact opposite of what the actual Truth is.
The future cannot be one where there are still some not living in Peace and in Harmony for the very simple fact that everyone is born intelligent. Intelligence diminishes with age, not because it occurs without human interference, or what you might refer to as a ‘natural occurrence’, but because of ‘the way’ human beings are brought up and raised. When human beings are born into, brought up in, and raised properly and Correctly, then what you just said and claimed here could not occur. This means that because every one is naturally born intelligent, and that intelligence and ability remain within always, no one will be ‘left out’
Just because you, for example, have not yet seen a demonstrated truth in this forum for the process, this does not mean proof has not yet actually been presented.
you appear to prefer to go around in circles rather than just move along in a straight line.
I found that if you just moved along the straight and narrow Right path and TRACK, in Life, then you will find ‘the proofs’ and the answers that you need to live in Peace and Harmony with everyone.
Obviously, going around in circles is not really going to get you anywhere.
But, please carry on how you want to here.
Who cares?
In case you have forgotten, we are in a philosophy forum here.
If you want advice about what to do with what you call “a practical caution”, but which others might diagnose as ‘an irrational or baseless fear’, then I suggest going to an ‘advice forum’ or a “doctor” or “psychologist” for help or advice.
you appear to be asking more about some totally off-topic personal stuff.
So, if you ‘already know’ what seems like a ‘good idea’, to ‘you’, then why are ‘you’ asking ‘me’ for suggestions?
Also, considering that just about all, if not all, of my previous suggestions were completely and utterly ignored, by you, it seems rather contradictor, ridiculous, or
hypocritical that you seek out my suggestions now. Unless, of course, you have some ulterior motive.
Where and when exactly?
Okay. I suggest that you do absolutely anything that you want to do, which of course will not harm anyone.
you may have begun by asking me one question in relation to the steps, but then you quickly responded to my answer in relation to something else entirely. you did not stay focused on the steps. What you are focusing on now again has absolutely nothing to do with the thread title.
Well, only you, and you only, will decide upon what you might want or not want to do.
If you do not want to answer with the truth, then do not. How hard is this?
you speak as though there is only one variable under the millions of different situations.
Why?
you will never understand the 'scope of Step 2 - Honesty, at all, if you never become more open and curious.
you obviously have to read or hear Step 2 - Honesty, to understand the scope of Step 2 - Honesty, but just as obvious it is best to start at Step 1 - Openness, by reading Step 1 - Openness before you move on to and up to Step 2 - Honesty. The Right path in Life is to start at the bottom, and then move up these Steps.
you may as well ask clarifying questions about the “trolley problem”. There are just as many variables that no one could go through in “your problem/issue” here as there are in the “trolley problem/issue”.
I already answered. Did you miss and/or misunderstand those answers, as well?
I already answered, so they are redundant questions.
Did you purposely not finish the question here, or did you just forget to?
What are the two ‘its’ here referencing exactly?
One is much more capable of discerning Truth from truth, and from what is False, and false. Also, some might consider they have become fallible upon completely Step 8, recognising the truth. We will have to wait to see how you become, if you ever become curious enough to do them.
I don’t think I used the word ‘example’ in what you quoted. My only words in what you quoted were: So, can one find the proof before one begins the steps?
The proof we have been talking about in the thread. The proof that the steps lead to peace and harmony.
Do you mean that if someone doesn’t find the proof after doing the steps they are not very intelligent? Does this mean that not everyone will find peace and harmony? Does this mean that in the future there will still be those who do not have peace and harmony, the ones who are not intelligent enough? Is the proof not universal? or do you think everyone will become intelligent enough eventually?
OK. But won’t there be a transition? Right now we have many people who were not raised correctly. Many of these people are adults and their upbringing will affect their parenting approach with their own children, those who don’t manage to clear all the problems. So, how do these adults and their children when they become adults ALL, everyone one of them, become intelligent enough to find the proof?
Of course. I notice you don’t say if it has been presented or not. Has it been presented? If so, will you link me to where this proof has been presented in your next response? Thank you. You said earlier:
“I am not sure I presented any proof in my first response to your opening post here.”
I am not sure either.
You asked me a question that included my feelings.
I clarified, though you didn’t ask, that I was not worrying, but have a practical caution about giving personal information to people I do not know. That was not a request for advice, nor is it a sign of a medical condition - I mention that since you also suggested going to a doctor.
As I said, I am trying to understand the scope of your suggestion about telling the truth when asked questions. Are you suggesting we do that in all situations?
Then there was this part of the quote:
which others might diagnose as ‘an irrational or baseless fear’.
As you would say: Who cares? Who cares what unnamed hypothetical people might diagnose? What hypothetical “others” might diagnose is entirely irrelevant to a logical analysis of your steps. My questions about giving honest answers to strangers was simply mentioned to give you a concrete scenario to clarify the scope of Step 2. I know what you wrote wasn’t a way to sneak in an insult you can’t be held accountable for. I know this because you do not get angry and, in fact, you may well have been trying to help me. But, possible thoughts about my psychology in the minds of hypothetical people add nothing to the discussion.
I am giving you specific examples to understand the scope of your suggestion. Do you suggest that one tell the truth in answer to any question coming from anyone? If not, what situations or factors would lead to not telling the truth?
To understand the scope of your suggestions. To understand the steps, in specific ‘honesty’.
You quoted yourself then asked a question. I don’t know how to answer the question.
I am asking about your suggestion in relation to the step ‘Honesty’.
I am focused on Honesty, which is part of the proof. The steps have to do with your way to Peace and Harmony.
Again, asking you what you suggest, increases my understanding of the step, Honesty, and also of the way to Peace and Harmony. I am asking specific, clarifying questions. Is there a reason why you don’t want to say that you suggest one be honest in all situations, period? If yes, what is that reason? If no, will you answer the question?
I am asking questions, which is a sign of my curiosity.
You answered
I am asking what the suggestion is in relation to Honesty, to find out what you suggest to people in relation to this step. This is a yes/no question: do you suggest that I answer questions honestly, regardless of the situation, if I know the answer to the question? Will you answer that with either yes or no?
One has become ‘more discerning’ but not necessarily infallible. (I assume you meant ‘infallible’ not 'fallible, but if this assumption was incorrect, please let me know) So, how does Step 8 ensure that one has a proof, given that proofs as that which establishes a fact beyond absolutely any doubt at all. Since you have said that it is still possible even after Step 8 to misplace trust, how is this proof establishing a fact beyond absolutely any doubt at all?
Also, will you explain why the moon walkers’ experience or memory of the experience of walking on the Moon is 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.
You have agreed that memory is fallible. So, how is this a proof establishing a fact beyond absolutely any doubt at all. – this situation, with the moon walker’s is not a situation where they have gone through the steps. It is a general example of who can conclude something about the moon walking beyond absolutely any doubt at all.
At this point I have been told there is a proof. Sometimes it seems like it has been presented here. But then it seems it hasn’t. I am not sure what proof means to you if it has the definition your gave for it and the example you gave of the experiential is the example of a proof. Hence the clarifying questions.
Neither do I, but if you do not want to provide anything, then okay.
you seem to still be completely missing and misunderstanding here.
If you ever become open and curious and do the Step, then you will find the answers to the questions that you are asking here.
Unless things can happen absolutely instantaneously, there will always be a transition.
Okay, but why did you feel the need to tell us this?
This is why the nine-step process shows how to raise children properly and Correctly, so that they can then learn how to raise their children properly and Correctly.
As I said before, everyone is born intelligent, and this intelligence remains within everyone, just ‘hidden’ deep down.
That would depend on you and if you think or belief ‘proof’ actually exists or not.
Redundant for now.
I said what I did there because you just asked me, “What do you mean by ‘proof’?”
As can be clearly seen, you did not ask me to present proof.
Okay. But without further information, I have no idea what the connection is, if there is any.
Have we not already gone through this?
Exactly.
Why do you not want to just do Step 2 instead?
After all, the Steps are in direct alignment with your deepest desire and want.
Do you believe I put an insult somewhere in there?
Is there something that you want to get to here?
It appears that you have, still, not yet understood.
My suggestion was in direct relation to what you directly asked your question about. Which, once again, was Step 2 - Honesty.
So, once more, ‘my suggestion’ was in relation to the actual words in your question only.
I have already provided the three entirely different situations, and my suggestions for each one of them in regards to ‘my suggestion’ in regards to your question about Step 2 - Honesty.
Well, I would say this is a perfect time to remind you that I suggest you do the nine-step process.
Without looking back I must of made a mistake, but I would say that ‘my question’ would be in relation to ‘your reply’ between my two quotes.
And, I have answered you numerous times already in relation to your question in relation to Step 2 - Honesty.
Okay.
And, I gave you specific, clarifying answers to you asking specific, clarifying questions.
you missed and/or misunderstood the point.
If you do not become ‘more open’, then you will never understand.
Obviously, if you do not yet understand something, then you need to become ‘more open’ than you are already, which involves being more curious and more honest.
Also, a ‘sign of curiosity’ does not necessarily mean that you could become more curious.
I will provide more or less the exact same answer and clarity as I did before.
The suggestion in relation to Honesty, Step 2, is to always be honest.
Obviously, it would depend on the situation.
So, the answer is Yes in some situations, and No in other situations.
No.
Again, I will suggest that if you just stopped making assumptions, and sought out clarity instead, then you would stop making so many false conclusions as well as stop having so many false beliefs.
In the exact same way in each and every Step, which is, again, in the same way I have explained to you already in this thread when you asked me what I mean by ‘proof’.
Through the same way I have already described.
I have already done it.
Yes obviously.
you appear to love to ‘go around in circles’, as some say, as well as love to repeat “yourself”, and so ‘get nowhere’.
you have no intention of actually looking into 'my way to Peace and Harmony.
At this point, I have been told that there is no way to establish proof.
Review of this thread so far on the issue of anew1’s proof of the formula that leads to peace and harmony for everyone
Some key issues:
Honesty. I cannot get a clear answer on the scope of honesty, which is step two. Question:
greenfuse: I am asking what the suggestion is in relation to Honesty, to find out what you suggest to people in relation to this step.
anew1’s response:
“I will provide more or less the exact same answer and clarity as I did before. The suggestion in relation to Honesty, Step 2, is to always be honest.”
Very soon after this exchange:
greenfuse: This is a yes/no question: do you suggest that I answer questions honestly, regardless of the situation, if I know the answer to the question?
anew1’s response:
“Obviously, it would depend on the situation. So, the answer is Yes in some situations, and No in other situations.”
This was not the only time I got contradictory answers on the issue of Honesty.
I asked, as suggested by anew1, specific questions about Honesty as a step, in order to get clarification. I proposed a real life situation where a stranger asks me for personal information. I asked if he would suggest I answer honestly. I asked this question a number of times. I was told I should do what I want. But that isn’t an answer to the question. I asked again and was told that I should take responsibility for my decisions. I explained, again, that I was trying to see the scope of step 2 Honesty. I would, of course, take responsibility, but I wanted to know what he would suggest on the issue. I raised the issue again and I was told this this was a philosophy forum and that if I wanted advice I should go to a doctor or a psychologist.
This was suggested to me despite my repeatedly explaining that my intent was to see how he viewed the scope of step 2.
I was also told that some people might diagnose me as having ‘an irrational or baseless fear’. Well, sure. Some people think that chocolate milk comes from brown cows, so this kind of thing can’t be ruled out. On the other hand there are good practical reasons for not sharing personal information with strangers, certainly for not doing this as a rule. In fact the correct place to turn, if I was looking for advice, which I wasn’t, would be the police or a security/privacy expert.
Perhaps anew1 will follow his first suggestion and always answer questions honestly. I’ll ask and see: anew1: What is the exact latitude and longitude, or physical street address, of the building where the digital device you are currently typing on is located? What is the legal name of the individual or entity that pays the internet service provider bill for the connection you are using to access this forum? What is the legal first and last name printed on the government-issued ID card of the person currently operating your forum account? What is the exact bank account or credit card number used to fund your daily living expenses?
But then perhaps anew1 will follow his other suggestion, the one that contradicts the first, and consider context when asked questions by people he does not know.
Proof - especially experiential proof. a) I cannot get clarity from anew1 on whether he has presented a proof in the forum or the thread. When it seems he has presented it, he has not indicated where it is. It seems sometimes he is not sure himself if he has presented it or where it is if he has b) I see a direct problem with his definition of proof in relation to his description of, and example of, Experiential Proofs.
Let’s look at the first issue regarding proofs:
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.
anew1: What I mean by ‘proof’ is ‘that’, which establishes a fact or the truth of a statement beyond absolutely any doubt at all.
greenfuse: 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?
anew1: Yes.
anew1 also confirmed that memory is fallible.
His responses confirm that the experiential proof example he gave can not meet the criterion for proof that he gave, since there is room for doubt in that situation.
Now let’s look at the second issue related to proof.
I encountered some very odd responses when asking if the proof had been presented by him and where it had been presented. For example;
anew1: Just because you, for example, have not yet seen a demonstrated truth in this forum for the process, this does not mean proof has not yet actually been presented.
greenfuse: Of course. I notice you don’t say if it has been presented or not. Has it been presented?
anew1: That would depend on you and if you think or belief ‘proof’ actually exists or not.
My belief in whether the proof actually exists can affect whether he has presented it. Not merely that I might not understand it or recognize it, but it will have not been presented, if I don’t believe it exists.
Another example: anew1: “I am not sure I presented any proof in my first response to your opening post here.”
It seems like there is some mystery, even for anew1, about whether he presented his proof, in this thread or elsewhere. Perhaps he is reluctant to say whether he has presented the proof. When asked, he has said he can present the proof in words in a post in the forum. But when asked whether he has, no clear answer is given. When asked for a link to the post where he did this, if he did, no clear answer is given.
So, why do these issues matter. Well, as anew1 often points out, this is a philosophy forum. Here when someone says they have a proof of something - and this topic is an extremely important one - it is generally expected that they provide this proof, especially if they are making claims they possess this proof. He has implied/said at times that he has provided this proof. But where this is or whether it is in this thread, that remains something private. It is not clear to me that anew1 is being fully open and honest here.
In the first couple of posts, it seemed like anew1 was willing to present this proof, which, if presented, would allow me and others to read and be potentially convinced by the proof. In fact, he said that he had done this and that it was the list of steps starting with Openness and Honesty. If this is to be considered the proof, it would need more than a list of nouns. It would need sentences and the structure of formal reasoning, something anew1 told me one should use in a philosophy forum. Formal reasoning is even more appropriate in a proof.
However, as mentioned above, getting a clear answer on whether this proof has been presented, and if so where it has been presented, has not been forthcoming. It has been implied that if one does not find the proof, then one may not be intelligent enough.
As far as Honesty, step 2: I have been attempting to understand what these steps entail and what scope is suggested for these steps. After getting different answers - see above - I did indeed repeat the questions, trying to get clarity. He blames me for the repitition and loops. I think if there were less contradictions, clarity would have been reached much earlier. There is a whole other section of our discussion of this where given the time we are in, with the way some people are these days, it is not a good time to be completely honest. But in that same discussion he suggests we always be honest.
Honesty and Openness on anew1’s part regarding this process - not to speak of Trust and Love - seem to be lacking.
I remain optimistic, however, that it is possible for the discussion to return to the candor in the early part of the thread.
The reason this one cannot get a clear answer is because it has not yet even completed Step 1.
For this nine-step process to work one has to complete at least the first two steps in order.
So, until “greenfuse” completes Step 1 first, and then completes the others steps it will never get the clear answer that it wants here.
As I have already explained to “greenfuse” the reason the “trolley problem” has not yet be solved and answered by you people yet, is because there are just way too many variables to be considered first. Exactly like questions about if “greenfuse” should be honest when strange men ask for personal information. Again, “greenfuse” there are way too many variables, but I did give you three different scenarios and what my clear answer is.
Look, if you do not want to accept my clear answers, then if ‘I’ was ‘you’ I would wonder what is stopping and preventing ‘you’ from obtaining a clear answer and thus clarity.
Where do you believe the contradiction is exactly?
Also, there have been countless times I get no answers or clarity from this one. Let us see if I get one this time.
What do you mean by ‘scope’?
See if you can find a time when I have not. you have, after all, and as you like to point out over 30,000 posts of mine to go through and find those times.
LOL So, I tell this one that in ‘this world’ it is not a good idea to share personal information with strangers, yet it asks for personal information on a public forum. I have also explained what I suggest what I did was in relation to. Yet, it ignores all of this and picks and chooses one particular sentence and uses it out of context.
Where you like this when you were teaching?
Once again, ‘this one’ prefers to spend so much of its life ‘focusing on me’ and ‘talking about me’. Which some people would be wondering ‘Why?’.
But, we will never get an answer and clarity. Well not from this one anyway.
Are you some kind of complete idiot, are not yet aware of your shortcomings, or do you purposely try to decieve the readers here?
LOL I never even implied what you claim here, let alone said or wrote it anywhere.
And, I asked you what you mean by ‘proof’. Did you provide an answer and clarify?
If no, then what has occured would obviously happen.
Look, if you cannot be open and honest here, then you will continue to not be able to comprehend and understand things here.
This is another prime example of this one jumping to a conclusion, believing its own made up conclusion exists without any doubt at all, and all coming from it own pre-exiting assumptions.
Which makes what it is doing here even more ridiculous and stupid.
Notice how simple and easy it is to manipulate this one into reading things in the completely False and Wrong way. But, what is absolutely hilarious is that it beleives that its own misinterpretation and misunderstanding is the one and only way to “see” things.
LOL This one asked me a question, which anyone can go and find, which was my first response to this one’s opening post here, which is again ‘about me’.
And, as absolutely anyone can see, I was asked what some thing means ‘to me’. I provided my answer, and even some explanations to look at and consider as well.
LOL As absolutely anyone can see no proof was asked for. So, there is absolutely no mystery at all to me. I just presented my response so ‘I’ could manipulate ‘you’ to conclude and believe some thing that did not even exist. So, that ‘I’ could point out to others just how simply and easily these people, back in the days when this is being written, could be tricked, fooled, and deceived. And, ‘I’ was doing this all the time while being open and honest ‘with them’.
How they were actually being tricked, fooled, and deceived was by their own pre-existing assumptions and beliefs, which is ‘the thing’ that was fooling them and leading them completely and utterly astray.
Which, again, is the very reason why it was taking them so long to ‘catch up’ and find the Truths in Life, which brings everyone together to create and live in Peace and Harmony, as One.
Look at how allusive and evasive this statement is. There is not a single word about what the word ‘proof’ is in relation to exactly.
“greenfuse” just wants you to believe, absolutely, that ‘I’ am reluctant to present ‘some proof’ of ‘something’. “greenfuse” certainly does not want anyone to question and challenge it. And, if anyone does, then it certianly will not be open and honest, and answer and clarify.
Again, what are you even talking about and referring to, exactly?
Watch how it will deflect and deceive here. If it even provides any response at all.
Have ‘I’ ever said anywhere that this topic is an extremely important one? Or, was it actually you who made that statement?
Let us see what answer and clarity is provided.
So, if I have said it, then I have already asked your question, obviously.
Does it? Or, could it be the case that actually you are not listening and hearing here?
Great, the more you present views like this ‘about me’, the more actual proof you are providing here ‘for me’.
Therefore, there is even more proof here, but which you cannot find and see.
Once again, it uses the words ‘this proof’, as though absolutely anyone reading this even knows what it is talking about and referring to exactly.
This inability to notice and be aware here is the result of one living ‘within their own head’, as it is called.
I even offer up where the proof is exactly, but it has chosen to not read up.
So, sometimes it claims that I have not said I have done it, but then other times I claim that I have said I have done it. Which really makes some wonder what is going on inside ‘that head’.
LOL So, even when I specifically inform it that it needs to do the steps, it still cannot comprehend that it needs to actually do the steps.
LOL It appears that it has actually believed all along that me just presenting a list of ten words is going to provide it with all the proof that it says it is looking for here. Come on “greenfuse” you can’t be this stupid surely. Especially considering your claim that you used to be a “teacher” of all things.
LOL, LOL, LOL So, it is, after all, actually this completely stupid.
Even when I have informed it that one has to do the nine-step process, which includes examples, explanations, and logically reasoned conclusions or what some might call proofs, this one has not been able to comprehend and understand these words, and has started this thread on some completely absurd and ridiculous presumptions and beliefs.
How many times does a human being need to be informed that you have to do the nine-step process to find the proofs that make it understandable.
Imagine this one wanting to pilot a helicopter. LOL it would expect that from after reading a one page list of the processes involved that it could and would then be able to pilot the helicopter all by itself. LOL it would be expecting all the lessons to be learned, and all of the proofs and explanations, would be just in the list of the actual process needed.
Are you absolutely sure you used to teach “students” “greenfuse”? After all, you do seem to have a real lack of reading comprehension.
And, I have been attempting to inform you that you would need to do the processes involved. Exactly like if you were attempting to understand what the steps entail and what scope is suggested for these steps if you wanted to learn how to understand and fly a helicopter. you, obviously, have to be actually prepared to ‘just do it’.
Obviously, if you do not do the course, you will never come to understand the process involed.
Could I make this any simpler and easy for this one to understand?
Once more, it is allusive and evasive. ‘trying to get clarity’ on ‘what’, exactly?
Well, considering that you are the only one doing it here, who or what else would you like me to blame?
What you “see” as contradictions are actually not. But you are not yet open and honest enough to come to realise this fact.
See how it lies, to deceive. LOL ‘same discussion’. you make me laugh “greenfuse”.
So, it does not want to do ‘the process’, but it expects to learn and understand how and be able to live in Peace and Harmony with others.
It is also possible for you to ‘just know’ how to fly a helicopter without completing the required course and processes as well. But do not expect others to trust you.
Look, it is this simple, you will never come to know until you do the nine steps.
But unfortunately anew1 seems uninterested in resolving his contradictory statements and resorts to insults.
“Are you some kind of complete idiot, are not yet aware of your shortcomings, or do you purposely try to decieve the readers here?”
“Which makes what it is doing here even more ridiculous and stupid.”
“LOL It appears that it has actually believed all along that me just presenting a list of ten words is going to provide it with all the proof that it says it is looking for here. Come on “greenfuse” you can’t be this stupid surely. Especially considering your claim that you used to be a “teacher” of all things.”
“LOL, LOL, LOL So, it is, after all, actually this completely stupid.”
“Are you absolutely sure you used to teach “students” “greenfuse”? After all, you do seem to have a real lack of reading comprehension.”
He also uses dehumanizing language, referring to me as ‘it’ and ‘this one’. Note that he refers to me and others this way when there is more open disagreement but avoids referring to people this way when there is no disagreement. So, insults arise when there is disagreement or even mere questioning. He has stated he never gets angry. Fine. But he behaves in ways that humans do when they are angry, precisely when he meets resistance or questioning of his ideas.
Let’s look at the learning to fly a helicopter analogy, which is I think a good one. I have used similar suggestions and analogies around learning other things. I have mentioned earlier in our discussions that I respect experiential learning and often this is the only way to learn. Words on the page and screen are limited. Certain things can only be learned by doing. Unfortunately, anew1 is writing defensively and cannot seem to remember that, in fact, I am quite open to this way of learning.
anew1 wrote: Imagine this one wanting to pilot a helicopter. LOL it would expect that from after reading a one page list of the processes involved that it could and would then be able to pilot the helicopter all by itself. LOL it would be expecting all the lessons to be learned, and all of the proofs and explanations, would be just in the list of the actual process needed.
Of course. But note how he slides in the word ‘proof’. It’s not a proof. Note also: he never present a list of the actual processes needed. He presented a list of nouns. He answered yes when asked if he could present the post in words in the forum. But of course this kind of learning process cannot be written out in words. Though it certainly could be made vastly clearer, for example by using sentences.
Imagine a helicopter student getting a list of nouns.
Calculation
Attention
Coordination
Awareness
Judgment
Restraint
Patience
Composure
Precision
Responsibility
Adaptability
Imagine someone comes to anew1’s helicopter pilot school. Gets this list and starts asking questions about the scope of calculation or restraint. The student is told to calculate always or to use restraint always. The student then brings up situations where the student might not want to use restraint or be calculating all the time.
The student then gets the following contradictory messages: always calculate and use restraint, let the context affect when you calculate, do whatever you want, take responsibility and make your own decision. So, the student gets contradictory messages, irritated responses, and only hears about letting context affect things after he has presented his own practical concern, perhaps after an accident. Imagine that when the student tries to reconcile these mixed messages with the flight instructor, he is told that perhaps he should go to a doctor or psychologist, and that some people would think he has an “irrational or baseless fear.”
Also, this makes it clear that anew1 cannot write the proof out in words. Yet, he said a number of times that he could write the proof out in words. One cannot write out in words the way the student pilot’s body is integrating new movements and procedural cognition patterns. And that’s fine. anew1 can well have found a process that works, but there was no reason for all the games and vague statements and confusing messages. A helicopter pilot is not going to mess around like this and will have nothing to defend or cover up. No, I can’t write your whole training out in a manual. We’re going up in the air. For some reason anew1 kept claiming he could write the whole proof out in words and also called it a proof. Further, if the student had a question about the issue of always doing something on that list, any competent flight instructor would treat that question with respect. Some of those important nouns are not meant to be performed all the time. And context matters.
Personal information
“LOL So, I tell this one that in ‘this world’ it is not a good idea to share personal information with strangers, yet it asks for personal information on a public forum. I have also explained what I suggest what I did was in relation to. Yet, it ignores all of this and picks and chooses one particular sentence and uses it out of context. Where you like this when you were teaching?”
This is the presentation of a falsehood. In fact, when I brought up what I called a practical caution about sharing personal information, he said that some would view this as having a baseless fear and that I should speak to a psychologist or doctor. And of course, anew1 was not going to reveal that personal information. I never expected him to. He is not stupid. My point was not to get the information he would never give, but to show that his early explanation of the step of Honesty was very problematic. And also to show that it is not a problem on my part bringing up context. He did not. I had to bring it up.
It is also a falsehood because of that: despite acknowledging - only after I brought up the issue - that context matters, he still asserted that his suggestion was to always be honest. And note that he does not deal with that contradiction at all in the previous post, between his two suggestions around this issue.
The Trolley Problem
“anew1: As I have already explained to “greenfuse” the reason the “trolley problem” has not yet be solved and answered by you people yet, is because there are just way too many variables to be considered first. Exactly like questions about if “greenfuse” should be honest when strange men ask for personal information. Again, “greenfuse” there are way too many variables, but I did give you three different scenarios and what my clear answer is.”
This is misleading also. All he had to do, immediately, was say: yes, there are situations where being honest is probably not the best idea. I don’t know the strangers outside your grocery store or what information they are seeking, but of course, practical caution may well be the right choice in many situations. But that is not how he reacted at all. I had to be stubborn with the issue, which led to insults on his part.
There is absolutely no sign that anew1 would ever have suggested that people should not always be honest. And he has continued to post his suggestion that they always be honest. Yes, he also posts a contradictory suggestion, but cannot seem to admit this. The referring to the Trolley Problem only supports my concern that context be taken into account, something that earned me condescension, dehumanization and insults.
A helicopter training school that had instructors like this would go out of business very fast, what with the lawsuits, rising insurance costs and dissatisfied students.
Imagine the helicopter pilot just letting his or her students find out what can lead to helicopter crashes given certain contexts. Well, what did you expect? Yes, you are following the steps, but you don’t do X when the wind is at that speed. That’s why we crashed. No, the instructor is going to encourage caution and tell the student that context can affect the suggestion. anew1 only did this after I brought it up and weathered his insults and condescension.
anew1 knows that people have gone through abuse. He thinks everyone has and I agree. Nevertheless, he thinks that suggesting people always be open and honest is okay. The only reason he ended up taking into account context was because I brought it up, and because I brought it up I became the butt of insults and condescension.
Imagine someone who has been sexually abused hearing anew1’s suggestions. In addition, hearing him assert that he has solutions not only to all of their personal problems, but societal level problems. And that anew1 himself no longer suffers emotionally at all. Well, perhaps they go out and try to be open and honest, with predictable results in their workplaces, interactions with strangers and so on. A competent teacher or helicopter pilot trainer will inform that student that there are situations where always doing X is a problem.
I did not know what anew1’s proof would be and approached it with lots of questions and interest, politely raising issues where I saw them. Did he get angry? Who knows? But unlike any professional helicopter pilot trainer even questions themselves were treated as conclusions and as me having a problem.
Imagine a helicopter pilot trainer proudly saying something like this about one of his students:
“Notice how simple and easy it is to manipulate this one into reading things in the completely False and Wrong way. But, what is absolutely hilarious is that it beleives that its own misinterpretation and misunderstanding is the one and only way to “see” things.”
Though I do appreciate the honesty here. Yes, anew1 manipulates. He has denied this, but at least he can now own up to how he treats people.
Those who walked on the Moon: anew1’s way of dealing with the obvious contradiction around his Experiential Proof and his Moon walkers example, it to attack me. He doesn’t understand that the contradiction is right there in the quotes I presented and they don’t go away if there is some problem with my epistemology. Could their memory of the event be fallible? Yes, he answered. And note: this is not some radical skepticism asking this question. It’s hardly some rare occurrence that people have false memories or are confused about what happened. This is banal. And it means that his experiential proof is not a proof, at least not in that example. Of course, we all trust memory to a great degree. He is the one who does not do evidence. He supposedly only considers something true if there is absolutely no chance it is false. Absolutely. His wording. It is not my fault that he acknowledges that it might be false. And, to his credit he did acknowledge this. But he refuses to modify either his definition of proof or admit there might be a problem with his example or with calling it a proof.
This last part is for anyone wondering what I meant by dehumanizing language that appears only when anew1 receives criticism, even polite criticism, here are some examples from his latest response:
“The reason this one cannot get a clear answer is because it has not yet even completed Step 1.”
“So, until “greenfuse” completes Step 1 first, and then completes the others steps it will never get the clear answer that it wants here.”
“Also, there have been countless times I get no answers or clarity from this one.”
“Once again, ‘this one’ prefers to spend so much of its life ‘focusing on me’ and ‘talking about me’.”
“Notice how simple and easy it is to manipulate this one into reading things in the completely False and Wrong way. But, what is absolutely hilarious is that it beleives that its own misinterpretation and misunderstanding is the one and only way to “see” things.”
At this point I will continue to participate in the thread, mulling on the ideas he has managed to share with us. Unless there is a change in his approach to responding, I will be much less likely to respond to him. The topic is interesting and I wish he could have been more open and honest, but I can continue the discussion with what we have learned so far. This being, as he often reminds others, a philosophy forum.
you not providing any claimed contradictory statements after you were asked you reveals more truth here. Also, if you find those remarks and questions insulting, then you really do not to grow up and mature.
Now that we have finally got here, all this one really wanted to do with this thread is what it has been doing every time it talks ‘about me’. So, any pretense that it was after clarity in regards to the very thing that creates Peace and Harmony has completely gone. The Truth is now out for all to look at and see.
Oh, and by the way, I have never used dehumanising language at all or ever. This is just another False and Wrong conclusion you have arrived at, again based on absolutely nothing at all other than your own misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and False and Wrong beliefs and assumptions.
Note how it tries its hardest to fool and deceive you readers here.
LOL This one has just provided another prime example of projection and of one who is absolutely angry here.
Again, this one has completely and utterly missed the point.
If you do not ‘do’ the process, then you will never ‘experience’ it. To do it you, obviously, have to read it. And, considering that you obviously do not want to read it, you will never gain experiential learning.
If you were not writing here, I would never have imagined how many points can get completely missed.
Reading words, like in a textbook, program, or process, is ‘doing’. So, if you never want to read ‘the process’ of how to create and live in Peace and Harmony, then you will never be ‘doing’ what is needed to obtain the ‘experiential learning’.
Are you sure you are not a “comedian”?
Imagine informing someone that there exists a nine-step process that leads to understanding Peace and Harmony, which bridges the division between people and thus unites everyone together, and that someone never asks if they could ‘do’ the nine-step process, but then LOL claims that it is quite open to doing ‘the way’ of learning needed here.
LOL you are proving that you are not open at all to the experiential learning process needed here.
Note how it is again being evasive and does not say what ‘the proof’ would even be for exactly.
Were you too stupid to comprehend and understand that the actual process needed is learning and understanding ‘Openness’, ‘Honesty’, ‘Love’, and the rest of the other six steps.
you obviously have not yet learned and understood why you are not yet open and honest, and obviously do not understand how these things are achieved fully, just like you obviously do not yet know what ‘love’ is exactly. If you ever chose to ‘do’ the nine-step process, you would learn and understand about each and every step along the way. Again, the proof becomes obvious, but only after you ‘did’ what is needed to ‘do’ the process.
Why do you believe, absolutely, some things like this, which are absolutely False and Wrong?
LOL This kind of learning process has already been written out in words.
If a helicopter student got a list of words like that, then they would either presume that to do ‘the course’ they would need to read up on, learn, and understand each of those words in the list.
The scope of the process would obviously be to read what is involved in each of those steps. But, then again, the helicopter student, if open, would just ask a clarifying question like, “What are those words for exactly?”
Imagine being some kind of idiot and starts asking something like, “What is the scope of calculation or restraint?” to the teacher. The teacher would probably say something like you will have to wait until we start studying that step.
The student obviously would not get their licence. The whole point of studying and learning each step is because of the things within step need to be studied, learned, and understood.
The students would learn the reasons why ‘restraint’ is needed to fly a helicopter while also learning and understanding the very reasons why calculating is necessary all of the time.
But, obviously, if the helicopter student asked the helicopter instructor something like, “What restraint do you suggest I use when I am asked for personal information from a stranger in the street?” the student will not get the answer and clarity that they are looking for. If the student brings up that it might not want to be calculating all the time while in shopping malls or in the street, then the instructor might say something like, “Who cares?” Followed by, “We are at helicopter school here”.
Also, if, for example, the student asked the instructor, "What do you mean by ‘restraint’ and ‘calculating?’ And, the instructor said something like, “You will need ‘restraint’ and ‘to calculate’ all of the time”, then this would, obviously, be in relation to ‘the course’ and ‘the process’ in learning and understanding how to fly a helicopter.
you are a complete imbecile, or what you are trying to do here is falling apart completely and utterly.
LOL If a helicopter student asked the question, “What do you mean by ‘restraint’ and 'calculating in steps 1 and 6?” And the instructor responds, answers and clarifies, “It is best to always show restraint and be calculating [in relation to helicopter flight”, but the student then as, “But what about when I am in a public street and a stranger asks me for personal information, what do you suggest I do?” The instructor would be more inclined to wonder if this student is even capable of learning and understanding how to fly helicopters, and might suggest that they go see a psychologist for the ‘issues/problems’ that one obviously has.
It is like you have completely and utterly forgotten that you asked me for clarity in regards to learning and understanding the nine-step process, but after I provided examples and clarity, you then turned my answer ‘around’ or ‘into’ some completely off-topic situations that had absolutely nothing to do with ‘my course’ and ‘the process’ involved. The only real contradictory message here is that you turned my answer about ‘my way to Peace and Harmony’ into some completely other situation and scenario. Which you then demanded answers from me.
This has already been responded to.
LOL it again uses the words, ‘the proof’, but never ever tells any of the readers here what ‘the proof’ is even in relation to exactly?
I have already explained numerous times the reasons why I write ‘the way’ that I do here.
But, of course, this has been completely and utterly missed and/or misunderstood by this one.
The whole ‘training manual’ is being written. Once more, I just wait for only those who are really interested in learning and understanding more and anew.
Obviously, a good instructor would not take a student where they are not yet prepared for, or have not yet learned and understood what is needed first. Thus, why you still are, where you are now.
And, the more you speak and write, the more I suggest you speak to some specialists.
Are you a complete idiot?
Even though I explained, specifically, what the words, ‘this world’ were in reference to exactly, this one still managed to come to a complete misunderstanding.
I couldn’t be bothered reading and responding to all of the rest. Until you show that you have the ability to understand the words I use here, the only thing you are really doing is just continually providing more and more ‘proofs’ for my claims, especially regarding how the Mind and the brain work exactly.
Once again for the deaf and stupid. I back up and stand behind the words that I have specifically chosen to use here.
And again and always I thrive on being questioned and challenged. So, I invite absolutely anyone of you human beings to challenge and question Me here.
Imagine believing that you belong to a superior species, while also being such a very sensitive individual, that you feel hurt and find being called ‘this one’ and ‘it’ insulting.
This is further proof of just how abused this one has been. it has not yet learnt how to grow up and mature.
“Reading words, like in a textbook, program, or process, is ‘doing’. So, if you never want to read ‘the process’ of how to create and live in Peace and Harmony, then you will never be ‘doing’ what is needed to obtain the ‘experiential learning’.”
Weathering insults and games and allusive responses, I tried to get anew1 to write the process, so that I could read it. And of course reading is a kind of doing, though not so helpful alone for flying helicopters or bringing peace and harmony to the whole world.
“If the student brings up that it might not want to be calculating all the time while in shopping malls or in the street, then the instructor might say something like, “Who cares?” Followed by, “We are at helicopter school here”.”
“The Instructor… might suggest that they go see a psychologist for the ‘issues/problems’ that one obviously has.”
Yes, but if the student is trying to find out if they should always be doing one of the important tasks of a helicopter pilot, the instructor will understand and explain how context affects that task. If I had asked, should I answer honestly when no one is asking me a question and I am alone, that would be an odd question.
“Also, if you find those remarks and questions insulting, then you really do not to grow up and mature.”
Of course, I should have asked clarifying questions. For you complete idiot and complete imbecile and stupid may well be compliments. Perhaps I haven’t really do not to grow up and mature.
“LOL it again uses the words, ‘the proof’, but never ever tells any of the readers here what ‘the proof’ is even in relation to exactly?”
They can always read the OP: you know, philosophy forum general practice. And it’s funny, you knew all through, but they couldn’t know.
“The scope of the process would obviously be to read what is involved in each of those steps… This kind of learning process has already been written out in words.”
It was a list of nouns. I read the list of nouns. Now he seems to be arguing that reading his list is enough. Before it was the gaining of procedural and other knowledge through experience. The latter makes sense, not that it constitutes a proof, but one can learn real skills that way.
“Imagine being some kind of idiot and starts asking something like, “What is the scope of calculation or restraint?” to the teacher. The teacher would probably say something like you will have to wait until we start studying that step.”
Not if they have been told to always be calculating and using restraint. That’s the parallel. The student is told to always be calculating and the student thinks something like ‘even in very turbulent weather?’ Might this not be a distraction? Or they might wonder, given all the tools present in the helicopter that measure things, if one might not need to calculate the entire time. Some things, like having consistent attention would obviously be wise the whole time. This seems like a very, very harsh and abusive helicopter teacher. How dare the student ask questions? (after being told that clarifying questions are welcome and good)
Imagine being some kind of idiot
Yes, I have no idea why I did ask if this word was meant as a compliment. Imagine my childishness thinking it is an insult word. The other odd thing is: man this peace and harmony teacher and this hypothetical helicopter teacher, they have some very harsh thoughts about students. There really has to be a better peace and harmony school somewhere, and there really has to be a better helicopter school somewhere.
The Reality of Trauma, Boundaries, the Danger of ‘Always’ and what needs to come first for many people.
One issue I would like to explore further is something I started touching upon earlier: people who have been abused—let’s use the specific example of sexual abuse—may not need to first learn how to be open and honest, but rather need to learn how to establish good boundaries and practice healthy caution around others.
People react to abuse in many different ways, but a very common pattern involves a severe struggle with boundary-setting, being overly trusting, or consistently putting oneself at risk. You could classify this as a deficit in healthy boundary management; you could call it submissive behavior, or you could call it “fawning.” It may also manifest as a chronic freeze response that has never been properly mobilized or loosened since the original trauma occurred.
Consequently, giving trauma survivors the blanket suggestion to “be open,” “withhold judgment on what others say until you are sure,” or “always be honest and answer questions honestly” is precisely the wrong prescription. For many who have navigated severe trauma, this isn’t just unhelpful; it is actively dangerous.
The Mechanics of Predation
Why is this advice so harmful? Because information is leverage. People can easily weaponize personal details against you. This risks practical dangers like identity theft, but it also provides the exact raw material needed for psychological grooming and early-stage predatory manipulation. In fact, one of the primary traits that interpersonal predators actively look for is a lack of healthy boundaries. They look for individuals who stay open and self-disclose when they should be skeptical, guarded, or erring on the side of caution.
When a simple nine-step framework is presented as the proven formula to world peace and harmony—by someone who also claims it will entirely eliminate personal emotional suffering—it carries an incredibly intense, seductive appeal to vulnerable minds. I have been called a variety of names for simply pointing out these gaps and asking basic questions. It was only after a prolonged effort on my part that I finally extracted concessions that context actually matters—and that was only after weathering a gauntlet of condescension disguised as pedagogy. And even when these concessions came, the original ‘always’ formulation was also repeated, which is a kind of unintended gas-lighting.
The Trap of Binary Authority
Furthermore, many survivors of abuse struggle deeply with challenging an authority figure—especially one who, regardless of what they claim to feel internally, behaves with what would be in others hostile language the moment their ideas are questioned. This dynamic can easily replicate past trauma, pressuring a vulnerable person to remain open when they should close down, or to stay honest with individuals whose predatory intentions are not yet fully visible.
For these individuals, a legitimate first step toward healing might look like the exact opposite of absolute openness:
Learning to build rigid boundaries.
Practicing the word “No.”
Making protective, defensive decisions early—even if they do not yet have all the variables or information.
In real life on the ground, waiting for full information before protecting yourself means the truth will arrive far too late to keep you safe.
Anyone who claims that everyone has been abused, and simultaneously claims to possess the ultimate blueprint for human harmony, should understand this fundamental psychological reality. Presenting a rigid checklist with the mandate to “always do these things” is a recipe for absolute disaster. You certainly do not protect or help people by punishing them with insults when they ask perfectly reasonable safety questions before applying those suggestions to their lives.
Of course anyone always being honest is heading for some serious problems unless they are independently wealthy and have friends who can work with this. And generally taking small steps, especially in the beginning is likely wise.
A lot of people on philosophy forums assume that if an idea is true, it can be fully proven with words on a screen. But that’s just not how reality works. Experiential learning is necessary to find out what one can experience and decide works (for you or in general). It’s not a proof, but it is necessary. Sometimes in philosophy forums you will see discussions, for example, where an atheist expects the theist to prove there is a God. And often theists think they can do this. But actually if the atheist was actually interested is seeing if he or she could and would believe in God, joining a religions community, participating in rituals and practices, reading scripture, getting trained in the practices stands an actual chance of this person becoming a theist. Words on a screen…incredibly unlikely.
Sure, reading is a type of experience, but there’s a massive difference between knowing that something is true (propositional knowledge) and knowing how to actually live it out (procedural knowledge). The latter is about capabilities, skills, reflexes, and emotional patterns built over time. There is a qualitative gulf between the two; you can’t just read a concept and suddenly possess the capacity.
My main issue with the “always be honest” formula is that it completely lacks scaffolding. It doesn’t give you a safe, low-stakes environment to start. Telling your boss exactly what you think of their intelligence, opening up to a close friend about something they did that hurt you, and handing over personal details to a stranger are all treated as if they carry the exact same weight. They don’t.
When you’re learning any complex skill, you need challenges that stretch you without breaking you—you need to build a track record of small wins. A blanket suggestion to “always be open and honest” throws people into the deep end before they know how to swim. If someone tries this on their boss, gets penalized, and ruins their work environment, they’ll naturally conclude that honesty is a mistake and abandon the practice entirely. If they have a different kind of boss than gentle forays into honesty might be low stakes. You don’t learn to fly a helicopter in a storm on day one. You spend time on the ground starting to put in place reflexes. You fly on good weather days for short periods. You don’t try to land on rooftop landing areas. You don’t try complex maneuvers. You build slowly with easier challenges and the trainer provided ongoing scaffolding.
That’s why the learning process needs stages.
A realistic, low-stakes starting point is honesty with yourself. If you don’t even know what you genuinely think or feel, you can’t be honest with anyone else. It’s incredibly easy to mistake cold, intellectual clarity for deep honesty while totally avoiding your actual emotions through denial, avoidance, or selective attention. This internal work is deceptively hard, but it’s the natural step one. There are many people who think they are honest, but who actually have no real ability to notice or admit parts of themselves that are ego-dystonic. So, their honesty is impoverished and while they might even pass a lie detector, they aren’t actually being honest with themselves or others. They can with great sincerity tell you they are not angry, when their behavior says otherwise. They don’t know themselves very well. You have to be curious about stuff at the edge of awareness: emotions and thoughts that you may not approve of, so they can be easily missed. Sometimes it is like coaxing shy animals out from a cave. Also, if you do this work for a long time, you can immediately tell when someone has not integrated their shadow. They are utterly unaware of all the ego-dystonic stuff in themselves. They project it on others. They deny it. And they tend to be very fragile when disagreed with because their shadow (thinking a bit along Jung’s version of the shadow here) is now getting triggered and this is very destabilizing. Rage, terror, confusion about oneself, cognitive dissonance, shame etc. rise up and need to be avoided.
From there, in terms of low stakes, you can move out to trusted relationships where there is enough emotional safety to make mistakes and course-correct. It even helps to be upfront about the process: tell them you’re actively practicing honesty —not to provoke them with your honesty, but to learn and for whatever purpose you have in choosing to be more and more honest. That context changes everything; it invites the other person to cooperate instead of getting defensive.
Sharing personal matters with strangers or people with power sits in a completely different category. It can be wildly unpredictable, which is exactly why it’s a terrible place for a beginner to start. To navigate a complex social world, radical honesty requires a massive amount of intuition, timing, and situational awareness. Without a developed sense of context and consequences, blindly applying an absolute rule is just going to be self-defeating.
In education, that’s exactly what scaffolding is for. It supports you just enough to tackle things you can’t quite do on your own yet, aiming for that “sweet spot” of difficulty—hard enough to learn, but not so brutal that you get overwhelmed and freeze.
Any real life-practice needs this kind of progression. You can head off into real life in-person interactions with the suggestion always be honest, but this is a poor way to develop a capability/attribute.
Once more, this here is a philosophy forum. It is not a place where one downloads their books or written works that belong in other places.
I have also tried to get you to just answer some simple questions posed to you for clarity. But, like I have informed you before, we do not always get what we want.
Once more, ‘the process’ is reading the whole teachings. Again, you obviously have to first ‘do’ the course [read the writings/book] to understand it. I have highlighted what is in the writings. What do you want me to do now?
At least you have finally worked this out.
Of course, one has to read a book before they could understand it. So, as I say, you have to ‘do’ the process before you can comprehend and understand the process. The process is ‘just do it’. If you want to understand how to find and live in Peace and Harmony, then you need to read what is involved in creating it and living it.
If one ever comes to have enough interest, then what they will find is why human beings are not yet living in Peace and Harmony together, which only when this is known can prevent and stop ‘the cause’ of why it has taken so long for adults to come to realise their Wrongdoings. Once adults first accept responsibility, for the Wrong that you all do, and then take responsibility, to change for the better, then the world itself will also change for the beter, then the True healing can and will begin. From which World Peace ensues, forevermore.
It really is this simple and easy. I, again, just wait patiently for those who are honest, open, and curious enough.
Of course, reading alone does not bring about Peace and Harmony for everyone. This is also explained in the instructions. you obviously have to want to do what it takes to create Peace and Harmony, if you want to live in ‘that way’ and in ‘that world’. ‘This goes without saying’, as some might say. But, obviously, you have ‘to read’ how to make it come to Reality, before you could even begin to behave in the Right way that makes It come about.
If, for example, the student is trying to find out if they should always be doing one of the important tasks within the process of learning how to fly a helicopter, and the instructor informs them that Yes. then, once again, if the student goes off on some randomised tangent about wanting suggestions if they should do ‘that’ also in the street or at the mall, then, again, the instuctor will query if that one is ready for this course.
Again, you asked me something in regards to Step 2 - Honesty. in the course/instructions and way to Peace and Harmony. I informed you that it is best tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth always. Which, once more, means that while reading Step 2 - Honesty in the instruction manual to World Peace, it is always best to be honest in all ways, always. If one does not want to do this, then they do not have to. And, if one is wondering if they should provide personal information to a stranger or not, then this has absolutely nothing to do with ‘the process’ to learning how to live in Peace and Harmony with everyone, as One.
“greenfuse” Why do you think other people can comprehend and understand this simplest suggestion, but hitherto you have not been able to?
What could be stopping and preventing you from seeing and hearing what is being written and said here?
Please do not just react as you usually do and actually think about what the question is asking you.
And remember, I have already informed you of what it is exactly why you keep missing and misunderstanding here.
As always, this is an open question asked solely for clarity sake, have you been diagnosed with any type of mental condition?
Why do you go off on some of the weirdest and most outrageous tangents?
I thought it was a completely “out there” question to ask me what I suggest you do if and when a stranger asks you for personal information, especially considering we had just been discussing what to do in Step 2 of a nine-step instruction manual. But, then you come up with this, another absurd piece of information.
Look, if absolutely anyone asks you a question, then just provide them with your honest answer. Full stop.
Look at your first sentence here in direct reply to my quote, and please explain the correlation.
LOL This is a prime example of this one’s ‘black and white’ Wrong thinking. Which is one of the reasons why it jumps to so many False and Wrong conclusions.
Why even when I make an obvious mistake, do you copy my obvious mistake as though you missed it completely?
Of course, they can read your opening post, but as you just about always do you will not just answer and clarify. Which may well probably be just a habit from teaching students. you do not want to look stupid when you do not know the answer, so instead of just being honest and admitting the truth you end up misbehaving like a “politician” instead.
And, what is a “philosophy forum general practice, exactly?”
Now, watch and note how it will not answer or clarify at all. If one were to read back over our discussions, what is very clear is that this one has a real fear of just being open and honest here.
Also, where is this absolutely absurd presumption of yours that ‘I know’, “philosophy forum general practice” coming from exactly? The Truth is I have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what ‘your version’ of “philosophy forum general practice” is, and I certainly have no idea what it even has to do with “They can always read the OP” either.
Look, the very reason why you do not inform the readers of things like what ‘the proof’ is in relation to exactly, is because you do not even know. you have shown many a time that you use words without never even considering what they are actually saying and meaning. And, you have proved on many occassions that you do not because you are asked to clarify, you deflect and “run away”, as some would say.
LOL What is really funny is that you would make this accusation, but, again, without it ever being made clear what it is, even in relation to exactly.
I would challenge you to explain to the readers what you are referring to exactly, but I have learned that doing so is a complete waste. What I actually know is that you are unable to.
you are the only reader here who has come to the conclusion that “he seems to be arguing that reading his list is enough”. There is not a single human being reading this thread who thinks this
In fact, the obvious Truth is I have been saying the exact opposite. But, this will not stop you trying to deceive and fool the readers here.
you have once again completely and utterly missed and misunderstood what I have very clearly written. Or, you are just still trying to deceive and fool the readers here.
you have still not informed the readers of ‘What do you mean by ‘proof’?’ Nor, have you explained whether you believe ‘proof’ can be obtained or not.
And, what the readers will very clearly see here is that you will still not provide any clarity at all abou this
you, the student, asked the question. you were told by, the instructor, always. Either accept the instructor’s suggestion, or move on. Obviously, being informed that in regards to helicopter flight you always need to be using restraint and calculating, and you go off on some tangent about something like, “Do you suggest that I always use restraint and be calculating when talking to strangers in the street?” Then the instructor might not give you the answer/s that you are hoping for.
OBVIOUSLY, that thought is in relation to helicopter flying, and NOT in relation to talking to strangers at the mall.
Can you, still, really not see the actual difference here?
Are you serious? Of course, it is a distraction. And, also of course, it is better to be calculating, unless, of course, with someone like you who sounds like you just panic and would be seeking advice and help from another.
Look, if during ‘turbulent weather’ you do not want to be calculating what the best thing to do is, and you just want to ‘panic’, for example, then go on and do that. As always, you are absolutely free to choose to do whatever you want to do.
LOL you can keep wondering whatever you like. But, if you keep doing that, you will never get to become a helicopter pilot, nor get to actually live in Peace and in Harmony.
Notice how quickly ‘this one’ drifts off and on to something else, which has absolutely nothing at all to do with the previous thought and thinking?
If you already know what is obvious wise, then stop asking the teacher/instructor Truly insane questions.
One could also point out the insanity of asking questions about what one suggests another does at the mall when talking to a stranger, when the topic of discussion ‘was’ about something else entirely.
One this one has just again shown is that as an adult it considers itself superior. it believes that any Wrong thinking does not occur within it, but only happens to those like children, as though children are less than it.
Also, it believing, absolutely, that the ‘idiot’ word was used as an insult only goes to show just how closed it really and truly is.
See, how it jumps to conclusions, based on nothing at all but its own presumptions, and then believes its own made-up False and Wrong conclusions are the absolute truth. Yet, as I will now prove, once more, when I ask it to provide proof of when I have ever had some so-called “very harsh thoughts” about students? Watch as it will not provide a single thing.
So, go to them. you obviously have not yet been prepared for these classes.