It's time to wake up!

a reply to: Itisnowagain

It was a post, which clearly stated my position, from way back in the thread. It was originally a reply to Andy.

ETA:Claiming that I have not been clear and asking me to clarify is BS when I can't be any clearer.

a reply to: daskakik
Would you say that because it cannot be proved it should not be shared or written about?

It isn't about any concept in particular. It isn't about my proof or your proof.

It is about what people consider proof and how you can't change that.

I said I agree with this, but it wasn't the point I wanted to discuss. We were discussing different things mostly all along it seems.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Would you say that because it cannot be proved it should not be shared or written about?

Nothing wrong with talking about it but don't act like it is something certain.

originally posted by: Andy1144
I said I agree with this, but it wasn't the point I wanted to discuss. We were discussing different things mostly all along it seems.

What am I supposed to be claer about if not my point?

Most of what I have discussed has been in support of the point made in that post.

a reply to: daskakik

You can prove that all there is, is this moment, to yourself. Some may agree and some may not, but it is true beyond a reasonable doubt. This is fool proof logic. Not just a baseless opinion. This can't possibly be proved wrong.
You then make different points on what I said which were irrelevant to the logic itself.

EDIT:
But since all this discussion was one big mess of subtle points, let's just start fresh, try to forget everything said in the past. Is there anything wrong with the logic I just used? We'll get to the other points later, but's lets start new.

originally posted by: Andy1144
You can prove that all there is, is this moment, to yourself.

We already discussed that. "To yourself" means squat to everyone else.

This is fool proof logic. Not just a baseless opinion. This can't possibly be proved wrong.
You then make different points on what I said which were irrelevant to the logic itself.

Call it whatever you want. It won't change what it really is.

''But since all this discussion was one big mess of subtle points, let's just start fresh, try to forget everything said in the past. Is there anything wrong with the logic I just used? We'll get to the other points later, but's lets start new.'

So lets try to forget all the points we've said in the past an start here. Do you agree with the logic I have stated, that all that can be experienced is this moment?

originally posted by: Andy1144
''But since all this discussion was one big mess of subtle points, let's just start fresh, try to forget everything said in the past. Is there anything wrong with the logic I just used? We'll get to the other points later, but's lets start new.'

No, we started fresh a cople of times already.

So lets try to forget all the points we've said in the past an start here. Do you agree with the logic I have stated, that all that can be experienced is this moment?

That is the crux of the clarity problem. You don't understand that I am not going to discuss something that I have to prove to myself when, saying that I have and disagree causes you to lock up and just outright dismiss my experience. What am I supposed to discuss?

a reply to: daskakik

That is the crux of the clarity problem. You don't understand that I am not going to discuss something that I have to prove to myself when, I say that I have and disagree causes you tolock up and just outright dismiss my experience. What am I supposed to discuss?

I don't know what you experienced. So I need to ask you what self inquiry and DE is so I know what you're talking about when you say you have experienced DE. There were some clear indications that you don't know what I mean by DE and thus I had to ask you what you think they mean. So I can know were not meaning different things with the same words.

originally posted by: Andy1144
I don't know what you experienced. So I need to ask you what self inquiry and DE is so I know what you're talking about when you say you have experienced DE. There were some clear indications that you don't know what I mean by DE and thus I had to ask you what you think they mean. So I can know were not meaning different things with the same words.

Makes no difference to my point.

I have said that a bunch of times as well. Do you need clarification for that as well?

a reply to: daskakik

I replied directly to the part quoted. I don't understand what your point is because you have a tendency to not answer questions straight away. So tell me simply what your point is.

originally posted by: Andy1144
I replied directly to the part quoted. I don't understand what your point is because you have a tendency to not answer questions straight away. So tell me simply what your point is.

We just went through this at the top of the page :

It isn't about any concept in particular. It isn't about my proof or your proof.

It is about what people consider proof and how you can't change that.

I said I agree with this, but it wasn't the point I wanted to discuss. We were discussing different things mostly all along it seems.

a reply to: daskakik

There we go again. Please just answer the question, because it seems the way points you make are interchangeable depending on what I say, so I really don't know what your main point is. So what is it? Just answer.

a reply to: Andy1144

I did answer the question. It's right there.

It isn't about any concept in particular.

So whatever definition that you think your concept has does not apply.

a reply to: daskakik

Does not apply to what? I don't even know what you're talking about because of how vague you are. Itisnowagain is right for asking you if your speaking riddles.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Does not apply to what? I don't even know what you're talking about because of how vague you are. Itisnowagain is right for asking you if your speaking riddles.

Since I made that post I have said it again and again, my point "isn't about any concept in particular.".

Your definition of DE and self inquiry have no bearing on "my popint". That is why I don't need to answer your simple questions, because it has nothing to do with my point.

a reply to: daskakik

my point "isn't about any concept in particular.".

So what is it about?

originally posted by: Andy1144
So what is it about?

You must be trolling because it is the last line of that post and has been posted a few times in this page alone, "It is about what people consider proof and how you can't change that."

a reply to: daskakik

I agree with that statement, I've already said. I can't change what people consider proof but maybe they are open to changing their standards. If they are, then I need give my views for the other person to consider.
So not necessarily. People can change what they consider proof if they are open enough.