Tippaporn

@Sunmaster Separate. Another question. Again from your perspective, why is Sunmaster in this world?

@Sunmaster A different tact. A question. From your perspective what's the point of becoming aware of the rest of yourself?

Dr. Robert Sapolsky is a Professor of Biology, Neurology and Neurosurgery at Stanford University. (The dude on the right.) Oh my God! This is what science is teaching at one of the premier higher learning institutions? As I've said before, science does a good job uncovering the physical processes by which the physical world functions but when it comes to the subjective world they have no idea of what they're talking about. Good grief! Denying even the most obvious aspects of reality seems to be in vogue these days. From girls becoming boys to boys becoming girls to men having the ability to menstruate and get pregnant to now questioning whether or not free will exists. WTF is going on? All I can say is that it ain't gonna end well. Dr. Robert Sapolsky certainly looks the part he's playing. That dude needs no make up whatsoever. I couldn't resist hearing what he had to say in explanation but I couldn't listen to more than a few minutes. Whew! For your sake, save the frogs, I hope you don't take this guy seriously. Amazing. He's an actual science professor at Stanford teaching impressionable kids absolute nonsense. Whew!

Human comforts and toys. And entertainment. Desires don't much go beyond that for many.

Shiny trinkets. It's always the trinkets! It seems that it's the only thing folks are interested in. What's the old saying, "You can't take it with you." There are, however, things you collect in life that you do take with you. Or not if you haven't collected them whilst here.

I think we maybe have to distinguish between identity and identification. Okay. I'll go with that. As in this case: Instead, you form the physical body that you know at a deeply unconscious level with great discrimination, miraculous clarity, and intimate unconscious knowledge of each minute cell that composes it. This is not meant symbolically. Now because your conscious mind, as you think of it, is not aware of these activities, you do not identify with this inner portion of yourselves. You prefer to identify with the part of you who watches television or cooks or works - the part you think knows what it is doing. You have multiple aspects but are not aware of them and thus identify with the only one you are aware of. Personally, I'd use plain English when speaking of duality and non-duality. If folks have to look it up to understand it then it makes communication more difficult. And impossible if the reader doesn't know what the term means and doesn't look it up. Just a suggestion. BTW, it's one of the reasons I never got into Eastern religion or philosophy - too much special meaning jargon. Same with science. Ever open up a Wiki page on some scientific subject and every other word is a hyperlink? What an absolute maze as you end up with a dozen Wiki pages open! Other than that I'll hold off on commenting on the substance. How about identifying with all of them simultaneously? You can be aware of all of them whilst focused on one identity. Or several at the same time. "I am Joe, and Jane, and Jim, and Bob." How many identities can one be aware of at the same time? Or isn't that possible? Ever awaken in a dream and realise you're dreaming? You have awareness of both your waking self and your dreaming self, don't you? They are distinct yet simply different aspects of "you." Is it possible to identify with more than a single portion, or aspect of one's self simultaneously? I believe so! I'll go with Seth here on us having a very limited idea of identity. Where you believe that one has to dis-identify I believe that one has to identify with more than what they identify with. Again, I believe you view is due to the limited understanding that we have of identity. Perhaps I should post some pertinent Seth material. I have something in mind which I consider fantastic but boy is it lengthy. BTW, how would you answer these questions? Since I have already put together material on the ego I may as well not let my work go to waste and post it. It certainly can't hurt, even if this conversation shifts to identity. Again, I've included the context of any discussion of the ego so it's broader in scope. And one can never read it too many times.

As it's laid out I can't say I disagree. Way too many contradictions. There is truth there but it's distorted beyond recognition. Which is why I don't subscribe to any religion. But I wouldn't go so far to say religion has zero value. It's simply not a very efficient way to learn as one has to sift through the chaff to get to the grain. The problem with that is that for a lot of folks the chaff looks just like the grain.

First of all, that's a beautiful post, Vince. And this statement is music to my ears. Well done, sir! And such a wonderful example, too!! I watched Gore's 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth (I can't call it a documentary since there's no truth in it) and I admit my initial reaction was, "Oh my!! This is terrible!! I wasn't aware of it." But that sentiment faded just as quickly as I was able to think through his premises and assumptions. Now if you don't mind I'll add my analysis of this particular experience of yours in the form of a general point. Evidently you were first convinced of the reality of climate change as explained by Gore and others, as was I, and you happened to do your own research which led you to find out differently. Put in a different way you could say that your investigation led to an expansion of awareness. You became aware of information which existed all along yet had to be sought out. You didn't know it existed until you looked. Initially you had no evidence of it's existence but despite that lack of evidence you decided to look anyway. And lo and behold you found it. Bottom line: you searched for contrary evidence despite not knowing whether or not it existed. Not only is that good science but it's also good practice in general. People have beliefs, a belief being, as you say, something which is considered to be true. The problem is that all too often once a person adopts a particular belief they never go back and examine it to check it's validity. Not only don't they not search for contrary evidence they tend to reject any contrary information anyone presents them with. They end up not seeking the r-e-a-l truth but rather are only interested in upholding and confirming the "truth" of their belief. What you did with climate change you did with an open mind. When someone defends their beliefs and refuses to consider information to the contrary they do so with a closed mind. I wanted to emphasise your anecdote because there's a valuable lesson in it. Now just an aside that's totally unrelated . . . I purposely framed your investigation as an 'expansion of awareness' to dispel the notion, which is common, that it refers to some kind of esoteric experience. It's really just a very apt phrase of ordinary English words which describe quite ordinary, everyday experience. Learning, any learning, such as the education everyone gets in school, for example, is in essence an expansion of awareness. Since it's often the chosen term used by those who delve into spiritualism the term then has an attached air about it as something mystical. Nothing of the sort. It means nothing more than what the definitions of the plain English words define them as; becoming aware of something one hadn't been aware of before. 'Expansion of awareness' is interchangeable with 'expansion of consciousness'. They're really one and the same as consciousness is awareness. There isn't a single reason for the push for climate change. Multiples of multiple reasons. Lots of players and every player has a different motive and interest - or agenda . $$,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$ is one reason (I think the number of dollar signs I typed out represent tens of trillions, which is probably an accurate amount that's at stake). Control of the population is another. Improvement of the natural environment is one, also. Which reason depends on the player. What's Greta's motive and interest? I'd say multiple.

@Sunmaster Geezus, I've been waiting for a reply for over 10 minutes now!! Going on 15 minutes!!

@Sunmaster I couldn't help but give you a teaser on Seth's information on 'identity'. I chose a rather jaw dropping one purposely to get your reaction. As I alluded to in my post above, there is no single line development of consciousness. Consciousness takes many different lines of development, some of which would be quite foreign to us. Our type of consciousness has taken but one line of development and currently we accept it as the only one. In the systems in which evolution of consciousness has worked in that fashion, all faculties of body and mind in one "lifetime" are beautifully utilized. Nor is there any ambiguity about identity. The individual would say, for example, "I am Joe, and Jane, and Jim, and Bob." Let me know if your jaw dropped or perhaps you're familiar with this and you are nonplussed by it. Note to anyone else reading this. Given current mass accepted ideas you ain't gonna make sense out of it so don't even try. The fact is reality includes so much more than most can conceive of even in their wildest imaginations. But it does exist despite an unawareness of it's existence.

Ok, I see we are jumping right into the deep end of it. 👍 Perhaps I didn't choose my words wisely, as I know that for a Sethian the word "entity" is loaded with a lot more meaning. I know that the ego is not a separate thing and that it is a dynamic system. I'm a visual learner and when I think about the ego, I picture a wave. If you look for it, you can't find a clear separation between the wave and the rest of the ocean, yet we can still identify that little portion of the ocean and give it a name (wave). This is a great analogy for the ego. We have an idea of what it looks like even though it is in constant change, because it still is identifiable as an apparent, separate entity. However, if we use our inner senses and start to explore and analyze the ego from within, if we dig deeper and deeper, we come to realize that what we thought had form as an entity, under close scrutiny evaporates right before our eyes. It is nothing more than consciousness itself, temporarily manifesting as a conglomeration of energy. So, why the need to defend this small portion of your existence? Yes, subordinate. Just like the wave is a subordinate system of the ocean, the ego is an expression of a bigger system. This is not judging its value (good or bad)....it's just a dispassionate observation. Of course, it's an important function, I'm not denying that. I want to make one thing clear. This is not a witch-hunt against the ego. The ego itself is not the problem. The problem is our identification with the ego. Would it make sense for the ocean to identify with a tiny wave and believe that this is all it is? Ultimately, what every religion at its core, every spiritual path is doing, is to shift the perspective from the subordinate, apparent wave-entity to the ocean-entity. But even that is not the end. Even the ocean is subordinate to something else. Can you guess what it is? Who is that which is feeling? Is it the ocean or the wave talking about itself? The wave will find a million reasons to justify its own existence and why we should "improve" it and not "kill" it like a bloodsucking vampire. But a rabid, aggressive dog doesn't become tame just by fitting it out with a cute dog costume. A restless monkey will not calm down by trying to reason with it. What you focus on, you give energy to. Why focusing on your wave-ness when you can just as well focus on the ocean-ness? The ocean in the meantime, is there to witness it all. No need to change anything, no need to improve anything. Whatever happens on its surface doesn't affect its ocean-ness at all. One more time to make this completely clear. The ego as an apparent, separate entity is neither good or bad. It is what it is. It is helpful for when we interact with the material world. It is not helpful if it prevents us from seeing that we are the ocean. The difference is the degree to which we identify with it. Which brings us back to the ultimate question: Who am I? Am I the wave, the ocean or.....? Good morning, Sunmaster. Okay, as I mentioned in my last post oftentimes I hold off on replying immediately if I feel I need more information and/or more time to get insights as to where your thinking is and, more importantly, what the crux of it is. Now there are two ways I can interpret our discussion thus far and I admit I'm not sure which is the correct one. We could very well be on different pages or on the same page. I woke up this morning and spent an hour composing a reply based on the interpretation I felt was the correct one, which I've now trashed (but saved just in case it is correct ). Before I settle on that one I felt it best to pick your brain a bit more first. The last thing I want to do is to misinterpret you and then in my reply make it sound like you're saying something you're not. I kinda feel relieved I didn't yet hit the "Submit Reply" button prematurely. Since reading and rereading your last few posts, including your post entitled "Shattering the Ego," you ask: Which brings us back to the ultimate question: Who am I? Am I the wave, the ocean or.....? Now it appears to me that you have questions as to 'identity'. Your question is framed as an either or. "Am I the wave, the ocean or . . .?" That certainly implies that our identity is singular. It's either the "you" that's reflected in the mirror or the greater, more expansive "you." But it can't be both. So in order to know which of my interpretations is correct (or perhaps partially correct) I have to ask you what your present concept of 'identity' is. I will say that Seth provides a great deal of information and explanations specifically on the subject of identity. And he's made it crystal clear that our current concepts of it are woefully limited. Which, of course, does lead to problems on a certain level. Then again, our current focus on and awareness of only a singular identity - the one in the mirror - is a specific path of development which our consciousness has taken for the purpose of expressing ourselves in a way which could not be expressed if we were to be aware that there is much more included in our identity. Seth's material on identity is covered in much greater detail in his books after The Nature Of Personal Reality. If you haven't read those books I'd recommend reading them. Now as I'm quite familiar with Seth's concepts of identity I could furnish some material that would be quite intriguing and illuminating. In your post, "Shattering the Ego," you made this statement: Dis-identifying with the outer ego is therefore necessary to blend with the Oneness, which brings bliss. The concept of blending our physical consciousness with Oneness and thereby achieving bliss, to me, is most definitely Eastern religion based. And one which I'm not fond of for it implies an end to our current type of consciousness along with it's separate, unique and individual identity. Is that a state which you are actively after? And if it is then what of the Sunmaster "you?" Is that "you" discarded or, rather, blended into the Oneness, or absorbed by it, and so ceases to exist as a separate and unique identity? Do we have only a single identity? Temporarily separate until merged? In any case, it appears to me that our discussion might veer off into the issue of 'identity' and what that truly is rather than the ego. Fix the identity problem and what the ego consciousness is will automatically become clear. Ball is now in your court again.

Thanks for you efforts, Charlie. I didn't get to see the mess, though, so I'm not sure what the clean up was about. Any gruesome pics you can share? Or are they too graphic? And a Happy New Year to you and your family, Charlie.

@Sunmaster Oops!! I hate getting caught in lies. I'm being taken away from my computer by my family. My wife grabbed my arms and my daughter my legs. I tried holding on to the keyboard but I had to let go to prevent ripping out the chord. I'm afraid I won't be back until tomorrow. I hate when life gets in my way.

Yeah, when you get to a certain age the sobering up process becomes so taxing that you give up drinking. At least that's been my experience I still enjoy a beer or a whiskey, soda & coke now and again (prefer Southern Comfort to Black Label but Southern Comfort is a liqueur, not a whiskey, though it's colouring is similar and thus can confuse). But one of the last times I had more than a few bottles of beer whilst at home i tried to feel my wife up. The trouble with waiting for science is that, in my humble opinion - which certainly has a lot of unspoken basis to it, 'one day' will never come. Simply because science has hogtied themselves with their methodology über alles making it's task literally impossible. But, you just can't explain it to 'em so that they'll understand. Well, the problem isn't that you can't explain it well enough. Rather they can't hear the explanation with the palms of their hands covering their ears. And I fully agree with you that there needs to be a melding of science and spirituality. One or the other alone just isn't enough. As to replying to your other posts I have to say that I oftentimes hold off on replying immediately for a number of reasons. My prime reason is that too often my initial on-the-fly response is not my best. Depending on the subject matter I may wait a day, or even more, to allow insights to bombard me. When that happens my fingers are extremely challenged with hitting the keys fast enough to keep up with my thoughts. And I'm a fast typer. Also, I prefer to get to the heart of an issue. Giving it some time allows for that to expose itself to me. And, in our particular case, I need to hear more from a poster on a particular topic. But I did arrive at a response for your posts. I'll be typing that out as soon as I hit "Submit Reply" to this post. Don't go to sleep too early tonight.

No problem.

Now to reply to your post. Okay. I'll grab the most recent one. It's still warm. Barely a few hours old. Not buried yet. While your response to TBL does not flat out say "I believe in a single reality" it is, however, implied. It is impossible to express such sentiments while holding to the belief that other realities exist for the two are contradictory. Your nous would tell you that, correct? Nous. I like that British slang. As much as I do I prefer Sherlock Holmes' 'deductive reasoning'. Or one of my favourites, "the proof is always in the pudding." Now if you still object then we can settle this very quickly with a direct yes or no answer to a simple question. Do you believe other realities besides ours exist? I have to make one thing clear, though. Quantum physics proposes the idea of a multiverse where basically every probable variant of an event exists. And some hypothesize of an infinite number of such universes. From Wiki on Multiverses: The multiverse is the hypothetical set of all universes. Together, these universes are presumed to comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, information, and the physical laws and constants that describe them. The different universes within the multiverse are called "parallel universes", "flat universes", "other universes", "alternate universes", "multiple universes", "plane universes", "parent and child universes", "many universes", or "many worlds". One common assumption is that the multiverse is a "patchwork quilt of separate universes all bound by the same laws of physics." Here's an interesting article which explains the concept in very basic terms. The Many-Worlds Theory, Explained “Every quantum transition taking place in every star, in every galaxy, in every remote corner of the universe is splitting our local world on Earth into myriad copies of itself.” I disagree with much of their speculations but I do commend them as they are exploring the idea of probable realities and alternate realities, which are quite valid propositions. I hesitate to explain that concept in any great detail as it would take quite a bit to explain and it would also necessitate the introduction of so many other concepts for it to be understood. Yet sadly even the multiverse theory is confined to only physical reality. When I ask you if you believe in the existence of more than one reality then I'm inferring that not all realities are physical. Subjective reality, for instance. Briefly, physical reality is considered a camouflage reality. The definition of a camouflage reality is the appearance reality takes as it expresses it's larger reality in a different medium. No different, really, than art in which it's expression can take different forms depending on the medium - paintings upon a canvas or a model in clay or a pencil drawing on paper. The variety of camouflages reality can take is infinite. Just wanted to make that clear so that you know what you're answering to. Good enough. I can agree with that definition. I'll have to go through the rest of your post later. Outta time for today. Cheers, Vincent.

Continued . . . Our consciousness is independent of our physical form and therefore survives death, our continued existence is in another reality, pathways exist which connect these two realities, we are constantly learning, or growing. Given the above, then, I propose this scenario as a valid possibility which cannot be waved off as not possible. Now it's assumed by many that all knowledge which is available to us humans has a single source; our reality. Which is a quite natural assumption to make if, indeed, our reality is all which exists. It could not come from anywhere else. Once the idea of multiple, interrelated realities is accepted, however, then the assumption that the source of all of our knowledge is our singular reality automatically gets sh!tcanned. For that assumption's very existence is dependent upon another assumption; a singular reality. It cannot exist without it. So, if knowledge also exists outside of our reality would the knowledge which exists there be able to intrude into our reality? Now that sounds like a reasonable and logical inference to make, does it not? After all, given the assumptions in my hypothesis then if our very consciousness is able to traverse forth and back, and forth an back multiple times in the case of reincarnation, then what is to prevent knowledge from doing the same? My proposition, therefore, is that knowledge exists both in our reality and outside of this reality and that knowledge does indeed flow in both directions. Bottom line is that what others who have left our reality have learned, and continue to learn, can be communicated back to us. What a shocker. I know. And now you know where the source of my information comes from. Of course that's not my sole source. There's me, too!! I joke. But then again I don't. Reality is much, much more than most understand it to be. And certainly there will be instances where the actual truth lies in the opposite direction of accepted truth. It's tough on people when that happens. To experience all of their seemingly sound reasoning and watertight logic of which they are so proud to fall to pieces. Of course I wouldn't think of omitting myself from that crowd. There are many things which block access to the knowledge which lays outside of us (but really within us). I've discussed a few of the major ones before here and elsewhere but another is the simple lack of patience. Long ago in another thread on a similar topic in this very subforum whilst discussing with another poster this other poster then asked me flat out, "Well, what's your idea on life, then? Explain it." My response was this: "To ask me to take such a vast and complex subject and attempt to distill it down to a single post would be unfair to me. And if I attempted to do it then that would be unfair to you." He replied in agreement. Though it was perhaps the only thing the two of us agreed upon I respected him for not only being able to admit to the truth of it but even more so that he was able to understand the truth of it. The point with my anecdote was to bring awareness to the fact that our experience in this world is so vast that it takes patience, and quite a bit of it, to assemble an accurate working which accounts for not some but all of experience. All of it must be tied together. Not an easy feat but still doable. Why am I telling you all of this, Vince? So that you can understand, and maybe even appreciate, that there exists knowledge of which we know little. To keep an open mind. And to not hold so tightly to preconceived ideas that it prevents you from seeing what else out there exists. With sincere respect, Vince.

Continued . . . Damn, I forgot a few more assumptions to round out my hypothesis. If our consciousness is independent of form and thus survives death, and if that inherently implies that our existence continues in another reality, then it would logically follow that for us to be in this reality and emigrate to another there must exist a pathway for us to move from here to there. Also, if our consciousness survives death then the question begs, did our consciousness exist before we came here? Now if we assume that our consciousness existed before death then the inherent implication there is that there must of existed a pathway for us to have been able to immigrate to Starship Mother Earth. Which means that if a pathway between realities exists then existence before birth and after death would mean that travel on this pathway is multi-directional. For the sake of clarity I'm afraid I'll have to recap my hypothesis once again. Our consciousness is independent of our physical form and therefore survives death, our continued existence is in another reality, pathways exist which connect these two realities, we are constantly learning, or growing. Okay, I added the forks and knives to our table setting. My basic hypothesis is complete. So far so good? Any objections thus far? I'm relying on you, Vince, as you utilise well sound reasoning, to perform a reasoning check. Sound or no? Don't forget to kick the tires to make sure the logic is firm. Good there? Perhaps I should ask you first if you're still on board and playing. Asking because I know there's a lot of quitters in the world who aren't serious enough and their stamina wanes quickly. You've noticed by now, I'm sure, that I love to present serious ideas in a humourous fashion. And my sincere apologies if you don't appreciate the humour. So in all seriousness can you find any flaws in the reasoning or logic around which my hypothesis is structured? If not then I will continue.

Continued . . . So where is it that I'm getting my seemingly bizarre ideas from? What's my source of information? And how and why do I trust it and even rely upon it? To answer those questions it will be necessary to make a few assumptions, or working hypotheses if you prefer. Out of all of the unanswered questions which have stymied man for centuries perhaps one of the most pressing ones is that of what becomes of us at death. I say 'pressing' because given the seemingly thrust upon terms of our existence in this reality our mortality is limited. I could also say that it is one of our most concerning questions as, well, we all have to kick the pot sooner or later. Okay, so the first necessary assumption to be made is that of our continuing existence. The answer to the question of whether or not we survive death is actually to be found in another question: is our consciousness dependent on form? For if it is not then we can safely assume that we survive our physical demise and vacating our physical bodies, which are a necessity for interacting in this realm, means that we find habitat elsewhere - wherever that my be and in whatever form. Now for me continuing existence is not an assumption but fact. But since others are not so convinced as I we'll presume it to be an assumption. Our working hypothesis to make rational the rest of what I propose, to the end that I reveal my source of information. Now the concept of continued existence beyond this reality carries with it an inherent implication. For continued existence to be true then what also must be true is the existence of more than one reality. That much should be wholly self evident since logically if we are not here then we must be somewhere else. So the assumption that multiple realities exist is inherent in the assumption that our consciousness is independent of our human form and survives death. There's another issue that needs to be included in this hypothesis of mine. And I believe that issue is the fact, which I believe everyone here considers as 'fact', that whilst we are in this world we are engaged in constant learning. A synonym of (constant) learning would be (constant) growth. I could one more issue and that would be the question of mortality. Whilst it is beyond obvious that mortality applies in this world then if we survive death what becomes of mortality? The inverse of mortal existence is eternal existence. Yet that question is not necessary for my working hypothesis. One more assumption as true would need to be made. Given that we are learning in this existence can we safely assume we would be engaged similarly in any other existence? My hypothesis includes continued learning, or continued growth. So now the table has been set complete. To recap: 1) Our consciousness is independent of our physical form and therefore survives death, or mortal existence, 2) our continued existence is in at least another reality, and 3 & 4) we are constantly learning, or growing. Ah, sh!t. I'm having to scroll again. Which means another 'continued' post. I'll leave it to Sylvester to express for me the minced oath of "Suffering Savior."

@VincentRJ and everyone else here for that matter. @Sunmaster @save the frogs @thaibeachlovers @Red Phoenix @Mike Teavee @Chris Daley @OneMoreFarang @xylophone @Walker88 There. That's the usual list of suspects. My apologies if I've included anyone who feels my invitation unwelcome. Please just ignore, then. And my apologies for those I've left out who may feel a bit spurned. But I am limited as to how many posters I can include as mentions. One more helpful explainer post before I respond to your recent post, Vince. The purpose of this one is to aid your understanding of where I am getting my peculiar positions from. For many of them are quite unconventional and, dare I say, even seemingly radical from the perspective of mass accepted beliefs about the nature of ourselves and the world. That will, hopefully, go a long way in helping you cope with the many seemingly outlandish propositions I make. I will try my best to keep this post short as my head is already filled with enough information which I feel applicable in sharing to fill a thin volume. Working towards that effort I'll dispense with my long personal history covering my journey of how I arrived at my ideas. Suffice it to say that I, like everyone else in this world - including yourself, Vincent, had many unanswered questions as to who and what I am, were I had come from (pre birth), why I find myself in this world without the slightest explanation given nor even a rudimentary primer of instructions, what I am intended to do whilst here, and whence I'm going after I take that ultimate final breath. Not to forget such questions as to what this world is, and I prefer to use the term reality, and how exactly it functions. We're all in the same boat, aren't we? To continue. As everyone is searching for their mystery answers some of us have noted something odd. All of those whom we had assumed were qualified to provide us with answers to our burning questions were found, after careful examination of their answers, to be sorely lacking. And oftentimes contradictory or just plain wrong. Too often. Whether it was our parents and teachers or our great and wise? institutions such as religion and science. Feeling unsatisfied some began to search for answers elsewhere. And as we had already looked under every rock and in every crevice the idea dawned that perhaps the answers were to be found where no one was looking - not in hidden places but rather in unexpected places. Which went a long way in explaining why, after may millennia, crucial answers still escaped us mortals to this day. Another fascinating discovery we've made is that true answers to some questions lay in the direct polar opposite of where the answers we've been given by almost everyone lay. In other words, so much of what has been accepted on a mass scale as not only true but self evident as well is false and what is actually true becomes a direct contradiction to that. And so in many instances the fallacious logic kicks in that consensus equates to truth. How is it even possible that 99 out of 100 can be wrong? In any case. this realisation which has dawned on more than a few also goes a long, long way in explaining how it is possible that the actual truth remains hidden for so long when it's actually been in front of our very noses all along. Now I oddly seem to refer to myself in the plural here but it is only because I am not alone. There are many who have stumbled upon these realisations so I speak not just for myself. I'm going to cut this post off here as it's just dawned on me that this post is, unfortunately, going to exceed even the most generous definitions of 'short'. As TBL has so wisely taught me, peoples' eyes tend to glaze over when confronted with long posts. Everyone's time is valuable and no one wants to waste it on a bunch of nonsense. So by truncating this post here to continue it in another post it affords the opportunity for folks to stop reading now. If they haven't done so already. By the way, I've come to invent my own device which I now use as a measuring system to gauge my post lengths. As I'm on a PC my reply box is fairly large. If I have to scroll with more than a single turn and a half of my mouse wheel in order to navigate the entire post then it is too long. Just trying to use a scientific approach rather than an entirely subjective one. To be continued . . .

@VincentRJ Before I reply to your latest post, Vince, I thought it important to first go off on a side issue of a general nature. Oftentimes during an exchange I'll pose some questions to a poster in order to understand better their viewpoints and where their particular viewpoints are coming from so that I might be better able to get to the crux of their thinking and thus be able to respond more appropriately. To my way of thinking, and per my experience, that saves time and needless back and forth exchanges that don't get us any closer to any mutual understanding. After all, isn't the entire purpose of these exchanges an effort to reach mutual understanding? Or to provide personal insights which others can then benefit from? Else to me this is all a waste of time. In my view if I'm asking a poster questions and receive no answers then I become wary of them in the sense that I tend to doubt their sincerity to expose their true thoughts or their intention to be utterly forthright. Now what I've just expressed is not to be mistaken as my demanding answers to my questions from any poster. I'm simply expressing what I feel to be fair in what I should be able to expect from a poster as a response. Others are certainly free to decide for themselves whether what I feel is fair is fair to them. Perhaps a real world example is in order to help clarify my position. Professionally I'm an independent engineer and designer. When I receive a new design oftentimes there is critical information missing which I absolutely require before I can proceed. In such cases I will send my customer an email requesting the missing information by listing it out in a numbered list so that nothing gets missed. It's been my experience that at times I may request 10 pieces of information and receive a reply providing me with only a single piece of missing information. I then have to go through the process of re-requesting that which is missing and oftentimes this may go several rounds before I have everything (and in many instances, too, with my customer asking if I had started on the job yet ). In any case, I hope that anecdote serves as a bridge to help understand that some of my questions, most of them actually , are to provide me with critical answers which I require in order to properly respond to a reply. Hey, ich bin ein Deutscher and we Germans love efficiency.

Thanks for the day off, @Sunmaster. I won't have to reply to any of your posts today since I'm sure you're still trying to figure out exactly what planet you're on after last night. Now we all do expect for you to report back in tomorrow as usual as the holiday will be over. And we're anticipating a full accounting of your experiences, along with detailed interpretations, of your altered state of consciousness. Where you anywhere in the vicinity of God's neighborhood? Or did they bar the gate when they saw you coming? Anyway, Happy 2024 and we're all anxious to get confirmation of your survival.

You're rackin' up the red hearts now, TBL.

Which "I"?

Ah, you're deserving of a big, ol' red heart, TBL.