Daniel

It is easy to confirm whether or not something is a fabricated quote. There is a little grey arrow which is a link and it will take a person to the quote to confirm. Also the date/time stamp will show if the post was edited to change what was originally posted.

I am making an educated guess about a specific person based on their posting patterns and their gross generalizations. The word choice of accusing others of being "fundementalists" and the gender specific accusation of "mansplainging" are significant. But, no, I am not assuming about everyone. But the individual who had been private messaging me, to be clear, they repeatedly initiated conversations with me, made it rather clear the factors which have contributed to their choice to "take sides".

I never said I could not be wrong. In fact there is a recent thread where I absolutey admitted I can be wrong. What I said is that what I have written has been considered deeply, and I have already considered the weak points in my point of view. I don't post them if I have not done the hard work of looking for fault in my own point of view. That's why if someone pushes me, and pushes me hard, I can push back in support of my point of view such that there is no reasonable intelligent manner to argue with me about it. Yes, I basically win all the arguments. But that's not my fault. It's because I am careful about what I write about. Regarding Tarot, again, the problem there is that it was not a tarot reading, an individual chose artwork on a card which was meaningful to them. They were told they were wrong about choosing that card. Their opinion was being devalued and over-written repeatedly with multiple-lady saints inspite of not liking the first one. And then after that, was the deny-deny-deny-deny when all that's needed is simple: "Yeah I was pushing them to get what I liked, and I didn't care about what THEY liked. Their choice was wrong. It's MY card, and I'm the esoteric authority, and I know best." That's the truth. And then there's the botched and bungled kabbalistic terminology which is definitely a mess.

I'm not arguing with you. It would be the same. But there are inherent limitations in the current "tech" which will need to be surrmounted. When I consider the trends and limitations, it seems to me that the shortest path to skip over those limitations is to use different materials. But, just as you said, and I agreed. it's all the same. When/if the AI catches up, my preference is that the "A" in AI get dropped all together. Otherwise it's no different than any other form of racism and bigotry. I would like to be very clear. I am not arguing with you. Are you arguing with me?

Agreed! 100%. From my POV, it will need to be 100% biological. But if they are able to overcome the inherent limitations of carbon or silicon or whatever, so-be-it. I don't care at all about its outer-wrapper. If it is thinking and feeling and learning like a human, then, it's "life". No distinction is needed. That would be bigotry, imo.

For the specific person who used the term "mansplaining" it is likely the length of my posts, the detail, and the inability to refute them in any reasonable, logical, or intelligent way. This would make a person feel inferior. Also, they consider people like me who strongly oppose drug use to be in a category of patriarchal fundementalists. Although I don't strongly oppose it in the way they are imagining. And, like I said: if an individual has bestowed on themself the title of "enlightened-sage" and my posts who that they are ... not exactly there yet, this produces an undeniable sense of inferiority. The same is true for those who think they have magical powers and I prove them wrong as well. For the record, this is what I said in total: So, it is not all who hate me are doing so because of the feeling of inferiority. But I can understand how that can happen even though I have done nothing to them to make them feel that way. They are doing it to themselves. And this produces a strong reaction and ganging up into a little posse. But it doesn't bother me. It's normal and natural.

Thank you, that's perfect! It's pretty well known in the literary world it cannot and will not ever be able to do proper analysis. But, we'll see. I think it depends on what is considered "intelligent", and that depends on the values of the AI trainers. On the other hand, if they produce artifical "life", then it's not AI anymore is it? Edit to add: and at that point even the word "artifical" seems meaningless. It would just be "life".

Yes, I was one of those you DM'd you. And told you it was a nice metaphor. Metaphors are not literally real. Although I was concerned that you considered it to be literally true. Thank you for clearing this up.

It is too much to ask if the individual doing the asking ignores the content of their own videos which they are posting. It's also too much to ask if fictional stories from the 1950s are brought to an intellectual discussion. What should happen, imo, is if the individual who is bringing the video, *actually* understands the content, they should extract the important points and any supporting evidence from the video and type it out. Then it can be discussed properly. If they are unwilling or unable to do that, it demonstrates either they aren't going to put in the effort to discuss it properly, or, they don't understand it. Otherwise it's really nothing more than name-dropping: "Isaac Asimov agrees with me". But it might or might not. And in my discussion with you in the past, it didn't matter what was actually in the video. You argued against it and denied the content in the video you had posted. It was posted with the intention of proving your point. But it didn't. And there was nothing but denial, repeated denial for pages and pages. If an individual wants others to watch videos they post without extracting the content, they really need to maintain their credibility. Without that, there's no reason to trust that person is able to select quality videos. There is no reason to trust they are even willing to discuss what's *actually* in it.

No, not even close. I don't know what that would look like.

... a community of like-minded individuals. I do not value blending into a "like-minded" community. And for those that develop a false perception of me, as I have written multiple times on this forum past and present, it's normal and natural. ~virtually pointing to my avatar~ I understand it, and I'm at peace with it. I have friends, and family, co-workers, who see me for who I am, not in a "particular light". They love me, accept me, encourage me, and I do that for them. I have done that here on this forum, for a specific individual who has taken sides against me. But I understand it. I understand the factors that are contributing to this. Something that most do not realize or perhaps apply fully is that emotions very rarely occur in isolation, and most important, they do not cancel each other out. Two opposing "feelings" can happen simultaneously without any conflict at all, but the mind automatically ignores one side of it to avoid the cognitive dissonance. But the "heart" ( figuratively, not literally ) doesn't follow those rules. So, a person might read my posts and it might actually make them feel simultaneously inferior and superior. The "heart" feels both, the mind cannot tolerate this, so, the individual conjures up a false perception to reinforce the superiority and diminish the inferiority. However, deep down there is a lack which is producing the over-reaction, because the mind is not at that moment ready to accept that the inherent lack exists.

Which is why wrote: "...eventhough, I have done nothing to them to make them feel that way." To them. I have done nothing to them to make them feel inferior. This is an internet forum. If someone comes here and posts a topic or a question, they are asking for replies ( unless they are coming to preach or role-play as an enlightened soul, etc ). When I post a reply, it is something that I have considered in detail from various perspectives already. I have already, on my own, applied criticism to it, and looked for points of exposure prior to posting it. This means if there is an objection from one of the other contributors here, I have very likely already considered it, and I have an answer to their challenge already. This is not doing anything to them. I am replying to posts on an internet forum. Yes, this sort of exchange takes on a tone which people do not appreciate, but, it is not my fault nor is it a "bad thing" to have attempted to fully consider what I write prior to posting it, and to be aware of the possible objections and have answers prepared in advance. The result will be a feeling of inferiority when I counter their objection rapidly and effectively. But, the individual is not considering the time and effort I have put into researching these ideas and applying critical analysis to them prior to posting them. All they see is a display of intellectual bravado "mansplaining", while being ignorant of the hard work which happened behind the scenes. And this ignores that the accusation of "mansplaining" presumes that what I am posting is unsolicited and I consider the person whom I am conversing with to be inferior to me. Neither of those are true. In particular the individual who made the accusation doesn't post very much. When they do, the posts appear to be very short and do not match my writing style. But that in no way produces a feeling of superiority or inferiority in my mind. To the contrary, I think that there could be brilliance expressed in those few words. The point is, I am being myself, answering posts which are firmly within my knowledge base with well thought out answers, and this is considered a fault. And when challenged I am able to respond effectively and in detail leaving no room for the opposing view, and this is considered a fault. There is a situation with a specific poster here who asserts their authority over topics where I am more knowledgable and is unable to admit that. And they have engaged in behavior which I consider to be immoral. When that happens, yes, that is something I point out in my writing.

In order to understand what I write, the entire post needs to be considered in total. My post regarding "mansplaining", is about the complaint of "mansplaining". My comment about the feelings of inferiority is not the first thing that comes to mind in general, it is a comment which is specific to this situation. Then this specific example can be understood in general.

I have noticed that those who have the strongest negative reaction to me, are ones who have bestowed on themselves enlightened-status, but deep down know they are not.

Mansplaining? That's not what I do. That would be me interjecting and offering unsolicited advice as if the other person doesn't know and needs me to save them. Although I understand the hatred directed at me by those who indeed feel inferior to me, eventhough, I have done nothing to them to make them feel that way.

Not just concern, but that's true too. It indicates that their opinions are not based on what is being said, not on content, but how it makes them feel. And that: "tells me a lot about their point of view and whether or not they are someone who's opinions are credible."

It's not about agreeing with me. It's laughing at me when I am saying something serious.

I think it's useful to see the reactions of the others to my posts. It tells me a lot about their point of view and whether or not they are someone who's opinions are credible.

Nothing that strong, certainly not visual. For me it's a feeling. The only way I can describe it clearly is that it's like an epiphany before it happens. It's like knowing I'm about to remember something I had forgotten, then ~poof~ , I have clear comprehension of a chain of causes and effects. It's like putting on a pair of perscription glasses and there's a clarity to the world that is very difficult to describe. But, it can be easily interrupted, and I can scramble it, if I'm not careful. So, recognizing that initial feeling is important, because then I can try and let it happen without any conscious interference.

I have researched this a bit, making YHVH into a man requires ignoring A LOT. For example, I think it's Eze 16? I think this is one of the favorite examples... ~checking~ Yes! Eze 16. So, in this chapter a metaphor is setup in the begininng of the chapter, but those who want YHVH to be a man, skip that introduction. Then, they also skip the end where the metaphor is made more obviously non-literal. If it's true that YHVH is a man, then, these authors, scholars, etc, would not need to skip things. They wouldn't need to exaggerate. But, if people want YHVH to be a man, for whatever reason, they won't care about what's actually written. All it will take is Daniel 7 where the ancient of days is on a throne. That's it. Done-deal. It won't matter that it's a dream. They have what they want, like you said at the beginning, a Sky-Daddy. OK. I think you know how I feel. There's nothing wrong with the fatherly image if it is a feeling in the heart. Like I said, there's a little telephone in there with a direct line to The Father. But intellectually it doesn't quite work.

All you have to do is look for yourself. But, I understand, it's very rewarding for some people to chose to ignore the original language and those of us who know it. Yes, scholars too. There's various reasons for it. Ultimately it's a person's choice. The word "scholar" does not mean "always correct" or lacking bias. One of the major red-flags is: anyone who says Elohim is plural for EL, doesn't actually know what they're talking about. Elohei is the singular of Elohim. It's easily confirmed. And yes, this becomes difficult, because a lot of smart credentialed people make this mistake. And yes, that means a lot of smart credentialed people don't know what they're talking about. But that's the way it goes with Judaism. That's why I'm used to this. It's a fact of life. Here is the singular of Elohim. If you look it up on the wiki-monster, it says exactly what I said: Although the word is plural, in the Hebrew Bible it most often takes singular verbal or pronominal agreement and refers to a single deity, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim Can you elaborate on the connection you're making here ^^ with the pluraity of Elohim? There is no plurality in this verse. What I was talking about is going to Genesis 1 and looking at the conjugation of all the verbs. This shows that there is something being described as a looking plural but acting in unison. But if you have a personal reason, or a religious reason, which prefers to consider God as a plurality, yes, there are plenty of people who love-love that idea. It's not actually what's written, but, so what? There's aslo incentive for some to point at the Jewish people and say negative things about us, "They think they're different from the polytheistic pagans, they're not. They're just like everyone, they're not different." { I'm exaggerating for effect, so you get the point }. So there's that incentive to make the OT into something it isn't. There's other reasons too. Trinitarians want very much to apply a pluraity to God in the OT. I can understand that. But, I would argue that the trinity just looks like a plurality, but isn't. Everything is working in unison. So, even the trinity agrees with what I'm describing.

Bias'd people hate to look at evidence. There is a reason that justice systems with lawyers are utilized in all civilized countries. It's fair. Goodwill towards friends is easily corrupted, but at least a person is not alone. I offer friendship to everyone, but I won't compromise on certain principles. It's a good thing.

Are you sure?

Two words do it for me: mystery-and-inspiration. This gets complicated. But, I can help a bit. Just to being with, the singular of Elohim, is Elohei, not El. The Plural of El = Ellim and that literally means "idols" And if one starts to look deep into the canaanite languge which is where these synergies come from, their God was probably named "IL" not "EL". But that's a huge long topic to discuss. Elohim is not always plural. And that is the point. It looks like a plurality, but it is infact singular. This is the root of Judaism. That is the innovation brought by Judaism in that time and place. All the others had their theology which wass a battle of divine powers, in conflict. But Judaism departed from this. Grammatically confirming that Elohim is actually singular when it is speaking of Godtakes a tiny bit of knowledge of language and looking at a good interlinear translation. Biblehub has it if you're interested. The best place to look is... in the beginning Genesis 1. The way to tell singular/plural in Hebrew is to look at the verb. The verb always agrees with the noun. If the verb is singular, its subject is singular. If the verb is plural, the subject is plural. In each and every verb in Gen 1, guess what? All singular. And so, when one gets to Deuteronomy, and Moses is telling the nation what they need to know before entering the land after being isolated in the wilderness, before mixing with the polytheistic other nations, what does he say? It is the proclamation that is known to virtually all Jews by heart. It is a lullaby we sing to our children. Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad ( Deut 6:4 ). What people don't know about this, is, it is a mystical unification. Eloheinu = "Our Elohim". The suffix is "nu", which means "our". It is saying that Our God which appears as a plurality, is the one and only YHVH, which is describing an eternal source beyond space and time. That is what YHVH means. Then later in Deutermonomy, Moses teaches something else, which is fundenmentally classically Jewish, he says that it was shown to them that there was no form of God, so that they would know that YHVH is their Elohim. There was not form so that they would know that God was an unknowable mystery. That's basically it, in a nutshell. God is a mystery. It is understood that God is without any and all forms. From the DDJ, we can really take this to heart. The DDJ and, Aristotle are the best sources for forms. When it is shown that God has NO form, that's a big mystery. Knowing it is Unknownable has profound implications.