September 11, 2001

[Dave Ellis]

Whatever is right is what causes us to return to our original home... which is oneness, which is God, which is Love... you can call it by any name.

Actually, my original home is a small town just west of Toronto.

 

[WonderBeat]

Actually, my original home is a small town just west of Toronto.

I accept that that is your body's home.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I accept that that is your body's home.

Ok, glad to know we are in agreement there.

 

[WonderBeat]

Ok, glad to know we are in agreement there.

What I am not in agreement is the fact that none of us is our bodies. Instead, we are literally everything there is because existence is all that there is.....

 

[Dave Ellis]

What I am not in agreement is the fact that none of us is our bodies. Instead, we are literally everything there is because existence is all that there is.....

So, I am my TV?

 

[WonderBeat]

So, I am my TV?

Absolutely. You are One-d to everything, but not limited by any form.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Absolutely. You are One-d to everything, but not limited by any form.

That is a completely bizarre way of looking at the world. Just because I exist, and my TV exists, does not mean we are the same thing.

We may both be in existence, however existence in that sense is an abstract. It doesn't mean we are one.

I am not my tv, my tv is not my couch, my couch is not my keyboard. They are all separate things that share the attribute of existence.

 

[WonderBeat]

That is a completely bizarre way of looking at the world. Just because I exist, and my TV exists, does not mean we are the same thing.

We may both be in existence, however existence in that sense is an abstract. It doesn't mean we are one.

I am not my tv, my tv is not my couch, my couch is not my keyboard. They are all separate things that share the attribute of existence.

How can there be multiple existences? Two or more identical things collapse into one. There is actually no TV, no couch, no keyboard, Only You.

 

[Dave Ellis]

How can there be multiple existences? Two or more identical things collapse into one. There is actually no TV, no couch, no keyboard, Only You.

There is a TV, as I am watching it right now. That is further confirmed by the fact I am watching the Mythbusters try to drive a truck with square wheels.

There is a couch, and there is a keyboard, which I am using to type this message.

These things are examples of self-evident items, they all exist, and they are not the same things. There is no evidence to suggest they are the same things.... and in fact, it's self-evident they are not, or we could not distinguish them from each other.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How can there be multiple existences? Two or more identical things collapse into one. There is actually no TV, no couch, no keyboard, Only You.

The sheer fact that your computer functions and allows us to talk across the globe, refutes this notion.

 

[WonderBeat]

The sheer fact that your computer functions and allows us to talk across the globe, refutes this notion.

Actually, that's not true at all. We BE-lieve that this conversation is taking place, that this world is real. But actually we're just projecting. There is no computer, no conversation, nothing.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Actually, that's not true at all. We BE-lieve that this conversation is taking place, that this world is real. But actually we're just projecting. There is no computer, no conversation, nothing.

And how do you know what you know?


Basically, what I'm getting at, is that you can assert whatever you want to.... but unless you give us some kind of reason to take what you say seriously, then we have no reason to accept what you're telling us.

Please demonstrate what you are telling us is true.

 

[WonderBeat]

And how do you know what you know?


Basically, what I'm getting at, is that you can assert whatever you want to.... but unless you give us some kind of reason to take what you say seriously, then we have no reason to accept what you're telling us.

Please demonstrate what you are telling us is true.

I refuse your foundational interpretation that I have to somehow 'prove' what is self-evident. I do not hold to your premises, so why should I be the one to 'prove' the world isn't real? It makes much more sense for me to demolish what you consider your interpretation of reality.

You say that I assert. But all I sense from you is assertion after assertion that your skeptical methodology is the correct one.... What is the justification or basis for any of what you claim? Why should I take what you write seriously?

There is in fact only one type of answer forthcoming: that is the Quiet Answer: The Quiet answer- Kenneth Wapnick - YouTube

My methodology differs from your own in that I do not seek to answer, but rather to dissolve or render meaningless the questions you assign. For they are, in my view, meaningless.....

They are projections, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the truth.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I refuse your foundational interpretation that I have to somehow 'prove' what is self-evident.

I have demonstrated to you that it is not self-evident. If it was self evident, you wouldn't have to explain it to me, or anyone at all. Everyone would be clearly aware of it.... much like they are aware the sky is blue, a circle is round, etc. Those are self-evident properties, your assertions are FAR from self-evident, and to be honest are completely convoluted, illogical and without basis.

I do not hold to your premises, so why should I be the one to 'prove' the world isn't real? It makes much more sense for me to demolish what you consider your interpretation of reality.

There you go again with stating somehow I am asking you to prove the world is not real..... Get it through your head, I have never stated in any way that the world is not real, nor have I claimed you made such an assertion. I have no idea where you came up with, or invented this argument, but drop it. I have said no such thing, and for you to assert I have is intellectual dishonesty.

I am asking, even challenging you to demolish what I consider my interpretation of reality. I want to hear your argument, to see if it is convincing. However, if you're just going to assert a bunch of fantastic sounding crap, it's not going to make a dent in anyone who has a rationally working mind.

You say that I assert. But all I sense from you is assertion after assertion that your skeptical methodology is the correct one.... What is the justification or basis for any of what you claim? Why should I take what you write seriously?

I am asking you questions about what you are asserting, I have asserted very little. Every one of your posts are riddled with multiple assertions, none of which make any sense.

There is in fact only one type of answer forthcoming: that is the Quiet Answer: The Quiet answer- Kenneth Wapnick - YouTube

And the line of thought in that video is not applicable, however even if it was, it's not logically sound anyway... I am asking you to explain what you are talking about.

My methodology differs from your own in that I do not seek to answer, but rather to dissolve or render meaningless the questions you assign. For they are, in my view, meaningless.....

They are projections, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the truth.

You do not seek to answer, because you are asserting you have the answer/truth/whatever you want to call it. I am not calling you right or wrong, I am asking why I should accept what you are telling me.

How do you know they are projections?

 

[WonderBeat]

Look at it this way... when you wake up from a dream is it not self-evident that the dream was never real to begin with?

What is self-evident is truth. Being. This is clear to everyone who has woken up. It is also sufficiently clear to the one who is projecting. However, the mind is so powerful that it causes you to think you do not know what is self-evident......

Just reflect for a second... is anything in this world not pure imagination? And don't you know deep within that you are the only one who is real?

 

[WonderBeat]

I have demonstrated to you that it is not self-evident. If it was self evident, you wouldn't have to explain it to me, or anyone at all. Everyone would be clearly aware of it.... much like they are aware the sky is blue, a circle is round, etc. Those are self-evident properties, your assertions are FAR from self-evident, and to be honest are completely convoluted, illogical and without basis.

This is the problem in a nutshell: you think it is not self-evident, whereas in actuality is..... This is why you have to let go of the mind.......

There you go again with stating somehow I am asking you to prove the world is not real..... Get it through your head, I have never stated in any way that the world is not real, nor have I claimed you made such an assertion. I have no idea where you came up with, or invented this argument, but drop it. I have said no such thing, and for you to assert I have is intellectual dishonesty.

What dishonesty? How can you say that when you are continually projecting a false concept of reality? It is true that you have never stated that the world is not real. That is your problem....that is your problem....

I am asking, even challenging you to demolish what I consider my interpretation of reality. I want to hear your argument, to see if it is convincing. However, if you're just going to assert a bunch of fantastic sounding crap, it's not going to make a dent in anyone who has a rationally working mind.

The very fact that you want to hear an argument is indicative of your projection and your own hatred of the truth..... I cannot be any plainer than that.

It is your skepticism I take to be "fantastic sounding crap" - not the self-evident Truth which you find so offensive...

I am asking you questions about what you are asserting, I have asserted very little. Every one of your posts are riddled with multiple assertions, none of which make any sense.

I have asserted nothing. It is impossible to assert the truth because an assertion is a projection... It is a separation, a point of difference. Exactly the opposite of oneness.....

And the line of thought in that video is not applicable, however even if it was, it's not logically sound anyway... I am asking you to explain what you are talking about.

It is entirely applicable. But your projection is getting in the way of knowledge. Stop being so resistant.

You do not seek to answer, because you are asserting you have the answer/truth/whatever you want to call it. I am not calling you right or wrong, I am asking why I should accept what you are telling me.

How do you know they are projections?

You should accept it because, not only do you know it, but you are pretending you do not know it. I am giving you the Truth, and there is nothing I need to 'prove.' You are. That is all.

When you dream are you not projecting a false reality? When you awake you realize all of this is a dream.......

 

[Dave Ellis]

Look at it this way... when you wake up from a dream is it not self-evident that the dream was never real to begin with?

Depends how you define it.... The dream was real, as my mind created the dream as I was asleep. However, the events portrayed in the dream were not real.

What is self-evident is truth. Being. This is clear to everyone who has woken up. It is also sufficiently clear to the one who is projecting. However, the mind is so powerful that it causes you to think you do not know what is self-evident......

Truth is not always self-evident, so I reject your premise. Here's a simple example.... My middle name is Allan, is that true or false? If you have to investigate into that claim to determine it's truth status, then it is not self-evident.

That is a simple example, but the point is, many (if not most) truth claims require investigation to determine if they are true, or false. They are by definition not self-evident.

The power of the mind is irrelevant, if you don't have the information required to determine what is true, then you can't assert it as truth. To do otherwise is dishonest.

Just reflect for a second... is anything in this world not pure imagination?

Everything that exists in the world is not imaginary. That's the defining characteristic of something that exists, vs something that does not.

If it exists, it's not imaginary. If it's imaginary, it doesn't exist.

If you're trying to assert that nothing exists, then we can categorically write off that section of your argument, as it is self-evident you are wrong. The computer in which you are currently typing your response to this point exists. That is demonstrated by the fact you are using it to answer this post.

And don't you know deep within that you are the only one who is real?

No, that's a load of crap.

 

[WonderBeat]

If you're trying to assert that nothing exists, then we can categorically write off that section of your argument, as it is self-evident you are wrong. The computer in which you are currently typing your response to this point exists. That is demonstrated by the fact you are using it to answer this post.

It is obvious that nothing exists at all. Think of the example of the rope and the snake. At night it appears that the rope is a snake, but really, it's just a rope. Appearance is not reality or truth. Thus, it cannot exist. There was never a snake just as there was never a computer. Projection makes perception. It is rather your belief in the computer which makes it seem real.........

This is so obvious to me, I'd be willing to stake my life on it.... Not that I need to....

 

[Dave Ellis]

This is the problem in a nutshell: you think it is not self-evident, whereas in actuality is..... This is why you have to let go of the mind.......

What I'm worried about is if you have actually let go of your mind.....

Assertion #1: It is self-evident, even though I don't think it is
Assertion #2: You have to let go of the mind to understand

What dishonesty? How can you say that when you are continually projecting a false concept of reality? It is true that you have never stated that the world is not real. That is your problem....that is your problem....

What is my false concept of reality? All I have asserted is that things that exist, exist. You're claiming that's wrong?

And how is it my problem that I haven't made an argument that you incorrectly stated that I did?

Assertion #3: I am continually projecting a false concept of reality
Assertion #4: It is my problem that I haven't made an argument I don't agree with

The very fact that you want to hear an argument is indicative of your projection and your own hatred of the truth..... I cannot be any plainer than that.

I don't hate the truth, I am seeking it..... that is self-evident by the fact I want to hear what your argument is. If you are refusing to present it, then what grounds do I have to accept it?


Assertion #5: I am projecting things
Assertion #6: I hate the truth

It is your skepticism I take to be "fantastic sounding crap" - not the self-evident Truth which you find so offensive...

All that's self-evident is that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Assertion #7: You have self-evident truth
Assertion #8: I am offended by your self evident truth

I have asserted nothing. It is impossible to assert the truth because an assertion is a projection... It is a separation, a point of difference. Exactly the opposite of oneness.....

The irony of this point is that you say you have asserted nothing..... then immediately assert two things right afterwards.

How can you possibly not be aware of that?

Assertion #9: It's impossible to assert the truth because an assertion is a projection.
Assertion #10: An assertion is a separation or point of difference.

It is entirely applicable. But your projection is getting in the way of knowledge. Stop being so resistant.

It's not applicable at all, and the logic in the video is laughably wrong.

Assertion #11: My projection is getting in the way of knowledge
Assertion #12: I am being resistant

You should accept it because, not only do you know it, but you are pretending you do not know it. I am giving you the Truth, and there is nothing I need to 'prove.' You are. That is all.

Assertion #13: I know what you speak of is true
Assertion #14: I am pretending to not know what you speak of.
Assertion #15: You are giving me the truth
Assertion #16: There is nothing you need to prove
Assertion #17: You are, that is all

When you dream are you not projecting a false reality? When you awake you realize all of this is a dream.......

I agree by dreaming you are in a way projecting a false reality, and when you awake you realize you were dreaming.... But that deals with a dream, and not with the real world. How does this tie together?



And please don't tell me anymore about how you have asserted nothing... It's clear you are making posts full of assertion, and doing nothing to demonstrate their validity.

 

[Dave Ellis]

It is obvious that nothing exists at all. Think of the example of the rope and the snake. At night it appears that the rope is a snake, but really, it's just a rope. Appearance is not reality or truth. Thus, it cannot exist. There was never a snake just as there was never a computer. Projection makes perception. It is rather your belief in the computer which makes it seem real.........

This is so obvious to me, I'd be willing to stake my life on it.... Not that I need to....

What?

Ok, Using your rope and snake argument... If you mistake the rope for a snake, you are correct that the snake in question does not exist and you projected that concept. However, stating nothing exists is categorically wrong, as the rope DOES exist. You just mistook it.

Appearance is not always reality or truth, but many times it is. If you saw my appearance, you would see I have brown hair. That is a case of appearance being consistent with truth. It is also a demonstration that my hair exists.

The fact you were able to use your computer to type your response is a demonstration that the computer exists. Without it, you would not have been able to read my point, or write your response.

So, since you are willing to stake your life on it, does that mean your life exists? In the exact same post you are claiming nothing exists. How do you get around that contradiction?