Ziran

... pretend to be an atheist/materialist. Cater to their basic needs.

... is the only absolute infinite consciousness ... If God is absolutely literally infinite, then, all that was, is, will-be, wasn't, isn't, won't-be, and could-be already exists within it. The others are nullified like candle-light on the surface of the sun.

It's bold and honest

Thank you

Their dreams and your dreams are a unity like cast-and-mold.

Unanswerable questions are gates.

Its structure manifests as "longing" or "cleaving". The individual-mind is "longing" for the higher-mind like-for-like. Common analogies include: consummation of nuptials and exchanging "greetings" like-for-like. It's because the individual-mind is emerging from the higher-mind. They can be in harmony, resonance, or discord.

I like "Hyperbolic" better.

When comparing cast and mold, which possesses the form?

Gesture and inflection

There's 2 major steps to this. POV is key: Subject and valence. Self-inquiry targets the Self. The valence is inward. Step 1: Take stock. What is yours? Make a list. Just a list. What's in-between all of it: this-and-that? The negative-space, for lack of better words, that distinguishes between the items on the list. Now, zoom out. From a distance, in the mind's eye, visualize yourself. Compare all the "bits-and-bots" with the "in-between". From here, assuming nothing, presented with this self, constituted of "bits-and-bots" and "in-betweens", probing deeper-and-deeper, on careful examination, it's apparent: there's much-much-more "in-between" than there are "bits-and-bots". Because of this, it's natural to disassociate with the bits-and-bots in favor of the in-betweens. Step 2: Assimilate. Continue zooming-out, including others in the frame. Keep going until the "bits-and-bots" dissolve. The in-betweens, from this vantage, are uniform in their lacking. Conclusion: If the Self is defined in terms of the in-betweens, then the POV becomes all inclusive.

Right. The absolute beginning is beyond. Begin within the beginning. The moment immediately proximal to the big-bang. After the big-bang, over the course of billions and billions of years, the pulsing has been gathering into stable relationships. One of those stable relationships involves accurate sensory feedback cultivated, necessarily, by threat avoidance. After billions and billions of years, this accuracy of the sensory feedback has become so accurate, that the sensory feedback apparatus is ignored.

maybe it's the learning from another, not the language itself

happy to help

... it's a different case which requires it own evaluation. As it was written, it's unconditional. When it's unconditional a paradox is produced. It's not contradicting. It's looping. The liars paradox is different, but is essentially the same due to the underlying irrational looping. It's too ambiguous to be contradicting. It's "babbling", like a brook or a baby.

They're both reflexive, but in different ways. The reflection is producing a loop. Paradox. In thought, it's true. Once articulated, it's false.

The context is talking to others. Why ignore the context? Context matters. Knowing beyond individual knowledge, yes. Knowing beyond collective knowledge, no.

If true, there's at least one person who knows. If: Nobody truly knows what he/she is talking about = True Then: Not ( Nobody truly knows what he/she is talking about ) = Not (True) Then: Negation of Nobody = Somebody Then: Negation of Truly Knows And Is Talking = Truly doesn't know Or Isn't Talking Therefore: Somebody Truly Doesn't Knows OR Isn't Talking = False Under what circumstances is the term "Or isn't Talking = False" while engaged in talking with others?

Of course. In what form is the proposition, "NOBODY TRULY KNOWS WTF HE/SHE IS TALKING ABOUT"? The first, the second, or neither. It's neither, right?

There is disagreement whether or not the proposition in question necessarily entails true knowledge of "what they are talking about".

Best wishes to you and yours

On success, there is no pursuing. No desire to pursue another path. There's also the common Chinese axiom: it's very difficult to navigate with "one foot in two boats".

A detailed answer depends on the circumstances, a case-by-case evaluation. In general, a sorcerer is able to interact with primal and primordial energetic principles which universally co-exist within each individual. These energetic principles go by varying names: demons, spirits, gods, angels, messengers, guides, aliens, Elohim... Because the energetic principles co-exist, within and without, a competent sorcerer can locate a root or "vestige" of it within themselves or among the others which strongly corresponds, like hand-in-glove, with its vestige or root within the afflicted. But, to be clear, accurate correspondence is culturally specific. It's usually a version of scrying within a doaist lineage. Some lineages have a patron/matron diety or dieties. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrying Most often they're referring to self-defeating-cognitive-traps. A daemon, pre-computer-science.

Zooming out: Unconditional language on its own is relatively harmless, because, most automatically preface or append the conditionals to the statement otherwise communication breaks down. However, when unconditional language is coupled with criticism, that's the root of stereotyping. Unconditional language, is a "tell". It's usually exaggeration. Then, the question is: "why exaggerate?"

Please compare: The first is unconditional. The second isn't. Not all propositions. That's unconditional. This specific proportion and others like it. 1) In this specific proposition, the subject, "nobody", is "talking about" stuff. 2) The constituents of the proposition are in the form "not (truly knowing and talking about it)". See below. For it to be "true", the consequent is "or". Or is unconditionally ambiguous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan's_laws A proposition can be ... but this specific one is special. For example: "NOBODY TRULY KNOWS WTF HE/SHE IS TALKING ABOUT, including me" Is it rational to listen and take advice from someone who openly admits they don't know what they're talking about? Someone approaches and says: "I'm lost." Would you ask them for directions? " ... is true OR not ... " Are these two the same? "NOBODY TRULY KNOWS WTF HE/SHE IS TALKING ABOUT" "NOBODY TRULY KNOWS WTF HE/SHE IS TALKING ABOUT, OR NOT" ^^ it's non-sense ^^ Why listen to words that necessarily require "or not" appended to the end in order to retain their truth value? Minus the exasperation, it's equivalent to a shrug?