Thread: Awareness Awareness

Originally Posted by 3FLryan

So, you can see, I agree that we are aware of our fantasies, because we know they do not exist

If a madman sees a hallucination and thinks that it's violet floating swan, is he unaware of the hallucination? What do you think?

The same should gooes for other things about nature of which you could be mistaken. When people watched sun in past, they thought it to be a perfect sphere put up in heavens by god. They were not aware of the "true nature of sun" as we know it nowadays, but they were aware of the sun itself.

(existence, of course, being perhaps the most essential property of anything, and if we do not know the fantasies do not exist, we are delusional and not aware).

So what is the thing that defines what exists and what doesn't, separating things into "awarable" and not "awarable"? And does it happen to pass its judgements on realness\fakeness simultaneously or after-the-fact, when you already became aware of something?

But we are not aware of our dreams unless we are lucid (in which case we know it is a dream and we then know nothing exists, or we wake up an become aware that "it was just a dream")

I don't understand this point fully.

To refer to the madman example, it's the same as to say that his hallucination (dream) doesn't exist and he is not aware of it... although he may be aware of it, even acting it out, so isn't he aware of "it" (whatever "it" is, hallucination or reality)?

and therefore it is advantageous to discriminatingly observe the qualities of our surroundings, for we might be dreaming.

Agreed.

You don't think that observation of qualities makes you more aware, though, do you? Evaluation of qualities is rather a separate process from simple "awaring" imho, it's a rational process... as the example with a madman would show.

Originally Posted by Arutad

So how did you realize from the sense of control that dreams were fake? I cannot see how the two are connected.

That is not really the point. The point is you were speaking of self transcendence and I am saying that lucid dreaming is a facade to self transcendence. Would not you agree?

Epoche is a phenomenological method, it's not self-awareness and not "present moment" as you claimed below. It's a method, not anything else, and a bad one at that, nobody really knows how to "do epoche". Besides, I have no idea how you came to call it self-awareness, phenomenology is more like my own line of thought, claiming that awareness is not self-reflective or disappearing, which is why I like it

You are saying epoche is not present moment..?

Obviously your definition of self is too far exclusive that you have lost the capability to be insightful to others opinions. Edmund Husserl would have a lot to argue with you on what you have said and I am curious if you can elaborate if not cite what you are saying.

Epoche is a contrived notion, after all, how can you "observe" a pure basic idea of something? Nobody knows, although some book-writers think they do. And I see that you put your own meaning into it, connected it to death, and expect me to "know" what you mean... I'm not a telepath!

I elaborated, obviously a bit too hastily while assuming you were being insightful, on my point of self-awareness and transcending your sense of self. Perhaps you understand now what I mean about self-transcendence as the subtle goal of lucid dreaming?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am saying that lucid dreaming is a facade to self transcendence.

I definitely agree with that, but I don't want to go any further until I consciously make the decision...meaning when I want to. Losing the ego is so alien and at the same time scary to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

I definitely agree with that, but I don't want to go any further until I consciously make the decision...meaning when I want to. Losing the ego is so alien and at the same time scary to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?

Something tells me conscious self-direction is not the way to lose the ego.

Originally Posted by Arutad

If a madman sees a hallucination and thinks that it's violet floating swan, is he unaware of the hallucination? What do you think? - CORRECT - HE IS UNAWARE OF HIS HALLUCINATION. A MADMAN DOES NOT 'SEE A HALLUCINATION' - HE SEES A VIOLET FLOATING SWAN, AND, AS WE ESTABLISHED BEFORE, SEEING, OR SENSING, IS NOT THE SAME THING AS 'AWARING'. HE THINKS HE IS AWARE OF A VIOLET FLOATING SWAN, WHEN, IN FACT, THERE IS NO SUCH THING. IF HE KNEW IT WAS A HALLUCINATION, HE WOULD BE AWARE OF THE HALLUCINATION. IN THE SAME WAY, WE ARE NOT AWARE WHEN WE ARE IN DREAMS UNLESS WE KNOW THEY ARE NOT REAL.

The same should gooes for other things about nature of which you could be mistaken. When people watched sun in past, they thought it to be a perfect sphere put up in heavens by god. They were not aware of the "true nature of sun" as we know it nowadays, but they were aware of the sun itself. - THIS IS AN OPEN POINT - IT IS DIFFICULT TO DRAW THE LINE ON HOW MUCH INFORMATION YOU HAVE ABOUT AN OBJECT BEFORE YOU CAN SAY YOU ARE AWARE OF IT - PERHAPS I MUST SAY THAT THE SOLE DETERMINING FACTOR OF AWARENESS OF 'X' IS AWARENESS OF ITS EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE. THEN, PAST PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THE SUN, JUST AS PRESENT PEOPLE ARE. I WILL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THIS.

NOTE, PLEASE, THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS THE HALLUCINATION EXAMPLE, AS YOU INDICATE ABOVE. HERE, THE PAST PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THE THING'S EXISTENCE SO THEY CONTINUED TO BE AWARE WHEN NEW INFORMATION ABOUT THE PARTICULAR QUALITIES OF THE EXISTING THING CAME TO LIGHT, BUT THE MADMAN WAS NOT AWARE OF THE THING'S NON-EXISTENCE, SO HE IS DOOMED TO UNAWARENESS.


So what is the thing that defines what exists and what doesn't, separating things into "awarable" and not "awarable"? And does it happen to pass its judgements on realness\fakeness simultaneously or after-the-fact, when you already became aware of something? - I DON'T HAVE TO KNOW WHAT DEFINES WHAT EXISTS AND WHAT DOES NOT EXIST FOR MY ARGUMENT TO WORK, I ONLY HAVE TO KNOW THAT SOME THINGS DO EXIST AND SOME THINGS DO NOT EXIST. I THINK YOU ARE MISSING SOMETHING HERE - ANYTHING IS 'AWARABLE', EVEN THINGS THAT DO NOT EXIST. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I HAVE PREVIOUSLY SAID. FOR EXAMPLE, THINGS IN DREAMS DO NOT EXIST, BUT I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID WE CAN BE AWARE OF THEM IF WE ARE AWARE THEY DO NOT EXIST.


I don't understand this point fully.

To refer to the madman example, it's the same as to say that his hallucination (dream) doesn't exist and he is not aware of it... although he may be aware of it, even acting it out, so isn't he aware of "it" (whatever "it" is, hallucination or reality)? - I THINK YOU DO UNDERSTAND MY POINT. I SAY THE MADMAN IS NOT AWARE OF "IT" BECAUSE HE DOES NOT KNOW "IT" DOES NOT EXIST. IT SEEMS YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS, BUT I THINK YOU ARE WRONG. WOULD YOU SAY WE ARE AWARE OF OUR DREAMS WHEN WE DO NOT KNOW THEY ARE DREAMS? (I.E. IS THE MADMAN AWARE OF HIS HALLUCINATION WHEN HE DOES NOT KNOW IT IS A HALLUCINATION?) IF YOU ANSWER YES, YOU MUST SAY EVERYONE IS ALWAYS LUCID WHEN DREAMING, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY FALSE.


Agreed.

You don't think that observation of qualities makes you more aware, though, do you? Evaluation of qualities is rather a separate process from simple "awaring" imho, it's a rational process... as the example with a madman would show. - SEE MY RESPONSE ABOVE REGARDING THE SUN EXAMPLE. I AGREE MOST QUALITIES OF AN OBJECT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH 'AWARING', BUT SOME QUALITIES, SUCH AS EXISTENCE, I HAVE DUBBED 'ESSENTIAL PROPERTIES', WHICH FACTOR INTO 'AWARING'. THIS NOTION MIGHT GET COMPLICATED, BECAUSE EXAMINATION OF ORDINARY QUALITIES SOMETIMES HELPS US TO DETERMINE EXISTENCE, AS IN DREAMS.

Arutad, my responses are above in bold caps. The first and fifth paragraphs are probably the most important.

Originally Posted by 3FLryan

Something tells me conscious self-direction is not the way to lose the ego.

There is a distinction to be made here. Try to understand, if you are directing attention towards your personality, then no, you will not transcend the ego. You will become self-conscious and insecure or egotistical.

If you direct your awareness, however, at the awareness itself that comes through you, you will find your ineffable true self which transcends the ego.

You really know what your talking about Dannon

I've had thoughts that your truest, deepest, egoless self IS God. The part of you that exists in a pure state of awareness..no thoughts at all. When you meditate and stop your thoughts your moving closer to your true self.

I have this "mandala" thingy a friend sent to me, it's a simple picture that's created using sacred geometry, when you stare at the center point it starts rotating. They say that the more you concentrate on the center and make it move, the more your connecting with you true self..and it simulates and increases creativity.

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

They say that the more you concentrate on the center and make it move, the more your connecting with you true self..and it simulates and increases creativity.

Mandalas have been used for that, and it all boils down to sacred geometry.
But even without mandalas if you concentrate on the center of anything, especially your own center you become aware with your true self. I don't say "connect" because how can you connect with what you already are?

My favorite is to concentrate on a candle flame. Right where the flame comes from the wick it is not so bright that it blinds your eyes. Concentrating thus, my whole field of vision fades out. Then an etheric green flame appears and I pull it over the candle flame with my mind. After a half hour of this, I feel as if in a lucid dream.

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

You really know what your talking about Dannon

I've had thoughts that your truest, deepest, egoless self IS God. The part of you that exists in a pure state of awareness..no thoughts at all.

Call it what you will, it has been called many everything.

Hindus call it the Self
Buddhists call it the NoSelf
Jesus calls it Christ or the Kingdom of Heaven

I just believe it is the eternal infinite pool of creative consciousness that creates because that is in its nature. I don't think it intentionally creates anything on purpose like the idea of a God would. I think it is just the way nature evolves is the way consciousness evolves. I think it is the stuff dreams are made of and dreams are the stuff things are made of. In the beginning there was unborn consciousness and somehow it exploded into energy. This energy cooled down and it crystallized into particles. These particles are the building blocks of matter. Every form is eternally moment by moment being supported and created by consciousness. The ancients knew this. Modern scientists are coming around. Quantum physics now knows what the Buddha knew: that matter is influenced by perception.

So this consciousness is not lucid so it is just dreaming this whole comedy drama of the universe. It is looking for itself. It is looking for happiness. At one time consciousness thought that if it was bigger and fiercer than others and it could eat a lot, it would be happy. So it became dinosaurs. But because consciousness is evolving, it realized it wasn't happy. Animals evolve to survive. Consciousness evolves to be enlightened and happy.

It figured that love had something to do with happiness so it became birds and mammals, which are capable of a higher love than reptiles. Many birds mate for life and mammals show much more affection. Monkeys are very social animals. So consciousness evolves until it becomes lucid and aware of itself. Once consciousness realizes that this whole universe is a dream it created for its own learning and fun, then what? At first consciousness was unconscious, now it will be lucid. Then it can choose to remain in the dream and do whatever it wants, or it can start all over again.

But on a even higher level of reality, perhaps consciousness doesn't change, it never has, and never will. It is always perfect, virgin, unborn, undying, untouched, but blissfully aware.

Now, the self is part of the whole and it is the whole, like a fractal or a hologram. Your pure awareness is your individual pure awareness and it is the universal pure awareness. This is why you can access Universal knowledge through meditation and dreams. This is how telepathy and shared dreams can operate.

The Buddha called it the "NoSelf" because the Hindus have been saying that the self is God. Now Buddha didn't believe in God and he knew that the Hindus were becoming very Egotistical. Have you ever seen a Hindu Yogi? You cannot find someone more egotistical except maybe Mick Jagger. The Buddha says :"So what if you have become a God? Then you are just a big human!" You haven't dropped the ego, now it will be even more difficult to drop it."
But if you become nothing, go on peeling the layers of the onion, until you have peeled the last layer. What is left? Nothing? or the whole Universe?

By the way, I actually like to use words like existence, consciousness, lucid nature instead of the word God. I also like to say "transcend" the ego, "transcend" the mind, instead of "dropping" or "losing". You still have the mind, but it becomes your servant and you become the master instead of the other way around. You can see beyond it. It cannot influence you. We need thoughts and the mind to communicate and to figure things out, but you put it away when you don't need it.

The self and the mind are like a King who leaves the kingdom and the servants sit in the throne, they pretend to be the king. When the king comes back they go back to being servants. When the king goes crazy and forgets that he is the king and the servants start ordering him around, that is the situation we are in. That is what hell is. The servants are the mind or the thoughts. Bring the King back, let the King take his throne and let the servants obey.

Wow Dannon you always blow my mind with posts like this cause that is exactly how I figured it is.

Consciousness evolves to be enlightened and happy.

I agree 100%

Do you study Buddhism or something, your knowledge of this is amazing.

What do you think about 2012 and the Mayan calender, do you think it is our time now to start shaping our own reality and what we want to experience, you know, knowing the law of attraction and all. I'm definitely convinced that it works..but it is very difficult because you have to get in a positive state of mind, you have to focus on a positive/happy feeling for at least 16 seconds...if you've ever tried this you'd know how difficult this is a lot of people are stuck in a negative state of mind. Imagine doing this every day.

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

Do you study Buddhism or something, your knowledge of this is amazing.

What do you think about 2012 and the Mayan calender, do you think it is our time now to start shaping our own reality and what we want to experience, you know, knowing the law of attraction and all. I'm definitely convinced that it works..

Yes I do study Buddhism. It is my favorite, particularly Tibetan Buddhism. I meditate and practice Tibetan Dream Yoga.

I haven't ever been one to believe in prophecies, BUT...

Looking at the world around me it seems that all the prophecies are coming true. Not just the Mayan prophecies. Nostradamus's prophecies seem to becoming true as well, although it is so hard to tell what the hell he is talking about. The Hopi prophecies seem to be coming true and also the Biblical prophecies.

There are Tibetan Buddhist Monks who have come out of their monasteries to tell people that they have seen the future in their meditations. This was back in 2005. And this is what they said:

They said that from now until 2010 things are going to go pretty much the same as it is going. Lots of wars all over and power struggles between Governments and the People. In 2010 something huge is going to happen in world politics and the whole world is going to polarize into two sides. Things will get very tense and the world will be on the brink of nuclear war. At the end of 2012 a nuclear war will start but then the aliens will intervene. They will not allow us to destroy ourselves. They will reveal themselves in such a way that none of us scared. They will reveal themselves only if they have to. As our science and technology progresses, we are destined to see them and interact with them any way. Monks also mentioned that beyond 2012 our current civilization would understand that the final frontier of science and technology is in area of spirituality and not materiality and weapons. Beyond 2012, out technologies will take a different direction.

So, Of Course I think it is time to start shaping our own reality. Any time is a good time. What are we waiting for? We don't have to believe that the transition on 2012 will be scary or painful, and then maybe it won't be. We don't have to wait till 2012. I mean, we have always been shaping our reality, so let's become lucid and do it intentionally.

but it is very difficult because you have to get in a positive state of mind, you have to focus on a positive/happy feeling for at least 16 seconds...if you've ever tried this you'd know how difficult this is a lot of people are stuck in a negative state of mind. Imagine doing this every day.

Who told you 16 seconds? If you are positive you will create a positive experience of the world, if you are negative you will create a negative experience of the world. Either way, the world mirrors back to you what you are and confirms your beliefs.

Being positive or happy isn't hard at all. Happiness is our nature, we don't have to do anything to be happy except work on what we percieve as obstacles to happiness. Happiness actually doesn't depend on outer circumstances. If you are unhappy because you don't have the new Ipod or because your girlfriend cheated on you and stole your money that is because you have made your happiness dependent on something outside of yourself.

But, you're right, it sounds simple but it takes a lot of work to realize this. I DO do this every day and for more than 16 seconds. If it is important enough for you, you can do it. I am being challenged at this right now and more so to come because my wife, whom I love very much, and I are breaking up, probably. And I will have to deal with feelings of loss, of rejection, of anger, of loneliness, and the whole time I will have to remember that I love my wife, but I don't need her to be happy. I don't need to cling and to be attached to her.

It is like the Buddha's teachings: 'Desiring pleasure and avoiding pain cause suffering'. Not that you should avoid pleasure or desire pain either. But don't hold things to you and don't push things away but to enter the flow and let things flow.

If you want anything in this world to make you happy, you will suffer. You already have all you need for happiness. If you are trying to get anything out of this world you will cause suffering.

Man, I drank some Kava and I am rambling away. Forgive me.

Originally Posted by O'nus

That is not really the point. The point is you were speaking of self transcendence and I am saying that lucid dreaming is a facade to self transcendence. Would not you agree?

Yes no. No yes.
No point in saying anything without elucidating the meaning of the words used. So far you made your own conclusions about what I was speaking about, but I know hardly anything about your ideas and how they match to mine. "Self-transcendence" is a hackneyed word used to mean anything in the world. I can't see any way to reply your question without matching the meanings behind the words first.

But if that helps, I tossed a coin. It gave you a "yes"

You are saying epoche is not present moment..?

You don't really know what it is, do you?

Originally Posted by 3FLryan

HE IS UNAWARE OF HIS HALLUCINATION. A MADMAN DOES NOT 'SEE A HALLUCINATION' - HE SEES A VIOLET FLOATING SWAN, AND, AS WE ESTABLISHED BEFORE, SEEING, OR SENSING, IS NOT THE SAME THING AS 'AWARING'.

Don't you think that 'awaring' is more basic? I guess we're boggled down by the ways we understand the meanings of the words now. For me awareness is something raw. While seeing or sensing are descriptions of the physical acts that we can only judge when the data has already been interpreted...

So I'd say he sees the swan, but he is aware of "something". This something is the same, no matter if he believes it to be a swan or thinks that it's a hallucination.

NOTE, PLEASE, THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS THE HALLUCINATION EXAMPLE, AS YOU INDICATE ABOVE. HERE, THE PAST PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THE THING'S EXISTENCE SO THEY CONTINUED TO BE AWARE WHEN NEW INFORMATION ABOUT THE PARTICULAR QUALITIES OF THE EXISTING THING CAME TO LIGHT, BUT THE MADMAN WAS NOT AWARE OF THE THING'S NON-EXISTENCE, SO HE IS DOOMED TO UNAWARENESS.

There was a dream in which I knew that everything wasn't real. I picked up a kitten and marvelled at how realistically alive it looked, turning it in my hands. It stayed put, as if it didn't mind, and looked very cute. According to your line of thinking, realization of dream contents being unreal is an indication of awareness, yet that dream was not lucid.

WOULD YOU SAY WE ARE AWARE OF OUR DREAMS WHEN WE DO NOT KNOW THEY ARE DREAMS? (I.E. IS THE MADMAN AWARE OF HIS HALLUCINATION WHEN HE DOES NOT KNOW IT IS A HALLUCINATION?) IF YOU ANSWER YES, YOU MUST SAY EVERYONE IS ALWAYS LUCID WHEN DREAMING, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY FALSE.

In madman's case it's a yes, as he is engaged in the act of awareness. But as for dreams... Lucidity is awareness of being asleep, not awareness of unrealness. These can be different things as my dream illustrated. And you can dream of anything, even of unrealness

I AGREE MOST QUALITIES OF AN OBJECT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH 'AWARING', BUT SOME QUALITIES, SUCH AS EXISTENCE, I HAVE DUBBED 'ESSENTIAL PROPERTIES', WHICH FACTOR INTO 'AWARING'. THIS NOTION MIGHT GET COMPLICATED, BECAUSE EXAMINATION OF ORDINARY QUALITIES SOMETIMES HELPS US TO DETERMINE EXISTENCE, AS IN DREAMS.

Do you think that knowledge exists prior to awareness? Do you think that we grasp it first? And if knowledge falters and misjudges the status of something, it makes it technically "unawarable", even though it's seen clearly?

If yes, then I honestly can't understand why you refuse to acknowledge the actual something that is clearly seen, only on the premise that its status might be wrong.

Edit: ok I think I know your train of thought. No idea why it didn't occur to me before, but your definition of awareness is connected only to an intellectual judgement, right?

Originally Posted by Arutad

Yes no. No yes.
No point in saying anything without elucidating the meaning of the words used. So far you made your own conclusions about what I was speaking about, but I know hardly anything about your ideas and how they match to mine. "Self-transcendence" is a hackneyed word used to mean anything in the world. I can't see any way to reply your question without matching the meanings behind the words first.

Maybe if you actually used your insight to read into what I was saying you would see that I am trying to understand and relate to your points. What you have said does not necessarily make complete sense as it seems your pretentiousness compounds your lacking perspicacity to iterate your ideas to others.

You don't really know what it is, do you?

It would seem quite the opposite and you are not even considering that I am trying to affirm your ideals; not mine own. It would seem you are too arrogant to consider that perspective.

If it helps you deter your pompousness;

Originally Posted by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Husserl developed the method of epoché or “bracketing” around 1906. It may be regarded as a radicalization of the methodological constraint, already to be found in Logical Investigations, that any phenomenological description proper is to be performed from a first person point of view, so as to ensure that the respective item is described exactly as is experienced, or intended, by the subject. Now from a first-person point of view, one cannot, of course, decide whether in a case of what one takes to be, say, an act of perception one is currently performing, there actually is an object that one is perceptually confronted with. For instance, it is well possible that one is hallucinating. From a first-person point of view, there is no difference to be made out between the veridical and the non-veridical case — for the simple reason that one cannot at the same time fall victim to and detect a perceptual error or misrepresentation. In the non-veridical case, too, a transcendent object appears to “constitute itself” in consciousness. It is for such reasons that Husserl demanded that in a phenomenological description proper the existence of the object(s) (if any) satisfying the content of the intentional act described must be “bracketed”. That is to say, the phenomenological description of a given act and, in particular, the phenomenological specification of its intentional content, must not rely upon the correctness of any existence assumption concerning the object(s) (if any) the respective act is about. Thus, the epoché has us focus on those aspects of our intentional acts and their contents that do not depend on the existence of a represented object out there in the extra-mental world.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Maybe if you actually used your insight to read into what I was saying you would see that I am trying to understand and relate to your points. What you have said does not necessarily make complete sense as it seems your pretentiousness compounds your lacking perspicacity to iterate your ideas to others.

It's not my goal to spread my ideas and especially to describe them in detail. I don't want to bore people to death

That said, your quotation doesn't say anything about "self-awareness". You're seeing in it what you want to see and you expect me to telepathically and magically understand your seeing, without knowing your ideas. I'm out of this game.

Meditation is a way of being in Reality.

Now you will ask, "what do you mean by reality? Do you mean the spiritual realms? Do you mean this physical world? Do you mean Nature?"

But these are all philosophies. And Reality is not a philosophy.

Reality is.....


....and we won't give it a name

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Meditation is a way of being in Reality.

And right now we're not

Originally Posted by Arutad

And right now we're not

Oh! You got me!!

I meant to say meditation is a way of experiencing reality.

**

Originally Posted by Arutad

It's not my goal to spread my ideas and especially to describe them in detail. I don't want to bore people to death

If you had any sort of intuition - you would have said from the get go "I don't want to tell you my opinion" then.

That said, your quotation doesn't say anything about "self-awareness". You're seeing in it what you want to see and you expect me to telepathically and magically understand your seeing, without knowing your ideas. I'm out of this game.

It seems your ego is too high to see the point of the post.

Please re-consider the posts clear of pretentiousness and you might find the point.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

If you had any sort of intuition - you would have said from the get go "I don't want to tell you my opinion" then.

I can be curious about the ideas of others lol But certainly not about yours anymore.

Originally Posted by Arutad

I can be curious about the ideas of others lol But certainly not about yours anymore.

You fail at reading.

Please try again.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

If you had any sort of intuition - you would have said from the get go "I don't want to tell you my opinion" then.
It seems your ego is too high to see the point of the post.

Most people that are analytical aren't really in tune with their intuition. Quite sad really, because realizing who you truly are deep down is pure bliss and makes life so much more enjoyable....let go of the fear. Fear is a prison cell for your mind.

LET GO! - Tyler Durden

O'nus, you didn't understand that I was trying to get out explanations out of you the same way you were. I thought that was pretty obvious. The whole situation screamed at the need for explanations, on your side. Unfortunately (or furtunately, because who cares!), you really are a pretender who doesn't even know the meaning of the words he throws around.