Philosophy Discussion Forums

I could not grasp the sentence "In that sense, you—the real you—are definitely not human because you possess something humans don't: definitive undeniable existence. "

I got confused between humans and me because I had a strong belief that I am a human. Hope you will help me get my confusion clarified.

This book is one of the most carefully written book I've ever read. The thought and wisdom that went into the writing can only be divine. The concept of the "Two Yous" opened my eyes to how I can overcome the challenges of living below how I was designed to live. I completely agree with everything in the book. Thank you Eckhart Hughes for this amazing book. I am currently going through the book again.

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (in the OP) wrote: ↑January 19th, 2023, 3:04 pm Important Note: Before posting in this topic, please do make sure you have looked up any words or phrases with which you aren't familiar in the dictionary and/or encyclopedia. You can do this in seconds online using your preferred search engine (e.g. Google or DuckDuckGo).


Do you feel you understood every sentence in the book, In It Together? In other words, do you feel you understand what the author (me) meant by every single sentence in the book?

If not, please quote the very first sentence or very first paragraph you do not understand. Then I will do my best to explain and clarify what I meant by it.

[...]

When replying, please provide your best guess(es) about what you think the sentence probably means. Then, from there, I can let you know which of your guesses (if you have more than one) is correct or closest to correct and/or I can then, based on your guess(es), know what was missed or misunderstood to then know how to clarify it for you.

Sanju Lali wrote: ↑November 24th, 2024, 11:24 am I could not grasp the sentence "In that sense, you—the real you—are definitely not human because you possess something humans don't: definitive undeniable existence. "

I got confused between humans and me because I had a strong belief that I am a human. Hope you will help me get my confusion clarified.

Hi, Sanju Lali,

Thank you for your reply. However, please follow all the instructions in the OP (Original Post). Namely, make sure you have first looked up any words or terms that are unfamiliar to you in the dictionary and/or encyclopedia, and then, if you still don't understand the sentence, include your best guess at the what the sentence means if you had to guess.

I can then confirm your best guess is actually right or clarify how it to make it right. In analogy, I cannot help someone play pin the tail on the donkey if my own eyes are closed too. I would have to see where you are to guide you on what changes you need to make and which direction you would need go to move from where you are to get to where you want to be. You telling me your best guess at what the sentence means if you had to guess is equivalent you telling me where you are now so I can then use that to tell you what direction to go and how far to get where you and I want you to be.


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes

Yes, I understood everything in the book. It is logical but very educational.

This book is self explanatory. I’ve read it multiple times and I didn’t find anything that I couldn’t understand

Bertha Jackson wrote: ↑January 25th, 2023, 2:54 pm I am sure the first time I read this book, I may have misunderstood some of the sentences. However, now that I have read it four times, I am sure I understand everything in your book. My understandings are insufficient to make me an expert on the topics, but I am comfortable with how I understand everything you wrote in your book. I continue to use it as an inspiration.

I must say my experience with the process of thoroughly understanding "In it Together" was similar. I went through the book several times, iteratively, until every connection and thinking process was clear. Indeed, this is my usual approach also academically, as I like to resolve my own understanding limitations.

Please explain this lines from the book in it together by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes in simple and summarised terms for me to understand:

The discontent person lacking inner peace will be discontent while drinking and while sober, and hence they are likely to bounce between the two in a cycle of misery. The discontent person lacking inner peace will be discontent while binge eating and while sticking to their diet; thus they are likely to bounce between the two in a cycle of misery, desperately trying to find the key to happiness or at least something to self-medicate them with a bit of comfort in their persistent misery, the misery of not having inner peace, of not being in a truly loving relationship with their selves over time and across space built on true conscious love.

I find the title of the book timeless and intriguing. The title is a conversation starter and reading the book will help one understand what it's about. However, I am curious as to how you came about the title and do you agree to be in the struggle with everyone.

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (in the OP) wrote: ↑January 19th, 2023, 3:04 pm Important Note: Before posting in this topic, please do make sure you have looked up any words or phrases with which you aren't familiar in the dictionary and/or encyclopedia. You can do this in seconds online using your preferred search engine (e.g. Google or DuckDuckGo).


Do you feel you understood every sentence in the book, In It Together? In other words, do you feel you understand what the author (me) meant by every single sentence in the book?

If not, please quote the very first sentence or very first paragraph you do not understand. Then I will do my best to explain and clarify what I meant by it.

[...]

When replying, please provide your best guess(es) about what you think the sentence probably means. Then, from there, I can let you know which of your guesses (if you have more than one) is correct or closest to correct and/or I can then, based on your guess(es), know what was missed or misunderstood to then know how to clarify it for you.

Barab Arzarki wrote: ↑January 1st, 2025, 12:43 pm Please explain this lines from the book in it together by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes in simple and summarised terms for me to understand:

The discontent person lacking inner peace will be discontent while drinking and while sober, and hence they are likely to bounce between the two in a cycle of misery. The discontent person lacking inner peace will be discontent while binge eating and while sticking to their diet; thus they are likely to bounce between the two in a cycle of misery, desperately trying to find the key to happiness or at least something to self-medicate them with a bit of comfort in their persistent misery, the misery of not having inner peace, of not being in a truly loving relationship with their selves over time and across space built on true conscious love.

Hi, Barab Arzarki,

Thank you for your reply. However, please follow all the instructions in the OP (Original Post). Namely, make sure you have first looked up any words or terms that are unfamiliar to you in the dictionary and/or encyclopedia, and then, if you still don't understand the sentence, include your best guess at the what the sentence means if you had to guess.

I can then confirm your best guess is actually right or clarify how it to make it right. In analogy, I cannot help someone play pin the tail on the donkey if my own eyes are closed too. I would have to see where you are to guide you on what changes you need to make and which direction you would need go to move from where you are to get to where you want to be. You telling me your best guess at what the sentence means if you had to guess is equivalent you telling me where you are now so I can then use that to tell you what direction to go and how far to get where you and I want you to be.


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑January 19th, 2023, 3:04 pm Important Note: Before posting in this topic, please do make sure you have looked up any words or phrases with which you aren't familiar in the dictionary and/or encyclopedia. You can do this in seconds online using your preferred search engine (e.g. Google or DuckDuckGo).


Do you feel you understood every sentence in the book, In It Together? In other words, do you feel you understand what the author (me) meant by every single sentence in the book?

If not, please quote the very first sentence or very first paragraph you do not understand. Then I will do my best to explain and clarify what I meant by it.

[...]

When replying, please provide your best guess(es) about what you think the sentence probably means. Then, from there, I can let you know which of your guesses (if you have more than one) is correct or closest to correct and/or I can then, based on your guess(es), know what was missed or misunderstood to then know how to clarify it for you.

Tush4Christ wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2025, 12:53 am I find the title of the book timeless and intriguing. The title is a conversation starter and reading the book will help one understand what it's about. However, I am curious as to how you came about the title and do you agree to be in the struggle with everyone.

Hi, Tush4Christ,

This topic is not for posting "examples" of things you didn't understand.

It's only for posting verbatim quotes of the the very first sentence you didn't understand (i.e. the sentence closest to the beginning of the book).


Nisha,
Executive Assistant to Scott/Eckhart

The only sentence that confused me was: "Even a god can accidentally create a hell with a population of one: himself."

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (in the OP) wrote: ↑January 19th, 2023, 3:04 pm Important Note: Before posting in this topic, please do make sure you have looked up any words or phrases with which you aren't familiar in the dictionary and/or encyclopedia. You can do this in seconds online using your preferred search engine (e.g. Google or DuckDuckGo).


Do you feel you understood every sentence in the book, In It Together? In other words, do you feel you understand what the author (me) meant by every single sentence in the book?

If not, please quote the very first sentence or very first paragraph you do not understand. Then I will do my best to explain and clarify what I meant by it.

[...]

When replying, please provide your best guess(es) about what you think the sentence probably means. Then, from there, I can let you know which of your guesses (if you have more than one) is correct or closest to correct and/or I can then, based on your guess(es), know what was missed or misunderstood to then know how to clarify it for you.

Nati Jiniya wrote: ↑January 13th, 2025, 12:49 pm The only sentence that confused me was: "Even a god can accidentally create a hell with a population of one: himself."

Hi, Nati Jiniya,

Thank you for your reply. However, please follow all the instructions in the OP (Original Post). Namely, make sure you have first looked up any words or terms that are unfamiliar to you in the dictionary and/or encyclopedia, and then, if you still don't understand the sentence, include your best guess at the what the sentence means if you had to guess.

I can then confirm your best guess is actually right or clarify how it to make it right. In analogy, I cannot help someone play pin the tail on the donkey if my own eyes are closed too. I would have to see where you are to guide you on what changes you need to make and which direction you would need go to move from where you are to get to where you want to be. You telling me your best guess at what the sentence means if you had to guess is equivalent you telling me where you are now so I can then use that to tell you what direction to go and how far to get where you and I want you to be.


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes

Hi Scott,

This is my first question:Page 131: "To suggest to you to behave in a free-spirited way is the same as to suggest to you to behave as yourself, your true self." My question is how do I know if I am behaving as myself or if I am lying to myself not behaving as myself?

Accepting the choices and the nature of other humans means completely letting go of resentment of unchangeable reality for being the way it is—which by extension includes unconditionally accepting the choices of others as being what they are, and unconditionally accepting others as they are, not as they 'should' be or such, whatever that would mean.

Hughes, Eckhart Aurelius. In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All (p. 171). OnlineBookClub.org. Kindle Edition.

I believe I understand what you are saying here- to not expend energy on hating others and their actions. I felt conflicted here though. I read it as an almost callous "don't worry about the sadness of the rest of the world." While I realize that's not the point in the context I find it hard to see where to draw the line? Between not judging but still allowing for sadness at the injustice done to some other part of the universal self.

Tanya Schmidtchen wrote: ↑January 17th, 2025, 12:35 am Accepting the choices and the nature of other humans means completely letting go of resentment of unchangeable reality for being the way it is—which by extension includes unconditionally accepting the choices of others as being what they are, and unconditionally accepting others as they are, not as they 'should' be or such, whatever that would mean.

Hughes, Eckhart Aurelius. In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All (p. 171). OnlineBookClub.org. Kindle Edition.

I believe I understand what you are saying here- to not expend energy on hating others and their actions. I felt conflicted here though. I read it as an almost callous "don't worry about the sadness of the rest of the world." While I realize that's not the point in the context I find it hard to see where to draw the line? Between not judging but still allowing for sadness at the injustice done to some other part of the universal self.

Hi, Tanya Schmidtchen,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful and deep inquiry. A question like this is every author's dream because for you to even be able to ask me about this kind of thing means you've carefully read and understood my words and ideas with a level of attention, care, understanding, and respect that few can and even fewer will.

I suspect the main source of the confusion here is indicated by your use of the words "worry" and "injustice". I'm not sure what you mean exactly by either of those words. If you can define each of those two words for me in detail, I think I will be able to understand and answer your question much more directly and clearly.

Nonetheless, in the meantime, I have created a similar question without those two words, and posted it along with my answer. Here is the link to view that Q&A:

Q&A: "Where is the line between (1) letting go of all judgementalism versus (2) allowing for sadness at harm done to others?


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius