It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Clearly, the character who is the subject of the riddle would seem to be God, or at least, your slightly warped conception of God, which seems to be limited to viewing God as some cosmic schoolmaster, always watching, waiting for you to screw things up, waiting to punish you.
originally posted by: jannybobani9
a reply to: Soulworn
haha - I forgot I posted about the staring "eyes" - or whatever "it" uses to perceive.
No progress has been achieved concerning the identity in question- but - another cliffhanger, I think there are others. "It" is not the only one.
the eyes are such an important element of human beauty, don't you think?
There isn't enough beer.
If I isn't the only one then that means you're in a staring contest with more than one "it" ?
Is the inclusion of "darkness" an assumption on your part? Why is "not standing in the limelight" automatically inclusive of "darkness"? Not as a question to answer, Just a reminder not to assume.
Not neccessarily, it may loose interest in you, or maybe you will be distracted and forget about it.
originally posted by: jannybobani9
a reply to: Soulworn
the eyes are such an important element of human beauty, don't you think?
Yes - while generally, bodily organs are stuffed into our skin - present on our "inside" - our eyes seem to be hanging out of the skin bag, with an optional skin lid, backed up with some jazz lashes for batting effects; utilized for asking for favors and such. Like a "peek a boo" effect. I hope one day we can exchange eyes between different bodies, to see how the view of a set of eyes would change if being utilized by a different person.
There isn't enough beer.
I was out to dinner last night. The menu had a drink called "Ex-Girlfriend". It is a drink composed of the ingredients of a long island ice tea and a shot of sake. Reading your comment about there not being enough beer, makes me wonder if the person who designed the Ex-Girlfriend drink was trying to forget a pair of eyes.
If I isn't the only one then that means you're in a staring contest with more than one "it" ?
While yes, I can send my eyes in opposite directions and stare down several pairs of eyes at once, that is not the case with "it". I just perceived there being other eyes (eyes seem to be the theme of this post), peering at me from around "it". But my eyes are fixed on "it" - like we are assigned to each other or something? I don't know. There is a trap I am falling into while trying to figure this whole debacle out. The trap is that my mind starts adding details to my perception that weren't originally there. Then I become confused as to what really the content of the original perception is.
Another example of this trap to further explain what I mean by saying my mind is adding details to a perception: once I was standing on a pretty overlook, beholding a valley with many trees. I saw an empty space between the trees, and I tried to figure out what that empty space was. It looked, so clearly, like a street lamp. I thought "how strange, a street lamp in the woods". I got a hold of a pair of binoculars and zoomed into the street lamp, only to find out there was no street lamp. It was just a random empty space in the trees that my mind attributed "street lamp" to it, in its attempt to give meaning to what I was looking at. It happened to be shaped like a street lamp and there was a ray of light coming through, looking like a light bulb. When I realized how my mind added the street light attribute, I started toggling: binoculars - no binoculars, watching my mind seeing a street lamp - no street lamp.
I think something similar may be happening with "it". My mind starts attributing properties and meaning to what I am seeing, confusing me to a point that I am not sure what I am looking at. So I can only take perception with a grain
originally posted by: jannybobani9
a reply to: NobodySpecial268
I somehow missed its post originally.
Is the inclusion of "darkness" an assumption on your part? Why is "not standing in the limelight" automatically inclusive of "darkness"? Not as a question to answer, Just a reminder not to assume.
Yes, that is an attribute I assumed about "it"- just because even though it is something "right there" so to say, it also seems to be hidden. I don't know if that is my impaired perception or if it is really hidden. Either way, there is a mystery about it.
Not neccessarily, it may loose interest in you, or maybe you will be distracted and forget about it.
yeah.... sigh
A failsafe.
By all means, do elaborate more on your active social life, I'm sitting on the edge of my seat with anticipation the desire to know is so great!