Here we go again (wikipedia)

[Unbound]

Show me who I am battling and falsifying? Show me who I want to defeat? I have no sense of certainty, xise. I feel there is nothing to conquer. In fact, I know for a fact the article most likely won't be deleted anytime I soon. I still voice myself seeing if a consensus using my suggestion has potential to exist. And my opinion will be cited in the future and used as a tool if this article ever falls apart.

This is collaborative, it would just take a long time for us to reach an understanding in discussion. I would be dishonest if I pretended to agree with people and say I want this article existing as it is, so all I can do is voice my opinion and see if people agree.

I'm certainly respecting the Wikipedia community by seeing if optimal consensus has been reached and if all the possible voices have been heard.

I want my way and the way of others as well in a perfect consensus without suppressing my own view. There is no true consensus if one part of the consensus has their opinion artificially suppressed.

So, how do you deal with 'ways' that are a counter-current to your own way? Do you seek victory for your own way, step away and allow their way, or strike a compromise?

You are very correct that there is no true consensus if one part of the consensus has their opinion artificially suppressed and do you realize that others also feel suppressed besides yourself? Do you have any consideration that your own words may cause another to be artificially suppressed even if that is not your intention? Why does it seem like you are only ever focused on the fact that you feel you can be suppressed but never seem to consider that other people feel suppressed as well. I am sure you will say that there is no right or wrong, that all is one, that you cannot suppress others but then I would say that it is impossible for others to suppress you so your whole argument and idea of "one part of the consensus has their opinion artificially suppressed" because based on your own continuous assertion that all is One, there is no right or wrong it is completely impossible for anyone to suppress your opinion.

So, which is it? Why when you disagree with something do you have to seek to change it? That is what you do, you disagree, then seek to change things based on what you say is a desire for consensus, including yourself, so what you are literally saying is that until you and everyone else agree, there needs to be more change. This confuses me, because once again it contradicts your own continuous assertion that nothing need be done and nothing is inherently important except our unity, so why are you so bent on consensus?

I just don't get it, you jump back and forth between these two total extremes and it just makes it look like you are constantly contradicting yourself. Perhaps that is my own inability to understand you, or perhaps it is just the nature of language to separate, but I don't see any reconciliation in your two extremes. I understand conceptually the nature of the paradox, but I am confused by the way it manifests through you, I suppose. You say you do not believe in effort, but it seems to me you really put a lot, in fact all, of your effort (of course, the effort is inherent as you would say, please don't start that circle again) towards the fulfillment of your desires even if you say you don't prioritize any of them (although your desire for consensus on this forum seems to be a high priority for you in the context of this forum, but maybe I am crazy).

So, all in all, I have no idea what you are actually trying to get at. Either your message is that we are all absolutely one, free, sovereign and infinite, or that we must change ourselves until we are "absolutely accepting" so we can polarize. Which one is it?