Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 2467
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Age » Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:50 am

AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:42 am
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:55 am
Unambiguous facts, which can NOT be refuted, is what I am LOOKING FOR, because this is what I want to also express.
Then language might be the wrong tool - you might have to communicate without using words.
Do you have any suggestions about what could be used instead, so that we are heard and understood?
AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:42 am
Look at the animal kingdom - there is communication but no misunderstanding. Why? Because there are no questions - there is simply natural activity.
But when the prey takes the wrong turn and gets eaten, was that because the "communication" was understood or misunderstood, or some thing else?

I do understand that ONLY human beings MAKE UP questions, and that that is the ONLY reason WHY there are perceived "problems" in Life. But questions by themselves do NOT cause misunderstanding. Language used with different words, definitions, and meanings causes misunderstanding, and so do ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS. Providing so called "answers" based on ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS cause misunderstandings, however. Truly OPEN clarifying questions pose nothing other than a 'problem' and a 'problem' is just a question posed for a solution. For EVERY question/problem there is an answer/solution.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:42 am
Language is an interesting tool, but not the right tool to express facts that cannot be refuted - everything you say can and will be misunderstood - thats the curse of language.
Are you sure?

If you are, then you OBVIOUSLY misunderstood what I was asking.

Did you understand or misunderstand what I was asking?

Also, if language is NOT the right tool to express facts that cannot be refuted, then what is the right tool to express that cannot be refuted?
AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:42 am
If you believe the opposite is true
How many times does it have to be explained to human beings before they understand that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing?
AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:42 am
then just look at all the communication you had on this forum - everything you say will be questioned,
Being 'questioned' does NOT necessarily mean being misunderstood. Some times, like I do, I just ask clarifying questions so as to make sure that I have UNDERSTOOD correctly, and am NOT misunderstanding at all.

And, are you SURE that EVERYTHING I say WILL BE questioned?
AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:42 am
no matter how true it might sound to you.
I do NOT believe any thing, let alone believe the opposite is true, so all moot.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:42 am
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:55 am
Furthermore, words used through language can be so quickly and very easily used to TRY TO justify one's own position, to cover up previously mistakes. For example the words, "you leave no room for "creative" expression", ATTEMPTS to put all of the fault onto the reader/listener for NOT understanding FULLY what the writer/speaker was previously meaning, yet was NOT written clearly itself in the beginning.
Sure, what is clear to one may be confusing for another.
Very true.

Could any one refute that?

If yes, then how?
If no, then there are some facts which can be expressed through language which can NOT be refuted.

AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:42 am
Guess thats why specific languages have been invented for very special purposes - e.g. computer programming languages where coding errors are simply prompted with a specific error code - meaning you, the programmer will have to correct the syntax of the code.
Human language has a certain degree of freedom where error messages come across in a multitude of ways - the best might be clarifying questions, others are misinterpretation and it ends in verbal assault... to me they are pretty much all the same,
So, to you, clarifying questions is pretty much the same as misinterpretation that ends in verbal assault?

To me there is a very big difference.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:42 am
but the problem is that human language is 1) not as strictly defined as a programming language and 2) the interpreter (in this case a machine) doesn't care about the meaning the programmer wants to convey, its only about syntax whereas humans care less about syntax but more about meaning.
For your information, to me, that is NOT a 'problem' at all, but rather just a statement about what is seen to be true, by you.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:42 am
Thus, its the meaning you will have to get across, words don't matter so much as what is meant to be understood (which can be the opposite of what is actually said).
And what do you propose is the BEST way to UNDERSTAND the actual meaning the writer/speaker wants to get across?

Also, how does meaning "get across" without words?
AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:42 am
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:55 am
PLEASE be as creative as you want, and can be, and please express anyway that you want to, but just like I WANT to be SHOWN the WRONG in my words I also like to point out the WRONG, which I SEE, in "other's" use of words also.
Fair enough.
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:55 am
If what is being expressed, creatively or not, is NOT true, then it is NOT true. If you do NOT like what I bring to light and SHOW, then that is NOT going to stop me doing so. The only thing that is going to STOP me would be obvious by now.
There is nothing you can say that I will consider "Thee Truth" - simply because language can only convey relative truth, no absolute truth has ever been spoken (this sentence including).
LOL

What can be SEEN is BELIEFS at their finest work now.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:42 am
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:55 am
For me, there is NO contest here at all. But what is here is a working platform where "we" can come together and FIND what the actual Truth IS. This to me is what 'philosophy' is about anyway.
Yes, maybe, but don't you find it interesting that so far nobody has been able to tell "Thee Truth"?
What do you mean by 'nobody has been able to tell 'thee Truth'?

Are you now saying that EVERY thing that has been said is NOT 'thee Truth'?

Also, if 'nobody has been able to tell 'thee Truth', then that means this, itself, is NOT 'thee Truth', which means that some body HAS BEEN ABLE TO tell 'thee Truth', which is rather all very contradictory.

Strongly held BELIEFS also clearly being SEEN here.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:42 am
This may be a hint that it actually can not be put into language - you can explain it, interpret it, point to it, but not conceptualise it in a way that it remains absolutely true.
But I have done this ALREADY.

Once you find out HOW to obtain the absolute Truth, then the more you LOOK then the more you SEE, UNDERSTAND, thus CAN CONCEPTUALIZE that actual and real Truth. This happens exponentially. Communicating this, however, is different.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:42 am
Sure, its the ONLY "place" where "Truth lays" - but discussing/interpreting it is always at a remove from it - its like watching a documentary about ice cream - it will never be able to deliver the same truth as eating ice cream for real - yes, you will know a lot about the theory of ice cream, the flavors, the ingredients, etc - but you will not know/experience the reality of its taste - thus ... I am not sure if discussing it has any real value at all... it might even do the opposite, as it builds expectations and may actually hold one back from enjoying the simplicity of the real.
So, by discussing that it is NOT possible to discuss and saying that it may actually hold you back from enjoying it, you keep discussing "it", which you say can not discussed/interpreted, which you also say is NOT 'thee Truth', because no one can express 'thee Truth'.

Besides all of that you also say the only place where 'Truth lays' is NOT somewhere you yourself will go because you BELIEVE that it is impossible to find, discuss, and express thee Truth. Yet you continue to discuss and express and though you, yourself, KNOW thee Truth.

Could you make this any more contradictory even if you tried to?

Also the BELIEFS are so strong and so tightly held now that they are so much more APPARENT and OBVIOUS. The ONLY reason you can NOT find and SEE thee Truth is because you are completely BLOCKED by those STRONG and TIGHTLY HELD BELIEFS.

AlexW
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by AlexW » Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:10 pm

Age wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:50 am
So, by discussing that it is NOT possible to discuss and saying that it may actually hold you back from enjoying it, you keep discussing "it", which you say can not discussed/interpreted, which you also say is NOT 'thee Truth', because no one can express 'thee Truth'.

Besides all of that you also say the only place where 'Truth lays' is NOT somewhere you yourself will go because you BELIEVE that it is impossible to find, discuss, and express thee Truth. Yet you continue to discuss and express and though you, yourself, KNOW thee Truth.
This is incoherent babble to me...
Anyway, you keep on learning how to communicate better, and maybe in another thread we talk again. Good luck to you.

onglob
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 4:15 pm

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by onglob » Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:08 pm

Age wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 13, 2019 1:51 am
Absolutely EVERY child is born WANTING to be recognized and accepted for 'Who I am'.

I suppose the point that children want to be recognized and accepted is true , because it is in their nature
and they have to depend on others to grow up and are much more helpless than adults and it has been a natural law not only for humans but for all other species to reproduce and maintain generations .

Age wrote: ↑
Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:39 pm
Only through working TOGETHER, with the apparent 'separate entity' of 'human being' can I be HEARD, RECOGNIZED, AND ACCEPTED for Who 'I' Truly am.
And again , I suppose , even almost all adults also want to be HEARD, RECOGNIZED, AND ACCEPTED .

From the above premises I just concluded that :
Almost all adults do not pass childhood during their whole lives !!!
Lacewing wrote: ↑
Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:21 pm
Age wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 13, 2019 1:51 am
Absolutely EVERY child is born WANTING to be recognized and accepted for 'Who I am'.
I don't think children are born wanting that. I think they are simply being.
But children grow up and change , so they can not be "beings" .

Age
Posts: 2467
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Age » Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:52 am

AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:10 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:50 am
So, by discussing that it is NOT possible to discuss and saying that it may actually hold you back from enjoying it, you keep discussing "it", which you say can not discussed/interpreted, which you also say is NOT 'thee Truth', because no one can express 'thee Truth'.

Besides all of that you also say the only place where 'Truth lays' is NOT somewhere you yourself will go because you BELIEVE that it is impossible to find, discuss, and express thee Truth. Yet you continue to discuss and express and though you, yourself, KNOW thee Truth.
This is incoherent babble to me...
Anyway, you keep on learning how to communicate better, and maybe in another thread we talk again. Good luck to you.
So, through discussions, you say that "it" is NOT possible to discuss, and also, through discussions, you say that idiscussing it may actually hold you back from enjoying "it" (whatever you call "real"). So, what you are doing is you keep discussing "it", which you also say can not be discussed/interpreted anyway. You also say that whatever you say is NOT 'thee Truth' also, because you BELIEVE and insist that no one can express 'thee Truth', right?

Besides all of that, you also, subconsciously/subliminally, say that the only place where 'Truth lays' is NOT somewhere you yourself will go. You BELIEVE that it is impossible to find, discuss, and express thee Truth, correct? So, obviously, your BELIEF will STOP you. Yet you continue to discuss and express, as though you, yourself, KNOW thee Truth.

In simple terms, you express as though you KNOW thee Truth but you also insist that thee Truth can NOT be known.

This all appears rather very contradictory. But maybe you can clear this up for me, or us?

AlexW
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by AlexW » Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:41 am

Your interpretation of what I have said is so far off the mark that I find it hard to answer to your post...
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:52 am
So, through discussions, you say that "it" is NOT possible to discuss
I have never said that - of course you can discuss whatever you like, even "it" if you feel like it - I also said you can point at "it", which means you can discuss "it", but I also said that this discussion will "always be at a remove from it" - discussing the taste of ice cream will never reveal the actual taste of ice cream. Do you understand what I am saying here?
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:52 am
you say that idiscussing it may actually hold you back from enjoying "it" (whatever you call "real")
I said discussion it "might even do the opposite, as it builds expectations and may actually hold you back from enjoying the simplicity of the real."
This means that if you constantly live your life in your head, in thought-world, then you will miss the present moment. The present moment is "it", it is real, the world you build in your head is not. It depends where attention/awareness rests as a default - if your default is on thought then you will be restless, constantly thinking and not really being able to enjoy life/"it".
Discussing "it" with the aim of understanding "it" is nice, but the goal of all these discussions is NOT to gain absolute understanding but much rather to realise that "it"/life should be lived, not understood.
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:52 am
You also say that whatever you say is NOT 'thee Truth' also, because you BELIEVE and insist that no one can express 'thee Truth', right?
You can not express absolute truth, no, as soon as you put a name to it you lose it as you objectify it. Absolute truth does not fit into the true/false, black/white categories of thought - it doesn't fit into concepts - as I said, it has to be lived (directly known) not understood.
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:52 am
you also, subconsciously/subliminally, say that the only place where 'Truth lays' is NOT somewhere you yourself will go
I have no idea what that means and how you put that together but I certainly didn't say it like that.
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:52 am
You BELIEVE that it is impossible to find, discuss, and express thee Truth, correct?
As I said, you can discuss all you like, but absolute truth will not be found in discussions.
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:52 am
Yet you continue to discuss and express, as though you, yourself, KNOW thee Truth
All you know directly is "thee Truth" but as soon as you interpret/conceptualise you move away from it.
It would be nice if you could see that this is the case and stop believing that you can speak absolute truth.
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:52 am
In simple terms, you express as though you KNOW thee Truth but you also insist that thee Truth can NOT be known.
Absolute Truth can be known directly - go and taste the ice cream - but it cannot be contained within any of the concepts we use - the thought of the taste of ice cream is not the direct knowing of the taste of ice cream.
Thats also why I wanted to show you the conceptual border from where you can not go any further using concepts - when you LOOK and state I see different colors this statement is still conceptual, not absolute truth, the "direct experience" on the other hand IS absolute truth.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6164
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:20 am

AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:41 am
Absolute Truth can be known directly - go and taste the ice cream - but it cannot be contained within any of the concepts we use - the thought of the taste of ice cream is not the direct knowing of the taste of ice cream.
AlexW...When you say 'Absolute Truth' can be known directly. What here is knowing 'Absolute Truth' directly?
Is the 'Absolute' knowing itself directly ? or is it known directly as and through a ''concept known'' ?

The problem here is that without a known there is no knowing at all, even the knowing of not-knowing still requires a KNOWER.

(A Non-conceptual unknown Knower and the concept known (knowing) are ONE and the same Un-Known Knower.
So from that point of veiw there is only here always the map, you are the map, everything is the map and the map is all that is known.)
The map is always under construction which can never complete. That is the Absolute...that is what infinity means, it means infinite.
It's means (not-knowing knowing) infinitely for eternity. Another way of saying this is the Absolute is this (inconceivable conceived) infinitely for eternity.

The problem with using the concept ''Known'' as in Absolute Truth can be known directly implies a ''KNOWER'' so there has to be a direct awareness that is being aware of itself that is taking place as this direct experience known...this awareness can only know itself in relation to not-knowing itself...and this is where the map is every much a part of the Absolute Truth that can be known directly ..because if there was no conceptual known thing to be aware of then there would be a total nothingness like there is in deep dreamless sleep. And since total nothingness is not a direct experience...the map is the only direct experience. So ''conceptual knowns'' must be all inclusive and be an integral part of any claimed direct experience.

You also state that 'Absolute Truth' can be known directly and cannot be contained within the conceptual understanding of 'direct knowing' as and through the map.

But then this ''direct knowing'' as and through the map, is contained within the Absolute? so there is no difference there except in the conception. Nothing is being negated here, it's all one and the same experience.
So there never was or is a concept known trying to know itself anyway, it's always and ever the Absolute in every sense of the word experiencing itself as and through a concept..albeit illusory...in the sense that ONLY 'Absolute Knowing' is the ONE conceiving itself relative to itself ONLY as the ABSOLUTE ONE.

Absolute one direct experience known as this pure not-knowing knowing, in the sense that nothing is known until knowing arises and is known instantly one with the knowing in the direct experience of the knowing one with itself.



.

Age
Posts: 2467
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Age » Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:34 am

onglob wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:08 pm
Age wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 13, 2019 1:51 am
Absolutely EVERY child is born WANTING to be recognized and accepted for 'Who I am'.

I suppose the point that children want to be recognized and accepted is true , because it is in their nature
and they have to depend on others to grow up and are much more helpless than adults and it has been a natural law not only for humans but for all other species to reproduce and maintain generations .

Age wrote: ↑
Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:39 pm
Only through working TOGETHER, with the apparent 'separate entity' of 'human being' can I be HEARD, RECOGNIZED, AND ACCEPTED for Who 'I' Truly am.
And again , I suppose , even almost all adults also want to be HEARD, RECOGNIZED, AND ACCEPTED .

From the above premises I just concluded that :
Almost all adults do not pass childhood during their whole lives !!!
The saying; "We are, after all, ALL only children in Life", may make some resemblance here.
onglob wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:08 pm
Lacewing wrote: ↑
Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:21 pm
Age wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 13, 2019 1:51 am
Absolutely EVERY child is born WANTING to be recognized and accepted for 'Who I am'.
I don't think children are born wanting that. I think they are simply being.
But children grow up and change , so they can not be "beings" .

Age
Posts: 2467
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Age » Tue Apr 23, 2019 10:36 am

AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:41 am
Your interpretation of what I have said is so far off the mark that I find it hard to answer to your post...
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:52 am
So, through discussions, you say that "it" is NOT possible to discuss
I have never said that - of course you can discuss whatever you like, even "it" if you feel like it -
But I NEVER said that.

From what I saw you write you were saying; When discussing the Truth you are always removed from the Truth, and, when discussing the Truth you will never be able to deliver the same Truth. So, from my interpretation, and this explanation, you said: Through discussions it is NOT possible to discuss "it" [the Truth].

I also said you can point at "it", which means you can discuss "it", but I also said that this discussion will "always be at a remove from it" - discussing the taste of ice cream will never reveal the actual taste of ice cream. Do you understand what I am saying here?[/quote]

I obviously understand it from the perspective I saw. If that is the EXACT SAME as yours is another matter. But I have also already just explained what I was saying, which you say is "so far off the mark", but from what I now SEE there is NOT that much difference at all. BUT you may SEE differently.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:41 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:52 am
you say that idiscussing it may actually hold you back from enjoying "it" (whatever you call "real")
I said discussion it "might even do the opposite, as it builds expectations and may actually hold you back from enjoying the simplicity of the real."
Yes, that is what I just said.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:41 am
This means that if you constantly live your life in your head, in thought-world, then you will miss the present moment.
That is what I saw you meant.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:41 am
The present moment is "it", it is real, the world you build in your head is not.
But parts of the "world" you build within your head COULD resemble the real world EXACTLY. Although other parts of the inbuilt "world" could be very different from the real world.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:41 am
It depends where attention/awareness rests as a default - if your default is on thought then you will be restless, constantly thinking and not really being able to enjoy life/"it".
Constantly thinking could be occurring within a body and still be really enjoying Life. The 'thinking' might actually contain Truly enjoyable thoughts. But please do NOT think that I do NOT know EXACTLY what you are talking about here. I just wanted to add the actual Truth into what you are saying.

Discussing "it" with the aim of understanding "it" is nice, but the goal of all these discussions is NOT to gain absolute understanding

How do you KNOW? Have you been involved in ALL discussions with ALL human beings?
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:41 am
but much rather to realise that "it"/life should be lived, not understood.
Is you being here in, this forum, 'discussing' "it" actually doing what you say SHOULD BE DONE? That is; living Life, instead of discussing "it"?

To REALIZE that Life, would be better lived, and NOT understood, should take about a second or two. BUT, to some, what comes with the REALIZATION that Life "should" be lived, also comes with more curiosity about UNDERSTANDING 'Life' also.

Some times with age comes a DESIRE to NOT just live 'Life', but also to UNDERSTAND 'Life' as best as could be.

Also, do you always DECIDE what the goal of all these discussions ARE?

Some people, after all, may well LOVE to gain absolute understanding of Life, WHILE they are LIVING "It".

Also, are you aware that: Discussing Life with the aim of understanding "It" is nice, but the goal of all these discussions is NOT to gain absolute understanding but much rather to realise that "it"/life should be lived, not understood could be SEEN as just ANOTHER one of those countless thought stories, which are just made up by just another human being?
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:41 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:52 am
You also say that whatever you say is NOT 'thee Truth' also, because you BELIEVE and insist that no one can express 'thee Truth', right?
You can not express absolute truth, no, as soon as you put a name to it you lose it as you objectify it.but much rather to realise that "it"/life should be lived, not understood.
So, according to your OWN "logic", what you just wrote here can NOT be absolutely true. IF it is NOT absolutely true, then what does that actually mean it IS?

If you can NOT express absolute truth, then what EXACTLY are you expressing here?

What you are really saying is that what you say here could be completely and utterly WRONG. This, however, contradicts the perception which you are TRYING so hard to SHOW, which is that what you say is absolutely True.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:41 am
Absolute truth does not fit into the true/false, black/white categories of thought -
Agreed. And that is WHY I take about 'Mind - KNOWING' and NOT about 'brain - thinking'. The two can produce completely OPPOSING VIEWS, which is WHY there is confusion and conflict even within individual human beings.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:41 am
it doesn't fit into concepts - as I said, it has to be lived (directly known) not understood.
BUT, according to your OWN "logic", this can NOT be absolutely true.

If what you say can NOT be absolutely true, then what is it?

If what you say here is just relative truth, then unless you are PERFECT and have lived a PERFECT life, then what is relatively true to you could be absolutely WRONG, FALSE, and/or INCORRECT, correct?
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:41 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:52 am
you also, subconsciously/subliminally, say that the only place where 'Truth lays' is NOT somewhere you yourself will go
I have no idea what that means and how you put that together but I certainly didn't say it like that.
OF COURSE you certain did NOT say it like that. That can be CLEARLY SEEN, from your clearly written words. Your words are, in fact, in typed writings, so clearly here for ALL to SEE.

You have said: The ONLY place thee Truth lays is at 'direct experience'. So, from your very own words, you KNOW where thee Truth IS.

You have said: But discussing/interpreting thee Truth you are always removed from it. So, from your very own words, your BELIEFS are OBVIOUS.

Therefore, because of the OBVIOUS BELIEFS that are being held onto you are subconsciously STOPPING yourself from entering WHERE thee Truth can be Truly understood and KNOWN.

You have also VERIFIED this from your very OWN words where you said: There is nothing you can say that I will consider "Thee Truth". So, from your very own words, your BELIEFS are OBVIOUS and are STOPPING thee Truth being discovered by or revealed to you.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:41 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:52 am
You BELIEVE that it is impossible to find, discuss, and express thee Truth, correct?
As I said, you can discuss all you like, but absolute truth will not be found in discussions.
Is this thee Truth, a BELIEF only, or just a relative and subjective truth, which could be WRONG or partly wrong?

Your clarity in answering this clarifying question will help to SHOW what thee actual and real Truth IS, (which unfortunately you say you can NOT express the absolute truth), so are we in a dilemma or what?
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:41 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:52 am
Yet you continue to discuss and express, as though you, yourself, KNOW thee Truth
All you know directly is "thee Truth" but as soon as you interpret/conceptualise you move away from it.
Therefore, this what YOU just expressed MUST BE, according to YOUR "logic", removed from the real and actual Truth.

So, what IS the real and actual Truth, if you can NOT express It?

Also, WHY can YOU NOT interpret/conceptualize the Truth?

Considering it is much EASIER and SIMPLER, for me, to interpret/conceptualize the actual and real Truth, instead of just MAKING UP stories like you do, WHY do you THINK you find it so HARD and COMPLEX interpret/conceptualize what IS, after all, JUST REAL and TRUE?
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:41 am
It would be nice if you could see that this is the case and stop believing that you can speak absolute truth.
But I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

You are one BELIEVING things and OBVIOUSLY stating them as though they are the absolute truth.

You have also made up an ASSUMPTION and basing your BELIEFS on that made up WRONG assumption.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:41 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:52 am
In simple terms, you express as though you KNOW thee Truth but you also insist that thee Truth can NOT be known.
Absolute Truth can be known directly - go and taste the ice cream - but it cannot be contained within any of the concepts we use - the thought of the taste of ice cream is not the direct knowing of the taste of ice cream.
But express how 'ice cream' tastes in relation to what the actual and real Truth of things is about as closely related to the MADE UP THOUGHT idea that YOU can NOT express an absolute truth.

Are there writings, in typed form, in front of a human being on a screen right now?

Now, WHY do you propose that YOU can NOT express the absolute truth, to this question?
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:41 am
Thats also why I wanted to show you the conceptual border from where you can not go any further using concepts -
BUT I CAN and HAVE gone further.

Just because "alexw" has NOT gone further YET, does NOT mean that I nor "others" can NOT. Do you understand this fact?

If you do NOT, then that MEANS that those BELIEFS are just way to strong for you to be able to SEE the actual and real Truth of things.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:41 am
when you LOOK and state I see different colors this statement is still conceptual, not absolute truth, the "direct experience" on the other hand IS absolute truth.
Which can be VERY EASILY and SIMPLY explained AND understood.

Just because you BELIEVE otherwise, this does NOT make your BELIEVE true nor correct in any way whatsoever.

AlexW
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by AlexW » Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:22 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:20 am
AlexW...When you say 'Absolute Truth' can be known directly. What here is knowing 'Absolute Truth' directly?
Is the 'Absolute' knowing itself directly ? or is it known directly as and through a ''concept known'' ?
There is no separate knower, nor is there a process of knowing or an object known.
Knowing is only a word, maybe its misleading, depends how you look at it...
The Absolute simply IS. Direct experience simply is - there is no experiencer, no process of experiencing, no thing experienced.
It doesn't matter if there seems to be objective experience (as when you are awake) or no objectivity (as in deep sleep) - waves or no waves the ocean is the ocean.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:20 am
because if there was no conceptual known thing to be aware of then there would be a total nothingness like there is in deep dreamless sleep
No, that's not true.
You are aware even if there is no thought arising, right? No thought means no conceptual knowing.
In thoughtless awareness there is no experiencer and no separate experience but there is experience/awareness/This... its not nothing, its rather NO thing.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:20 am
the map is the only direct experience
No, you never know/experience the map. You always only experience the absolute (even thoughts are the absolute - but put together as conceptual stories they create an overlay, a map that is NOT the absolute - only the absolute IS - concepts are ideas and what they define is not real)
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:20 am
You also state that 'Absolute Truth' can be known directly and cannot be contained within the conceptual understanding of 'direct knowing' as and through the map.
Yes, you only know the absolute - always. How could it be otherwise?
Its just the conceptual overlay that we wrap over the absolute that makes it nearly impossible to recognise it.
People believe in there being 3 parts to experience - the knower, the knowing and the known - this is how the map works - but we never actually experience any of these parts.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:20 am
But then this ''direct knowing'' as and through the map, is contained within the Absolute?
There is no direct knowing through the map.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:20 am
So there never was or is a concept known trying to know itself anyway, it's always and ever the Absolute in every sense of the word experiencing itself as and through a concept..albeit illusory...in the sense that ONLY 'Absolute Knowing' is the ONE conceiving itself relative to itself ONLY as the ABSOLUTE ONE.
A concept cannot do anything - the thought is known, yes, but the content cannot be known directly - why? because the content is always objective - and you cannot directly know objects/things - simply because in reality they do not exist.
Also, the Absolute doesn't do anything - as there is no knower knowing the known, but only absolute, undivided being, all apparent doing is part of the map.

AlexW
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by AlexW » Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:31 am

AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:22 am
So, what IS the real and actual Truth, if you can NOT express It?

Also, WHY can YOU NOT interpret/conceptualize the Truth?
You are repeating yourself - you are asking me again and again to tell you the absolute truth and I always say, no, I can not.
Why?
Because language, thought, concepts work within the realm of the objective/relative where things are true or false (or somewhere in between).
Everything I say is relatively true or false but the absolute is completely OUTSIDE of this thought made limitation - there is no absolute truth - there is only the Absolute - to add the word "truth" (or any other word) to the Absolute is already too much - forget truth, its for egos only.

See, you are trying to describe something (not a thing) using a tool (language) that is meant to describe things, objects, but the absolute is no thing - now describe it! Yes, you can say, like I just did, it is a no-thing (not nothing but not a thing) and you might understand this by again interpreting the answer, but this interpretation again is rooted in the limited, relative, objective - its perfectly useless!
Language will and can not make the absolute known - to the contrary, it actually hides it - how strange would it be if the absolute required language/concepts for it to make itself know... it doesn't require descriptions to be known - it is known via Being - its the most simple, direct knowing there is, there is nothing conceptual required to know it.

Thus, instead of describing it I rather tell you: buy some ice cream and taste it.
There you go! The absolute is right on your tongue :-)

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6164
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:53 am

AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:22 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:20 am
AlexW...When you say 'Absolute Truth' can be known directly. What here is knowing 'Absolute Truth' directly?
Is the 'Absolute' knowing itself directly ? or is it known directly as and through a ''concept known'' ?
There is no separate knower, nor is there a process of knowing or an object known.
Knowing is only a word, maybe its misleading, depends how you look at it...
The Absolute simply IS. Direct experience simply is - there is no experiencer, no process of experiencing, no thing experienced.
It doesn't matter if there seems to be objective experience (as when you are awake) or no objectivity (as in deep sleep) - waves or no waves the ocean is the ocean.
There must be a process by which a wave can know itself as the ocean which is actually only ever the ocean knowing it's waving? in that it's one with the knowing? there is no separation in that statement... separation is caused purely by the not-knowing knowing itself albeit illusory in that knowledge informs the illusory nature of a separate knower?

And this correlates perfectly with what you said here...''When you say 'Absolute Truth' can be known directly.''

I don't think there is only one way to put (describe) this, it can be put in many ways...but ultimately the actual direct experience always defaults to the ONE...many authors will appear, yet there can only ever be one reader of every apparent written description.

.

AlexW
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by AlexW » Tue Apr 23, 2019 12:12 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:53 am
I don't think there is only one way to put (describe) this, it can be put in many ways...but ultimately the actual direct experience always defaults to the ONE...many authors will appear, yet there can only ever be one reader of every apparent written description.
Sure, agree, there are many ways to express this, and all only relatively true.
We all play Chinese whispers in the relative :-)

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6164
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Apr 23, 2019 12:14 pm

Dam:
because if there was no conceptual known thing to be aware of then there would be a total nothingness like there is in deep dreamless sleep
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:22 am
No, that's not true.
You are aware even if there is no thought arising, right? No thought means no conceptual knowing.
In thoughtless awareness there is no experiencer and no separate experience but there is experience/awareness/This... its not nothing, its rather NO thing.

Yes, You are aware even if there is no thought arising, you have to be first order to know second order, although second order is only ever occuring in first order, in that it's not separate from it.

I'm not saying there is conceptual knowing, as in a concept knowing itself. I'm saying a concept is known, as and when that concept arises in nothing or not-a-thing...as a concept is KNOWN, like the word 'knowing' for example, that is the only available experience. Awareness itself is not an experience, it's not a concept, it's not a thing, or thought...but knows every conceptual experience as and when it arises? I'm not saying the known concept is experiencing here, that which is known cannot know anything.

Nothingness and Everything is the same ONE reality. So it's not nothing and it's not everything, it's both in the same instant.

.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6164
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Apr 23, 2019 12:32 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
the map is the only direct experience
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:22 am
No, you never know/experience the map. You always only experience the absolute (even thoughts are the absolute - but put together as conceptual stories they create an overlay, a map that is NOT the absolute - only the absolute IS - concepts are ideas and what they define is not real)
There is no you experiencing / knowing the map, the map is the experience.

The you you are referring to here is the experience, it's the actual map occuring within the Absolute You that is not an experience.

You are the Absolute right here now. Nowhere.


You cannot directly experience YOU. Every unreal idea ( an experience) is occuring within YOU as a dream, not real.

.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6164
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Apr 23, 2019 1:13 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
So there never was or is a concept known trying to know itself anyway, it's always and ever the Absolute in every sense of the word experiencing itself as and through a concept..albeit illusory...in the sense that ONLY 'Absolute Knowing' is the ONE conceiving itself relative to itself ONLY as the ABSOLUTE ONE.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:22 am
A concept cannot do anything - the thought is known, yes, but the content cannot be known directly - why? because the content is always objective - and you cannot directly know objects/things - simply because in reality they do not exist.
Also, the Absolute doesn't do anything - as there is no knower knowing the known, but only absolute, undivided being, all apparent doing is part of the map.
I never said a concept can know itself directly, as in do something. I said the only direct experience is when a concept becomes known...in the same context the direct experience of not-knowing becomes a known concept. ..that's the map...the map becomes the concept known...of course it's not the actual map knowing itself, for it's already being known directly as not-knowing knowing.

There is no direct experience of the knower of the map, there's just the conceptual map appearing as a dream/experience in no known knower.
I understand awareness cannot experience itself as an object, but the object is the only experience, the map is the only experience here, albeit an illusory dream object, it's still an experience...no thing is experiencing.

To say there is no direct experience of an object as an illusory thought, is to negate the direct experiencer which is awareness. They go together, arise mutually in the same instant. And that they arise mutually in the same instant ..this can also be seen that there is not-a-thing being experienced directly, nor is there a direct experience of an experiencer being experienced experiencing not-a-thing...you see?

To ''assume'' there is a KNOWN that can be a direct experience KNOWN) has to include the map...because the map is all that is KNOWN

The irony here is that it's all dreamscape so nothing is actually directly experiencing itself. So the dream is all there is..aka the map.

So it's even wrong to say there is direct experience of awareness, because even awareness HAS TO BE INCLUDED as the part of the KNOWN which is the map...there's nothing else known, nothing else here..not-a-thing here without a concept to be aware of. Both the knower and the known are one in the same instant. So here it appears that there is a not-a-thing knowing here, and a thing KNOWN here simultaneously.

.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: surreptitious57 and 2 guests