Oneness cannot be completely explained using words.

[bahman]

I once experienced oneness. I once apprehended mind. I cannot make those experiences again or explain them by words. Oneness is a sort of experience of a very specific mental state. It is very rare though, not like love and hate.

The I does not experience oneness.

That is I that experiences everything.

The notion of an 'I' experiencing itself ..is a 'thought'.

It is different from thought. The thought is a form of experience that can be verbalized.

The 'thought' is an appearance of oneness that you already are prior to the 'thought' which is not what oneness is.

Do you mind to elaborate?

Follow the "I" inwards into itself. Do not associate it with any thought, feeling or perception to discover that you are obviously the 'thoughtless' witness of the 'thought' not the 'thought'.

Of course, we are not the thought.

The 'thoughtless' state cannot be put into words without making it a word which it is not. But this confuses the mind, but does not confuse the mind that has transcended itself to arrive at oneness, which is a rare state for the mind like you say. . because there are not many people willing to admit they have never existed except as an empty 'thought'

.

Of course, we are different from evolving thoughts.

[Skepdick]

Here is your question again:
Can "Oneness" and "Redness" be put into words or not? This is not a word-play - this is a yes/no question.

That was no rhetorical question.
You even emphasize a yes/no answer.

Steve, you are very dishonest man. The above is a rhetorical question, even though I emphasize a yes/no answer.
Because the answer to the rhetorical question is obviously "Yes, Oneness and Redness can be put into words".
If the answer was "No" then you could not have asked the question to begin with!

I know you must know what a rhetorical question actually is so this is a pure grammar school prank again.
You just continue to play juvenile word games.

Well, Steve. It is a juvenile game to try and pretend that you didn't put Oneness and Redness in to words, when that is exactly what you have done!

Back to the question of this topic, which you are trying to obstruct, and in your manner of speaking:
What the hell is Oneness?!?!?

I have no bloody clue, Steve! If you don't know what Oneness is, why are you using the word?

[surreptitious57]

When discussing something which is either unknowable or non physical it is usually given a name
This is simply for the purpose of identification so that everyone knows what is being referred to

In science the name for the non physical is absolute vacuum and so everyone knows what that means
Giving a name to something that has no property is more practical than not actually giving it a name

[Skepdick]

When discussing something which is either unknowable or non physical it is usually given a name
This is simply for the purpose of identification so that everyone knows what is being referred to

My brain short-circuited here. How do you even begin discussing an unknowable thing?

Go ahead and tell me something about frompulteft.

It's totally a word I just made up so I know that it doesn't refer to anything.
And now you know that it doesn't refer to anything either (because I told you it doesn't).

Lets discuss frompulteft!

In science the name for the non physical is absolute vacuum and so everyone knows what that means
Giving a name to something that has no property is more practical than not actually giving it a name

Surely, you appreciate the difference here?

The concept of "absolute vacuum" can be arrived at by starting with a regular vacuum, removing things (the remaining particles) recursively. At the end of that line is "absolute vacuum". There's even a name for this process - idealisation.

Now try that with frompulteft.

[Dontaskme]

The I does not experience oneness.

That is I that experiences everything.

That I does not experience ANYTHING ...as it's a ''thought''
The ''I thought'' ''IS'' the experience everything and nothing is experiencing.

The notion of an 'I' experiencing itself ..is a 'thought'.

It is different from thought. The thought is a form of experience that can be verbalized.

It's different only in the context there is no I except in this conception...as a known idea.

There is no personal I in the thought I ...thinking or being aware of that I thought.

The 'thought' is an appearance of oneness that you already are prior to the 'thought' which is not what oneness is.

Do you mind to elaborate?

You do not have to think yourself into being to be...there is only being. And being is always prior to any thought appearing in it.
Thought needs being to be known conceptually, but BEING does not need 'thought' to be.

Pure Being is primary and nondual. Whereas ''thought'' is the illusory dualistic aspect of pure thoughtless being..

.

[Dontaskme]

It is a juvenile game to try and pretend that you didn't put Oneness and Redness in to words, when that is exactly what you have done!

To ''put'' implies a putter....as in ''put'' into words...so what we are trying to grasp here, is how to explain in words the doer of the deed.

Who is the doer, can that doer be explained using words, for example: descibe what is supposedly doing the grass, growing the grass? or breathing air, or beating the heart? what is doing these things?

It's a infinite regress problem which points to no knowable original concept of a doer..do you see this point?

who or what PUT 's ?

How does the state of being manifest and what is it's origin?

Does it have an origin, and if not, then there is no putter? ..right?

If yes, it does have an origin then what, who, where, and how, could it be described as ?



.

[Dontaskme]

It's the same problem with any WORD not just the word oneness.

Describe the word EVIL to a dog or cat for example ...the consciousness in the animal will have no concept of the word at all.

The concept is an illusory manifestion of consciousness which in reality has no concept of itself whatsoever.

To imply that reality can be explained is to create an artificial duality that is just not there.

In reality, the absolute truth, no human being has ever SEEN the colour RED

RED IS just a made-up known concept, it's an idea WITHIN the knower that knows it...what is an idea? I have no idea.

What is a knower? ...I DO NOT KNOW.

Red is just an illusory appearance of INVISIBLE LIGHT of which everything and nothing is made of.

What is the exact location of a rainbow? Answer: It's location is in the knower and seer that cannot be seen or known.

.

.

[surreptitious57]

How do you even begin discussing an unknowable thing ?

Do you think human beings should limit their discussions to only things that they know ?
Do you think human imagination lacks the capability to discuss things it does not know ?

There are many things that are not known but this does not stop any curious minds from wanting to know them
There is a word for these things and that is metaphysics which is the study of things that transcend the physical

As a computer programmer and logician you probably dont really see the value in discussing the metaphysical
But others who are not computer programmers or logicians do see the value in discussing it and very much so

The most metaphysical being of all time is of course God who as such a being is supposed to be beyond human understanding at any level
But it doesnt stop all those who believe in him - the overwhelming majority of human beings alive today - from trying to understand him

They have no trouble in discussing him as an unknowable entity but would it be fair to say you do ?
Do you not allow your imagination to think of things outside of the things that you already know ?

Do you think knowledge is more important than imagination or do you think imagination is more important than knowledge ?
Do you think they are equally as important as each or are all these questions entirely superfluous or even simply ridiculous ?

I have no problem in discussing the metaphysical even though I dont believe in it and like you am more a logical thinker than an emotional one
So I am asking you all of these questions to see why you do not like discussing the unknowable - maybe because it is unfalsifiable or impractical

[Dontaskme]

So I am asking you all of these questions to see why you do not like discussing the unknowable - maybe because it is unfalsifiable or impractical

The problem with the metaphysical talk is that it is trying to talk about the unknowable as being something known.

However, there is a subtle difference albeit illusory, that that which is not known will and can eventually become known, but that which is unknowable can NEVER be known.

The problem with the ''mind that wants to know'' what ever that is, aka the concept of a 'separate self'...is that a question can only arise within that sense of separation, so it's a problem insofar as the separation does not actually exist in the mind because the mind is non-locatable, it's totally untraceable as belonging to a specific location known as a body entity...in truth, the mind that wants to know ..is just another idea. It's like light trying to shine on itself...there is no other thing there but itself, it all one.

.

[Skepdick]

Do you think human beings should limit their discussions to only things that they know ?
Do you think human imagination lacks the capability to discuss things it does not know ?

Yes.

If you don't believe me - go ahead and discuss frompulteft.

There are many things that are not known but this does not stop any curious minds from wanting to know them

That's Meno's paradox.

There is a word for these things and that is metaphysics which is the study of things that transcend the physical.

OK, so how would a metaphysician study a frompulteft?

As a computer programmer and logician you probably dont really see the value in discussing the metaphysical

All we have is metaphysics. The scientific epistemology is the best metaphysic at our disposal.

But others who are not computer programmers or logicians do see the value in discussing it and very much so

I am interested in metaphysics. Lets discuss the metaphysics of a frompulteft.

The most metaphysical being of all time is of course God who as such a being is supposed to be beyond human understanding at any level
But it doesnt stop all those who believe in him - the overwhelming majority of human beings alive today - from trying to understand him.

You sure know more about God than you know about a frompulteft. You know that God is a 'him'

Do you not allow your imagination to think of things outside of the things that you already know ?

I allow my imagination to invent things, sure. Like God and frompulteft.

Do you think knowledge is more important than imagination

I don't think there is a significant difference between the two. Knowledge is imagination that works.

[Dontaskme]

I allow my imagination to invent things, sure. Like God and frompulteft.

There is no such thing as a 'my imagination' except as imagined.

That which is imagined cannot be put into words simply because it does not exist.

Like I keep saying, words are empty to the core.

So there is nothing being put into words, and is what is meant by nothing aka oneness can/not be put into words. Because all you get at the end of the day is a great big ball of nothing.

.

[surreptitious57]

how would a metaphysician study a frompulteft ?

They would define what it was and what it did and also maybe why
But if it was entirely meaningless there would be nothing to study

[surreptitious57]

However there is a subtle difference albeit illusory that that which is not known will
and can eventually become known but that which is unknowable can NEVER be known

There are also things that are known unknowns and things that are unknown unknowns for both these categories
Human knowledge is always going to be limited because both human intelligence and human existence are finite

[Skepdick]

They would define what it was and what it did and also maybe why
But if it was entirely meaningless there would be nothing to study

Who is 'they'? You are a metaphysician. I am a metaphysician.

Lets discuss the metaphysics of a frompulteft.

I don't know how to define something I don't know anything about.

If you do, then lead the way.

[Dontaskme]

However there is a subtle difference albeit illusory that that which is not known will
and can eventually become known but that which is unknowable can NEVER be known

There are also things that are known unknowns and things that are unknown unknowns for both these categories
Human knowledge is always going to be limited because both human intelligence and human existence are finite

Exactly, thank you.