The Existential Crisis

[uwot]

Just because 'you', human beings, have not yet used the word 'blue' does NOT necessarily mean that 'you' did not yet see 'blue'.

Ok. Try it with green. Have a look at the 12 green squares. https://www.sciencealert.com/humans-did ... ce-science Your point is that precisely the same wavelength of electromagnetic energy is stimulating the cones in the retina of a Himba tribe member exactly the same way as you or I. We all get it, and I don't think anyone is disputing that.

Just because you do not have or use a word YET that does NOT mean that you are not yet seeing or experiencing that 'thing'.

In the case of the greens, yes it does, because I literally cannot see that one of them is a different colour. Makes you wonder why, if we are all one consciousness, we are conscious of different things.

[Dontaskme]

If 'you' are saying what is correct or not correct, then that means 'you' know, and, if the only knowing there is, is Consciousness, Itself, then that would mean that 'you' are Consciousness, Itself, correct?

If we truly know that Consciousness is all there is, this question would not arise.

But it is because I do NOT know Consciousness is "all there is" I am asking you the question, which you are now 'trying to' deflect from answering.

See, there is obviously more than just Consciousness, as evidenced by these actual words used to communicate between two "things".

Yes, there are two ''things'' seemingly involved in any communication....but ''things'' are only ever words. In the beginning was the word. Each time a word appears, there has to be present a knowing that knows the word, that knowing is that in which the word appears.
A word known is a label, it's a name known by the only knowing there is. Also the word is the means of communication, identification.
A name is not you, and yet without a name, consciousness can't ask about you aka the name. Consciousness is only ever communicating with itself conceptually in this conception.

But 'you' are NOT answering the actual questions I am asking you.

You keep referring to some thing, which I do NOT yet agree with.

Consciousness doesn't need to ask questions about Consciousness, itself, consciousness is already self evident, it is, it's already known to itself. But if and when questions do arise, it's only consciousness referring / and relating to itself, for what else can possibly be asking a question? there is only consciousness here talking to itself, the self exists as it's own conceptually constructed idea, aka the named one.

.

[Sculptor]

Just as I was implying, if you decided to CLARIFY with me first, then you will SHOW that you are actually trying to understand what I am communicating, to you, and then you will have learned some thing.

Why did you make the assumption that I was "getting so hysterical"?

Now, you have made the other assumption that I am not understanding what you are trying to communicate, and so I did not learn something.

So, what was it that you were trying to communicate to me? What is that thing you want, think, or believe I could learn?



In case you MISSED it, I said; 'But not ALL carry a massive set of 'expectations' at all.

And, if you decide to CLARIFY with me first, then you will SHOW that you are actually trying to understand what I am communicating, to yu, and then you may learn some thing.

Now, you made the HUGE CLAIM that 'we' ALL, and at ALL times carry expectations. I am NOT sure what else you could be 'trying to' communicate here other than "ALL people at ALL times carry expectations". Is this what you are 'trying to' communicate, with me?

If yes, then that WAS ALREADY UNDERSTOOD.

Now, let us see if you understand what I am trying to communicate, to you. Do you understand what I ACTUALLY MEAN when I say; 'Not ALL carry a massive set of 'expectations' at all, as you claimed earlier on?

If yes, then what do I ACTUALLY MEAN?

But if you do not yet understand, then I have ALREADY suggested what to do.

Oh, and by the way, you have now made the claim that "Your idiotic response is a case in point". Are you at all AWARE that just because I do NOT agree with you and do NOT accept your conclusions and claims that this then does NOT mean that I do not understand what you are saying, AND MEANING?

If you were NOT aware before, then you are NOW.



What are you ASSUMING and CLAIMING I "expected" to see in what you have written? And, what have I, supposedly, "utterly failed to find anything in what you wrote, which I supposedly did not "expect" to find?

From my perspective, the VERY THINGS you are ASSUMING and CLAIMING in regards to 'me' is EXACTLY what 'you', yourself, are doing.

I was NOT 'expecting' ANY thing in what you wrote. What I saw was what you wrote, which was;
"we carry a massive set of expectations based upon out existing world view."

If that does NOT mean "we carry a massive set of expectations based upon our existing world view", then what does that actually mean?

Also, I was even OPEN enough to ask you to clarify what the word 'we' here was in reference to, SO THAT I did NOT make any assumptions at all.

I was NOT and am NOT 'expecting' ANY thing at all from your writings.



There has been probably countless times I have been accused of being "wrong" YET NOT ONE shred of evidence is provided for this. NOT even a hint as to what it is that I am supposedly "wrong" about is even given other than PRIME EXAMPLES like this one, which is: "You are wrong on a series of levels".

Now, do NOT forget you are in a philosophy forum. Therefore, I suggest backing up and supporting this claim with some actual evidence and/or proof, so that we at least have SOME thing to LOOK AT, and DISCUSS.

I purposely came into a philosophy forum to get my views scrutinized, criticized, and challenged. I also wanted to be questioned in regards to what I say. Yet I get more successful attempts at this from kindergarten aged children then I do from most in this forum.

How many times are you going to hint that I am WRONG but NEVER provide any actual thing for your claim other than that is what you BELIEVE?

Have you noticed just HOW MANY TIMES all you do is say what you BELIEVE IS TRUE but NEVER provide any evidence nor proof for it?



BUT WHY?

What does 'perfect objective observation' ACTUALLY MEAN, to you.

See, from my perspective, these two things you have proposed here DO NOT necessarily belong with each other. Certainly YOUR conclusion does NOT follow on from YOUR premise.



So, does this mean to you that ALL, so called, "blind people" can NOT have a point of view?




They only see what they consider relevant. That immediately eliminates them from being able to see a thing perfectly objectively.

Do you fall into these categories as well?

This is psychology 101.

LOL

If that is psychology 101, then there is about 1 million and 1 more lessons you have to also learn.

Also, you say that like psychology does not change.

Was psychology 101 in the 1920 the SAME as in the year 1980 as it is in the year 2020?

It's not difficult, but you might have to stop bleating and actually THINK for a few seconds.

Once again, each time you talk ABOUT 'me' the resemblance to 'you' is STRIKINGLY BRIGHT.

I shall not be holding my breath.

You don't even know what you mean.



As can be CLEARLY EVIDENCED ONCE AGAIN, NOT ONE solitary notion of interest NOR investigation to what I am actually saying AND MEANING is being shown.

You are being a bit shouty.
I never read shouty posts.
When you calm down and have something reasonable to say I might even read your post.

I might NOT be shouting at all. I might just be, quietly, emphasizing, and doing it in another way of the four or five ways that I use to emphasize.

You would obviously have to LOOK AT a post FIRST, before you could make the assumption/interpretation, "it is a shouty post". If you are just looking for words, which, to you, indicate that "it is a, so called, "shouty" post", so you then can make the pre-decided decision to not read the actual post, then, as I ALREADY MADE CLEAR, but which you OBVIOUSLY would NOT YET KNOW is; it is actually 'you' who is the actual one who, literally, has expected and only seen what you want to see in what I have written and utterly failed to find anything in it you did not expect to find.

'You', once again, are proving, with actual evidence, how you do EXACTLY what you accuse 'me' of doing.

By the way HOW would you KNOW that I do NOT have "something reasonable to say" if you, supposedly, you have NOT 'even' read my post? Your obvious lies or excuses again are strikingly "brilliant".

And, if you supposedly NEVER read, so called, "shouty" posts, then what do you use to gauge what a "shouty" post IS exactly? Also, are you 'even' aware that EVERY one of my posts looks more or less relatively the exact same? So, if one of them is supposedly a, so called, "bit shouty", then they would ALL be the relatively same, and, if you supposedly NEVER read shouty posts, then you would have OBVIOUSLY NEVER read ANY of mine.

Or, do you just decide, at the moment, IF you read or not?

Some might be seeing that actually you read posts but when you do NOT want to SEE what is actually being pointed out in them about 'you', then you just say things like you "NEVER read shouty posts". You also might say this when you do NOT want to answer Honestly the questions being posed to you in those posts. But you will NEVER recognize and SEE these FACTS because you will supposedly NEVER read THIS post.

You are STILL being a bit shouty.
I never read shouty posts.

[Dontaskme]

Is this all you can finish off with?

If I say that you can have the final say, then will that make you happy?

Idiot, this is not a debate so there is nothing final to say. It's a fact that you are mentally ill and only spout delusional bullshit, everyone knows it.

As long as you are happy to get the last word in and make it KNOWN that 'I' am an "idiot", "mentally ill, and "only spout delusional bullshit", then that is all that matter, correct?

Although, according to your so called "logic", everyone knew this about 'me' already anyway.

Why the obsession with having the last word?

Getting caught up in words is the play of consciousness identified with it's own conception, aka fictional story.

Every I am is the same one I am identified with it's own unique story according to it's own beliefs.

I AM the one and only first and last idiot. I AM the one and only first and last mentally constructed ill informed objectionable fictional character.

Suck it up, you were meant to endure this very wide open conception that only you have created.. else you'd be keeping it well and truely closed.

If you don't like the heat, stay out of it...simples!!

ill..equals i is two I I 's

Why be two, because it takes two to tango that's why, and because one is the loneliest number.

I really does love beating myself up, oh me and my shadow go everywhere together. There's no just no escaping myself, that I could possibly know of.


Having fun yet?

.

.

[Age]

Just because 'you', human beings, have not yet used the word 'blue' does NOT necessarily mean that 'you' did not yet see 'blue'.

Ok. Try it with green. Have a look at the 12 green squares. https://www.sciencealert.com/humans-did ... ce-science Your point is that precisely the same wavelength of electromagnetic energy is stimulating the cones in the retina of a Himba tribe member exactly the same way as you or I. We all get it, and I don't think anyone is disputing that.

Just because you do not have or use a word YET that does NOT mean that you are not yet seeing or experiencing that 'thing'.

In the case of the greens, yes it does, because I literally cannot see that one of them is a different colour. Makes you wonder why, if we are all one consciousness, we are conscious of different things.

But who says, "we are all one consciousness"?

[uwot]

But who says, "we are all one consciousness"?

Several people. Anyway, did you look at those green squares? Can you tell the odd one out? https://www.sciencealert.com/humans-did ... ce-science

[Age]

If we truly know that Consciousness is all there is, this question would not arise.

But it is because I do NOT know Consciousness is "all there is" I am asking you the question, which you are now 'trying to' deflect from answering.

See, there is obviously more than just Consciousness, as evidenced by these actual words used to communicate between two "things".

Yes, there are two ''things'' seemingly involved in any communication....but ''things'' are only ever words.

But 'things' are NOT "only ever words". If there are 'things', then they are what they ARE.

To me, it is just words, which are just used to distinguish between, or separate, one 'thing' from another 'thing'. Although there is only just one actual 'Thing', human beings use words to seemingly "separate" thee One into many.

In the beginning was the word. Each time a word appears, there has to be present a knowing that knows the word, that knowing is that in which the word appears.
A word known is a label, it's a name known by the only knowing there is.

But, to me, there are many 'things', which are 'knowing things', these 'things' are known as 'people' or 'human beings'.

Also the word is the means of communication, identification.

A name is not you, and yet without a name, consciousness can't ask about you aka the name.

But 'i' can ask many questions about "another" 'i', without ever knowing the 'name' or 'label' which was place on and associated with that human body sometime usually in relative terms around the birth of that human body.

Yes, obviously, a 'name' is NOT 'you', nor the 'i', and just as obvious is the human body is NOT 'you', nor the 'i'.

Consciousness is only ever communicating with itself conceptually in this conception.

If that is what that 'you' wants to believe is true, then so be it.

But 'you' are NOT answering the actual questions I am asking you.

You keep referring to some thing, which I do NOT yet agree with.

Consciousness doesn't need to ask questions about Consciousness, itself, consciousness is already self evident, it is, it's already known to itself.

And, remember it was not that to long ago the one, labeled "dontasme", was 'trying to' argue that the KNOWER/Consciousness can NEVER be KNOWN.

Yes, Consciousness does NOT 'need' to ask ANY question about ANY thing because It ALREADY KNOWS ALL things. But, Consciousness was NOT asking Its Self any question here, as you have alluded to; There is NO 'need' to. Consciousness was only asking the 'one', known as "dontaskme", questions here, and especially one question in regards to the one known as "dontaskme's" so called "logic" about if the only knowing there is, is Consciousness, Itself, and how if this is True, then according to that "logic" if any thing said that knows some thing, then that MUST BE Consciousness, Itself. So, If 'you' are saying what is correct or not correct, then that means 'you' know, AND, then that would mean that 'you' are Consciousness, Itself, correct?

I was just clarifying if this "logic" is correct, to 'you', because, to 'me', 'you' are NOT Consciousness, Itself.

But if and when questions do arise, it's only consciousness referring / and relating to itself, for what else can possibly be asking a question?

Those 'things' known as 'human beings', and any other 'thing' within the Universe that is able to ask questions, for that matter.

there is only consciousness here talking to itself, the self exists as it's own conceptually constructed idea, aka the named one.

.

But there is obviously NOT only Consciousness here, to me.

To me, there are many conscious 'things', known as human beings, talking back and forth to each other.

[Age]

Do you fall into these categories as well?



LOL

If that is psychology 101, then there is about 1 million and 1 more lessons you have to also learn.

Also, you say that like psychology does not change.

Was psychology 101 in the 1920 the SAME as in the year 1980 as it is in the year 2020?



Once again, each time you talk ABOUT 'me' the resemblance to 'you' is STRIKINGLY BRIGHT.



You are being a bit shouty.
I never read shouty posts.
When you calm down and have something reasonable to say I might even read your post.

I might NOT be shouting at all. I might just be, quietly, emphasizing, and doing it in another way of the four or five ways that I use to emphasize.

You would obviously have to LOOK AT a post FIRST, before you could make the assumption/interpretation, "it is a shouty post". If you are just looking for words, which, to you, indicate that "it is a, so called, "shouty" post", so you then can make the pre-decided decision to not read the actual post, then, as I ALREADY MADE CLEAR, but which you OBVIOUSLY would NOT YET KNOW is; it is actually 'you' who is the actual one who, literally, has expected and only seen what you want to see in what I have written and utterly failed to find anything in it you did not expect to find.

'You', once again, are proving, with actual evidence, how you do EXACTLY what you accuse 'me' of doing.

By the way HOW would you KNOW that I do NOT have "something reasonable to say" if you, supposedly, you have NOT 'even' read my post? Your obvious lies or excuses again are strikingly "brilliant".

And, if you supposedly NEVER read, so called, "shouty" posts, then what do you use to gauge what a "shouty" post IS exactly? Also, are you 'even' aware that EVERY one of my posts looks more or less relatively the exact same? So, if one of them is supposedly a, so called, "bit shouty", then they would ALL be the relatively same, and, if you supposedly NEVER read shouty posts, then you would have OBVIOUSLY NEVER read ANY of mine.

Or, do you just decide, at the moment, IF you read or not?

Some might be seeing that actually you read posts but when you do NOT want to SEE what is actually being pointed out in them about 'you', then you just say things like you "NEVER read shouty posts". You also might say this when you do NOT want to answer Honestly the questions being posed to you in those posts. But you will NEVER recognize and SEE these FACTS because you will supposedly NEVER read THIS post.

You are STILL being a bit shouty.
I never read shouty posts.

I KNOW I AM.

I do this on PURPOSE NOW so that you will NEVER SEE that what I am saying and pointing out about 'you' is thee ACTUAL Truth of things, and of which you could NEVER even refute. This is because it is OBVIOUSLY just a plain irrefutable FACT.

[Age]

Idiot, this is not a debate so there is nothing final to say. It's a fact that you are mentally ill and only spout delusional bullshit, everyone knows it.

As long as you are happy to get the last word in and make it KNOWN that 'I' am an "idiot", "mentally ill, and "only spout delusional bullshit", then that is all that matter, correct?

Although, according to your so called "logic", everyone knew this about 'me' already anyway.

Why the obsession with having the last word?

Why did you only ask me this, AFTER 'I' was the one who made the point OBVIOUS?

There was and is NO obsession, on my part anyway, with having the last word.

Or, are you NOT asking me this but just asking it out aloud so that you can then reply to your own question so that 'you' can see it?

Getting caught up in words is the play of consciousness identified with it's own conception, aka fictional story.

Every I am is the same one I am identified with it's own unique story according to it's own beliefs.

But 'I' do NOT have any beliefs, as they are a completely UNNECESSARY thing, for Me.

I AM the one and only first and last idiot. I AM the one and only first and last mentally constructed ill informed objectionable fictional character.

Suck it up, you were meant to endure this very wide open conception that only you have created.. else you'd be keeping it well and truely closed.

If you don't like the heat, stay out of it...simples!!

ill..equals i is two I I 's

Why be two, because it takes two to tango that's why, and because one is the loneliest number.

I really does love beating myself up, oh me and my shadow go everywhere together. There's no just no escaping myself, that I could possibly know of.


Having fun yet?

.

.

Are you able to logically explain how there could be a 'myself' if there is only One?

Who and/or what is the 'my' in relation to the 'self', and, who and/or what is the 'self' exactly?

One might be logically able to say and explain 'my car', 'my house', but how does one logically explain 'my self'?

By the way, this can be logically explained, again, very simply and very easily BUT there is a tremendous amount to discover and/or learn prior to being able to understand this FULLY. But when, and IF, one gets to this stage of understanding, then they are well on their way to gaining and obtaining True understanding , and thus also understanding and comprehending ALL-OF-THIS.

[Age]

But who says, "we are all one consciousness"?

Several people.

But did any of these several people explain HOW 'we' all could be one consciousness when we ALL, individually, have different views, and perspectives?

Anyway, did you look at those green squares? Can you tell the odd one out? https://www.sciencealert.com/humans-did ... ce-science

No I can NOT tell the ACTUAL odd one out, but I can tell you which one, from my perspective, looks 'relatively different than the other ones, which, by the way, look 'relatively' the same, to me. Why?

[Dontaskme]

And, remember it was not that to long ago the one, labeled "dontasme", was 'trying to' argue that the KNOWER/Consciousness can NEVER be KNOWN.

NO man..the character 'dontaskme' is a KNOWN concept, concepts do not know anything, knowing is NOT known by the character, but by the only knowing there is which is consciousness. Consciousness is the original ground in which all concepts arise and are known as and when they arise one with the knowing. That which is known, aka the character doesn't and cannot know anything...so get your facts straight.

Consciousness can never know it is consciousness, because it's the ONLY knowing there is, consciousness is inconceivable, and yet knows every concept that arises in it in this APPARENT conception... Consciousness APPEARS to split in two, into knower and known. However, Both Knower and Known create each other simultaneously in the same exact moment...in this conception...prior to which no thing is here/there.

So yeah, that's right, the KNOWN can't know anything, the known is already being known by that which cannot be known. I really do not think you are able to grasp what this comment is saying and is why you continue to question it....

Please stop acting so dumb about this Age...you already know all this anyway...Don't you understand that when you are trying to discuss what you already know with another sage (knowing) ...the discussion will just become a futile exercise, simply because there is no thing there in the other sage (knowing) for you to bounce off, and that is all you are trying to do is make a big bouncy drama out of no thing, and this is your problem, one that you do not seem to recognise you are creating. And is why I only engage in discussing this with you when I'm feeling like I want to play the big bouncy bouncy game with someone else.


.



.

[Dontaskme]

By the way, this can be logically explained, again, very simply and very easily BUT there is a tremendous amount to discover and/or learn prior to being able to understand this FULLY.

Ok Age, you are only ever preaching to the already converted.

If you already know that your claim is correct, then yeah I agree with that knowing, simply because you are informing me of this truth claim right now.

But when, and IF, one gets to this stage of understanding, then they are well on their way to gaining and obtaining True understanding , and thus also understanding and comprehending ALL-OF-THIS.

Ok Age, you are only ever preaching to the already converted.

If you already know this truth claim to be the correct knowing, then yeah I agree with that knowing, because only the right knowing can be, right?...

So what else is new? any thing, is there any thing I don't know that you can inform me of?

.

[surreptitious57]

But did any of these several people explain HOW we all could be one consciousness when we ALL individually have different views and perspectives

Every human being is different but every human being is also a member of the human species
These two facts are not incompatible so one can be both an individual and a part of the whole

[Skepdick]

Every human being is different but every human being is also a member of the human species
These two facts are not incompatible so one can be both an individual and a part of the whole

We are all the same AND we are all different.

Is that a contradiction

Some would say yes. Some would say no.

[Skepdick]

So what else is new? any thing, is there any thing I don't know that you can inform me of?

You exist.