Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 11:49 pm What 'you' find UNKNOWABLE, and even UNFATHOMABLE, 'we' have ALREADY come to KNOW, and IRREFUTABLY I will add.
I've been through all this with you before Age. I have spoken about why I state we cannot know anything.
And I have been through all this with 'you' before "dontaskme". I have spoken about why I state we have ALREADY COME TO KNOW what you state can NOT be KNOWN
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
We don't know there is a knower, we 'create' the knower to make sense of the world. Knowing creates the knower.
We do KNOW there is a knower, we KNOW the knower, and this makes sense of 'the world'. Knowing can be opposed to thinking.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
But what is knowing?
'Knowing' is when one has ACTUAL PROOF, and thus is absolutely sure, without doubt.
Which, again, can be OPPOSED to 'thinking', itself.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
Can this knowing be known and by what?
Yes, and NOT by 'you', what 'you' call the illusioned 'i'. But by thee One and ONLY 'I'.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
What is knowing? ..yes, it does appear to be the case that we are this knowing, but we cannot know this knowing as we can know a 'thing'.
This is just 'you' ASSUMING 'things', WITHOUT KNOWING 'things' FIRST.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
We cannot point to a 'thing' and inform ourself that this 'thing' is the ''knower''
Again, contrary to what you ASSUME and BELIEVE here, we have ALREADY done this.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
We assume there is a knower because there is knowing.
That is what 'you' do but NOT what 'we' do.
'We' do NOT assume absolutely ANY thing like this. And, because 'you' ASSUME 'things' like this, this is WHY 'you' are SO LOST and SO CONFUSED here.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
The same way we assume a seer because there is seeing.
If that is what 'you' do and want to keep doing, then so be it. But I suggest doing otherwise and what we do INSTEAD.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
But what is seeing?
It is both observing and noticing with or through the eyes, as well as understanding. It all depends on what context that word is being used.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
Can the seer see itself?
Yes, the Seer/I can SEE thy Self, through UNDERSTANDING.
Which is the EXACT SAME WAY I can SEE as well as KNOW, and UNDERSTAND ALL things, including absolutely EVERY thing 'you' SAY and BELIEVE 'I' can NOT.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
What does the seer look like?
The 'seer', and thee 'Seer', as I have ALREADY INFORMED 'you' PREVIOUSLY, can NOT be seen with the physical eyes, and this is just because they are INVISIBLE things, AGAIN, as 'I' have ALREADY INFORMED 'you'. But, they can be SEEN with the Mind's Eye, or what is also called the Third Eye, and this Eye SEES 'things' through UNDERSTANDING and KNOWING, and NOT from the sense which 'you' ALWAYS resort to.
And, what they 'look like' is EXPLAINED and DEMONSTRATED, or ILLUSTRATED, through WORDS. Just like how other things can be EXPLAINED, DEMONSTRATED, and ILLUSTRATED through words, and thus SEEN and/or UNDERSTOOD. Do 'you' KNOW what 'I' MEAN? Can 'you' SEE what 'I' MEAN?
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
if you think about that, you cannot find the seer, or the knower anywhere that can be localised and isolated from actual seeing and knowing,
But as I am CONTINUALLY INFORMING 'you', 'I' have ALREADY FOUND and SEEN the 'seer'/the 'you', AND thee 'Seer'/'I'.
One is just the Knower and Seer of ALL 'things', whereas the "others" just 'thinks' 'it' knows some 'things', but does 'understand' SOME 'things', ONLY.
When, and IF, 'you' EVER LEARN and UNDERSTAND how the Mind and the brain work, EXACTLY, like 'we' and 'I' do, then all of this becomes MUCH CLEARER and MUCH MORE SIMPLER and EASIER to UNDERSTAND, and KNOW.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
it cannot be separated out as an independant thing in and of itself.
OF COURSE 'it' can NOT, physically. However, 'it' can be, conceptually.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
If you have seen the seer Age...then do tell us what the seer looks like?
The word 'seer' refers to 'you', the person, WITHIN the human body. This 'person' is made up of thoughts and emotions. BOTH thoughts AND emotions and NOT visible to the human eye 'things'. So, it is IMPOSSIBLE to TELL 'you' what 'it' 'looks like', physically. But what 'it' 'looks like' conceptually, I have ALREADY just EXPLAINED, and thus ILLUSTRATED, for 'you' 'to be ABLE to 'see' what the 'seer' 'looks like'.
The 'Seer', however, is DIFFERENT.
Also, WHY 'you' are so INSISTENT that the 'seer' can NOT 'see', itself, is because the 'seer' is, literally, 'you', and if one of 'you' is 'trying to' look FOR and SEE and invisible thing, with the human eyes, then, OBVIOUSLY, 'you' can NEVER SEE the 'seer', that is; 'you'.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
If you know the knower Age... then do tell us what the knower looks like?
The 'knower' is, AGAIN, just 'you'. Which, AGAIN, is just the 'thought' and 'emtions' WITHIN the human body. The 'knower' word in regards to 'you' is just in relation to the 'thinking' that KNOWS without doubt, things like if the sun can be seen and felt or if the sun is behind clouds, from your perspective, and whether it is raining or not, on that body.
The 'Knower', however, is DIFFERENT.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
What does this ''you'' or ''we'' or ''I'' look like that is assumed to be the knower and the seer?
A human body is created, from the sperm of a male human body when combined with an egg of a female human body. That created human body evolves, usually, within the female body, which held the egg. When that human body is born, out of that female body, for sake of this explanation, there exists NO thoughts, within that human body. But, as the that human body experiences more and more of 'the world' around 'it', more and more new 'thoughts' come to be, within that body. Now, the 'you' word can either refer to 'you', the 'human being' or the 'person', of which there are many. But what the 'you' 'looks like' all depends on what, or who, 'it' is EXACTLY which the 'you' word is being referred to, EXACTLY. The 'you' word, under the label "age" here usually refers to the 'person', which is just the INVISIBLE 'thoughts' and 'emotions' WITHIN a human body, "age" included.
Who or what the 'we' word 'looks like', again, depends on who and/or what the 'we' IS, EXACTLY, when being used. The 'we' word can be at least two of 'us' and ANY number of 'us' up to and including ALL of 'us'.
What and who the word 'I' refers to 'looks like' ALL of 'us', TOGETHER, as One.
What and who the word 'i' refers to 'looks like' ANY one of 'us,' INDIVIDUALLY. Which exist in concept ONLY, or in physicality with some PERCEIVED 'separation'. The 'what' words usually refers to the VISIBLY SEEN physicality, and the who word usually refers to the INVISIBLE one or One WITHIN.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
In every experience, the observer is the known, but what does the observer look like, does the observer have an image?
Even 'you' have just DESCRIBED, and thus ILLUSTRATED in a way, who or what the 'seer' and the 'Seer' ARE, EXACTLY. They are the 'observer', which also 'knows' some 'things', and the 'Observer', which is ALSO the 'Knower'.
What the 'observer' 'looks like' or what the 'image' of the 'observer' IS, is the 'image' of 'thought' or 'thinking'. 'you' are ABLE to CONCEPTUALIZE and image of 'thoughts', which are INVISIBLE to the human eyes, correct?
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
and can that image be known,
YES.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
and what is it that knows the image of the observer that is known?
Thee One and ONLY 'Thing', which KNOWS ALL and EVERY 'thing'. That is; ItSelf, thy Self, Everything, ALL-THERE-IS, TOTALITY, Spirit, Allah, God, Enlightenment, and/or ALL of the OTHER labels that are used to describe what 'you' SAY and CLAIM can NOT be KNOWN.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
..to answer these questions implies there is known an observer that can observe the observing observer.
And, to answer these questions PROPERLY and CORRECT, which IS to PROVIDE IRREFUTABLE Truth REQUIRES the ALREADY KNOWN Observer, WHO has ALREADY observed and SEEN, KNOWN, and thus also FULLY UNDERSTOOD Itself.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
.so what is the image of the observer, and can that image be seen as a 'thing' known?
What the image of 'the observer' is like the image of 'the wind', that is; it is 'an image', which can NOT be SEEN VISIBLY with the human eyes.
However, 'the image' of 'the observer' and 'thee Observer' can be SEEN as 'a thing' and 'A Thing' KNOWN. Just like 'thoughts' and 'the wind' can be KNOWN, and SEEN as 'things'.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:24 am
These are the ideas that I continually put forward for everyone here to ponder, these ideas are in my opinion fundamentally unknowable and unfathomable.
We KNOW what 'you' BELIEVE is true. We are CONTINUALLY TOLD what 'you' BELIEVE is true. And, BECAUSE of this BELIEF of YOURS, you ONLY KEEP RE-REPEATING the same 'things' OVER and OVER AGAIN, WITHOUT EVER OPENING UP to LOOK FOR ANY 'thing' DIFFERENT.
I will here REMIND 'you' ONCE MORE, those ideas that 'you' BELIEVE are FUNDAMENTALLY UNKNOWABLE and UNFATHOMABLE have ALREADY been FATHOMED and are ALSO ALREADY KNOWN. And, to add this those ideas are KNOWN in such a way that what is KNOWN in IRREFUTABLE Facts, and thus are what IS IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct AS WELL.