Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Blah, blah. blah.
I know you are but what am I ?
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Blah, blah. blah.
You are verbal diarrhea. Words without meaning; reflections without sense; problems without cause.Dontaskme wrote:Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Blah, blah. blah.
I know you are but what am I ?
This is known as knowing yourselfHobbes' Choice wrote: You are verbal diarrhea. Words without meaning; reflections without sense; problems without cause.
But there is only HERE.. where else does anything happen? is there another HERE? are there two dumping grounds ? have you ever seen two grounds...that's like saying there are two sky's ..THERE IS ONLY INFINITE SPACE...where EVERYTHING HAPPENS...the contents OF SPACE being nothing other than the space it occupies.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Why not stop and try to unpack some of your rubbish? Don't just dump it all on here;
Have you ever seen any substance in a pile of alphabetti spagetti? separate from the alphabetti spagetti? any description of the substance of alpha spagetti could only be about the alpha spagettiHobbes' Choice wrote:unpick it and see if it has any substance to it.
Please refer to the answer I gave above.Dontaskme wrote:This is known as knowing yourselfHobbes' Choice wrote: You are verbal diarrhea. Words without meaning; reflections without sense; problems without cause.
But there is only HERE.. where else does anything happen? is there another HERE? are there two dumping grounds ? have you ever seen two grounds...that's like saying there are two sky's ..THERE IS ONLY INFINITE SPACE...where EVERYTHING HAPPENS...the contents OF SPACE being nothing other than the space it occupies.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Why not stop and try to unpack some of your rubbish? Don't just dump it all on here;
Have you ever seen any substance in a pile of alphabetti spagetti? separate from the alphabetti spagetti? any description of the substance of alpha spagetti could only be about the alpha spagettiHobbes' Choice wrote:unpick it and see if it has any substance to it.
WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE? AND WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO CONVINCE? ...your just sitting HERE at the edge of not knowing....knowledge is not going to save you...WHO THE HECK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?
Hobbes it's time to get real and stop clinging to your imaginary friend.......people are breaking free of the shackles that once held them prisoner to an imaginary friend..aka ego...you need to catch up before you get left all alone...
The body doesn't need the hitchhiker, i.e. the social identity, to do what it must do. The body is never confused. The heartbeat doesn't have a question about what people say.Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Please refer to the answer I gave above.
Keep taking the medication.Dontaskme wrote:The body doesn't need the hitchhiker, i.e. the social identity, to do what it must do. The body is never confused. The heartbeat doesn't have a question about what people say.Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Please refer to the answer I gave above.
I'm a unique mutation of no thing and so is every other unique never to be repeated mutation of no thing... we can only smell our own shit.
I don't 'know' exactly what you're trying to say but it brings to mind this:Greta wrote:We know that the knower knows what is known but does not know the knower, which is unknown to the knower (apart from the parts that knowers know about their known selves) and also don't know other knowers who in turn don't other knowers. The upshot? Nobody knows.Dontaskme wrote:'We' cannot know any-'thing', for 'we' ARE the known 'thing'. Only the known, is known, not the knower of the known, for knower and known are inseparably one.Therefore, there is only one unknowable knower knowing itself. One knows itself as all pervading yet without location or space to fill. The One knows itself as absolute power – absolute presence, yet nothing to effect.SpheresOfBalance wrote:The only reason nothingness seems impossible is because there seems to be something.
If in fact it seemed there was nothing, something would equally seem impossible.
Which has no necessary bearing on the case at hand, as it would seem the question is still far larger than humanity is capable of reaching.
We cannot currently 'know' that something can't come from nothing, or that nothing can't come from something.
How necessarily complete/incomplete is something or nothing?
I didn't need to, your words definitely conveyed it!Conde Lucanor wrote:Too bad you cannot find a logical argument to prove it.SpheresOfBalance wrote: Your self centered-ness screams absurdity!
Dontaskme wrote:'We' cannot know any-'thing',SpheresOfBalance wrote:The only reason nothingness seems impossible is because there seems to be something.
If in fact it seemed there was nothing, something would equally seem impossible.
Which has no necessary bearing on the case at hand, as it would seem the question is still far larger than humanity is capable of reaching.
We cannot currently 'know' that something can't come from nothing, or that nothing can't come from something.
How necessarily complete/incomplete is something or nothing?
Speak for yourself.
thing1 [thing]
noun 1. a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object.
know1 [noh]
verb (used with object), knew, known, knowing.
1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.
I 'know' many 'things.'
for 'we' ARE the known 'thing'.
You, are the known thing to you and I am the known thing to me, as much as we actually know ourselves. But we a especially advanced things in this universe, which has, in one way or another, created us to know ourselves and things as much as it has made us capable to do so, where capability is ongoing as to completion.
Only the known, is known, not the knower of the known,
You seem to be both redundant and contradicting yourself here, please expound!
for knower and known are inseparably one.
Only from the largest macro level, which no one can currently know complete, if at all.
Therefore, there is only one unknowable knower knowing itself.
That we are of the universe doesn't necessarily mean this. I would say that you cannot necessarily know this, rather that, with our current level of knowing, it might 'seem' to be the case, but even then, you fail to account for time.
One knows itself as all pervading yet without location or space to fill.
Is this, aka, Barbara Brooks? Because you are certainly starting to sound like her.
The One knows itself as absolute power
No human knows itself fully and has practically no real power at all. Of course no puny human can say this of the universe with certainty either.
– absolute presence, yet nothing to effect.
As to humans, not true, as humans can be a causal that effects, whether we are effects of the universe or not, as cause and effect are a very long chain of events indeed, probably more like a web or net. And as for the universe, well, it would seem at present you and I are unqualified to do anything other than speculate.
Nop. It's more than likely that you can't, considering what you have done so far. Reminds me of the old fable of the fox and the grapes.SpheresOfBalance wrote:I didn't need to, your words definitely conveyed it!Conde Lucanor wrote:Too bad you cannot find a logical argument to prove it.SpheresOfBalance wrote: Your self centered-ness screams absurdity!
No, you're not worth it!Conde Lucanor wrote:Nop. It's more than likely that you can't, considering what you have done so far. Reminds me of the old fable of the fox and the grapes.SpheresOfBalance wrote:I didn't need to, your words definitely conveyed it!Conde Lucanor wrote: Too bad you cannot find a logical argument to prove it.
'Twas a mysterious post indeed, Spheres!SpheresOfBalance wrote:I don't 'know' exactly what you're trying to say but it brings to mind this:Greta wrote:We know that the knower knows what is known but does not know the knower, which is unknown to the knower (apart from the parts that knowers know about their known selves) and also don't know other knowers who in turn don't other knowers. The upshot? Nobody knows.Dontaskme wrote:
'We' cannot know any-'thing', for 'we' ARE the known 'thing'. Only the known, is known, not the knower of the known, for knower and known are inseparably one.Therefore, there is only one unknowable knower knowing itself. One knows itself as all pervading yet without location or space to fill. The One knows itself as absolute power – absolute presence, yet nothing to effect.
Humans are four:
They who know not, and know not they know not;
They who know not, and know they know not;
They who know and know not they know;
They who know and know they know.
And:
One can't know what they don't know, so how can they truly say they know?
And so then:
Socrates: 'I only know that I know nothing.'
Thanks Greta, very clear.Greta wrote:
Never mind, I know I can help since, if we know that we know that the knower knows what is known but does not know the knower (being largely unknown to the knower) then we know that nobody knows, for if anyone knew then the unknown would be known, in which case it would not be unknown any more and if the unknown becomes the known, then the knower knows the known unknown remains unknown.
I trust that the above will make all crystal clear.
And for the benefit of Hobbes who doesn't know his knower from his known.Dontaskme wrote:
Thanks Greta, very clear.
The point is. There cannot be an unknown, an unknown can never be. If an unknown were possible.. then it would be known.
My two penny worth
I would say that it's always best to ensure that what one attempts to convey is easily understood so as to ensure complete conveyance. It would seem that at least some rehearse trying to cloud easy understanding so as to give the false impression that what they are attempting to convey has merit. It's the difference between one actually being smart, and trying to convince others that one is smart. Not that I'm necessarily pointing any fingers, mind you. It would just seem that what you are attempting to convey could be said in a much clearer manner. As it currently stands it seems to contain contradiction. Of course it's also true that I have only given your words the same amount of time that I normally would any text, plus only a slight bit more. I could spend more time, but I'd rather move along to other topics. Of course I always do appreciate your time, thanks!Greta wrote:'Twas a mysterious post indeed, Spheres!SpheresOfBalance wrote:I don't 'know' exactly what you're trying to say but it brings to mind this:Greta wrote: We know that the knower knows what is known but does not know the knower, which is unknown to the knower (apart from the parts that knowers know about their known selves) and also don't know other knowers who in turn don't other knowers. The upshot? Nobody knows.
Humans are four:
They who know not, and know not they know not;
They who know not, and know they know not;
They who know and know not they know;
They who know and know they know.
And:
One can't know what they don't know, so how can they truly say they know?
And so then:
Socrates: 'I only know that I know nothing.'
Never mind, I know I can help since, if we know that we know that the knower knows what is known but does not know the knower (being largely unknown to the knower) then we know that nobody knows, for if anyone knew then the unknown would be known, in which case it would not be unknown any more and if the unknown becomes the known, then the knower knows the known unknown remains unknown.
I trust that the above will make all crystal clear.