The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5136
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:53 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote: Analytic statements are basic logic. When I point at their existence, you dismiss them, just a few lines away from the statement protesting "invalid logic". Cute.


First you said topic, now you said topic title. According to you, the discussion should limit itself only to the title. That's even cuter.


How lazy. It would have been interesting that you dealt with an argument to prove that my belief is wrong, but I can easily guess that would have proven to be a very difficult task for you.

Infinite laziness and incompetence I see.


I think I heard that argument before. Hmm...oh wait, I remember, that's what they said to Copernicus and Galileo. Conventional wisdom, they said.


Yep. All those already dead philosophers that came after the philosophers that conveyed your very same argument of knowledge being limited only to experience. Try to live another 300 years to see if you finally catch up.
Your self centered-ness screams absurdity!
And you crawled back from under your rock to say THAT?
How many times do I have to tell you, I'm a mushroom, not a salamander.
But to answer your concern... Though I seriously doubt that's what it's actually about. ;-)
Some deserve my long winded rebuttals and some don't. Though I assure you that contained in those few words is much more intent than is apparent to at least you! ;-)

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:05 pm

Greta wrote: But how can you know the knower when what the knower knows is not actually known by anyone? (Just ask Kant, he'd know). The knowledge that you, the knower, knows is not actually known because you cannot know if it exists, or if it's just what you think you know exists, since what you know is only what is known and thus non inclusive of unknowns, both of the known and unknown variety..
Seriously can't you see that you are shooting yourself int he foot?

But how can you know the knower when what the knower knows is not actually known by anyone?

I am the one that knows, and I know what I know. I also note that much of what I know is agreed by others who also know what I know. BTW Kant's dead, but I don't think he is going to disagree with me on a point of knowledge. The thing in itself is another thought altogether.

The knowledge that you, the knower, knows is not actually known because you cannot know if it exists,
So do you think this applies to you, or just me?
presumably you are not just insulting me as an ignoramus but making a claim about knowledge generally. In which case how do you "KNOW" this: "The knowledge that you, the knower, knows is not actually known because you cannot know if it exists," (QED; your foot is bleeding and you will need help to get out of this thread.)

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5136
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:23 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote: But how can you know the knower when what the knower knows is not actually known by anyone? (Just ask Kant, he'd know). The knowledge that you, the knower, knows is not actually known because you cannot know if it exists, or if it's just what you think you know exists, since what you know is only what is known and thus non inclusive of unknowns, both of the known and unknown variety..
Seriously can't you see that you are shooting yourself int he foot?

But how can you know the knower when what the knower knows is not actually known by anyone?

I am the one that knows, and I know what I know. I also note that much of what I know is agreed by others who also know what I know. BTW Kant's dead, but I don't think he is going to disagree with me on a point of knowledge. The thing in itself is another thought altogether.

The knowledge that you, the knower, knows is not actually known because you cannot know if it exists,
So do you think this applies to you, or just me?
presumably you are not just insulting me as an ignoramus but making a claim about knowledge generally. In which case how do you "KNOW" this: "The knowledge that you, the knower, knows is not actually known because you cannot know if it exists," (QED; your foot is bleeding and you will need help to get out of this thread.)
You only believe you know because you fear not knowing, just ask the members of the Spanish Inquisition, the witch hunters, the doctor bleeders, the flat earth knowers, the contrails are poison people, the moonwalk was a hoax believers, not to mention gods, demons, ghosts, faeries, pixies, trolls, and leprechauns! Socrates is lost on you, 'I only know that I know nothing.' You fear not knowing, so you believe that which serves your purpose, and that's about it! ;-)

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:30 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote: But how can you know the knower when what the knower knows is not actually known by anyone? (Just ask Kant, he'd know). The knowledge that you, the knower, knows is not actually known because you cannot know if it exists, or if it's just what you think you know exists, since what you know is only what is known and thus non inclusive of unknowns, both of the known and unknown variety..
Seriously can't you see that you are shooting yourself int he foot?

But how can you know the knower when what the knower knows is not actually known by anyone?

I am the one that knows, and I know what I know. I also note that much of what I know is agreed by others who also know what I know. BTW Kant's dead, but I don't think he is going to disagree with me on a point of knowledge. The thing in itself is another thought altogether.

The knowledge that you, the knower, knows is not actually known because you cannot know if it exists,
So do you think this applies to you, or just me?
presumably you are not just insulting me as an ignoramus but making a claim about knowledge generally. In which case how do you "KNOW" this: "The knowledge that you, the knower, knows is not actually known because you cannot know if it exists," (QED; your foot is bleeding and you will need help to get out of this thread.)
You only believe you know because you fear not knowing, just ask the members of the Spanish Inquisition, the witch hunters, the doctor bleeders, the flat earth knowers, the contrails are poison people, the moonwalk was a hoax believers, not to mention gods, demons, ghosts, faeries, pixies, trolls, and leprechauns! Socrates is lost on you, 'I only know that I know nothing.' You fear not knowing, so you believe that which serves your purpose, and that's about it! ;-)
Like I've said to you on numerous occasions, I don't give a fuck what you think, and never will.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3824
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:45 pm

Greta wrote:The knowledge that you, the knower, knows is not actually known because you cannot know if it exists,
Hobbes' Choice wrote:So do you think this applies to you, or just me?
presumably you are not just insulting me as an ignoramus but making a claim about knowledge generally. In which case how do you "KNOW" this: "The knowledge that you, the knower, knows is not actually known because you cannot know if it exists," (QED; your foot is bleeding and you will need help to get out of this thread.)

Greta made a very valid point, she was right...to question whether the knower can be known. Yes, Knowledge exists, it is known as every thought,concept, belief and idea... but can that which knows every concept be known...? and if so, by who?

That's what Greta meant... knowledge exists, identified by thought, which triggers more thought, and more knowledge, but where is the thinker, where is the knower. Can that one be known? Knowledge informs the known IS what it is. Wisdom reveals the known is NOT what it is.

No one thinks and no one knows. In other words everything and nothing is thinking and knowing...the knower and the known are one, they cannot be separated without splitting in two.

Now, have you ever seen the exact moment where the knower starts and the known ends...? ....a bit of a silly idea isn't it?

YOU INSULT YOURSELF HOBBES....

PS...the female is smarter than the male. Get over it dog.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:57 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Greta wrote:The knowledge that you, the knower, knows is not actually known because you cannot know if it exists,
Hobbes' Choice wrote:So do you think this applies to you, or just me?
presumably you are not just insulting me as an ignoramus but making a claim about knowledge generally. In which case how do you "KNOW" this: "The knowledge that you, the knower, knows is not actually known because you cannot know if it exists," (QED; your foot is bleeding and you will need help to get out of this thread.)

Greta made a very valid point, she was right...to question whether the knower can be known. Yes, Knowledge exists, it is known as every thought,concept, belief and idea... but can that which knows every concept be known...? and if so, by who?

That's what Greta meant... knowledge exists,.
I'll wait for her response, not your garbled interpretation of what you think she meant.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3213
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Greta » Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:02 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote: But how can you know the knower when what the knower knows is not actually known by anyone? (Just ask Kant, he'd know). The knowledge that you, the knower, knows is not actually known because you cannot know if it exists, or if it's just what you think you know exists, since what you know is only what is known and thus non inclusive of unknowns, both of the known and unknown variety..
Seriously can't you see that you are shooting yourself int he foot?

But how can you know the knower when what the knower knows is not actually known by anyone?

I am the one that knows, and I know what I know. I also note that much of what I know is agreed by others who also know what I know. BTW Kant's dead, but I don't think he is going to disagree with me on a point of knowledge. The thing in itself is another thought altogether.

The knowledge that you, the knower, knows is not actually known because you cannot know if it exists,
So do you think this applies to you, or just me?
presumably you are not just insulting me as an ignoramus but making a claim about knowledge generally. In which case how do you "KNOW" this: "The knowledge that you, the knower, knows is not actually known because you cannot know if it exists," (QED; your foot is bleeding and you will need help to get out of this thread.)
Interesting use of the word "seriously", seemingly not a knowing one. Since the knower is not known then the knowing is not a knowing but an unknowing. An unknowing knowing, as opposed to a knowing unknowing, which is a very bad thing indeed - a real no know, one might say.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:13 pm

Greta wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote: But how can you know the knower when what the knower knows is not actually known by anyone? (Just ask Kant, he'd know). The knowledge that you, the knower, knows is not actually known because you cannot know if it exists, or if it's just what you think you know exists, since what you know is only what is known and thus non inclusive of unknowns, both of the known and unknown variety..
Seriously can't you see that you are shooting yourself int he foot?

But how can you know the knower when what the knower knows is not actually known by anyone?

I am the one that knows, and I know what I know. I also note that much of what I know is agreed by others who also know what I know. BTW Kant's dead, but I don't think he is going to disagree with me on a point of knowledge. The thing in itself is another thought altogether.

The knowledge that you, the knower, knows is not actually known because you cannot know if it exists,
So do you think this applies to you, or just me?
presumably you are not just insulting me as an ignoramus but making a claim about knowledge generally. In which case how do you "KNOW" this: "The knowledge that you, the knower, knows is not actually known because you cannot know if it exists," (QED; your foot is bleeding and you will need help to get out of this thread.)
Interesting use of the word "seriously", seemingly not a knowing one. Since the knower is not known then the knowing is not a knowing but an unknowing. An unknowing knowing, as opposed to a knowing unknowing, which is a very bad thing indeed - a real no know, one might say.
You keep saying the same thing; the knower is not known; which is rubbish.
Ever heard of "Know thyself"?
The rest of what you say, thus makes no sense.
The following sentence is nonsense;"Since the knower is not known then the knowing is not a knowing but an unknowing."
it's a non sequitur and starts with a false premise.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3213
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Greta » Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:41 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Seriously can't you see that you are shooting yourself int he foot?

But how can you know the knower when what the knower knows is not actually known by anyone?

I am the one that knows, and I know what I know. I also note that much of what I know is agreed by others who also know what I know. BTW Kant's dead, but I don't think he is going to disagree with me on a point of knowledge. The thing in itself is another thought altogether.

The knowledge that you, the knower, knows is not actually known because you cannot know if it exists,
So do you think this applies to you, or just me?
presumably you are not just insulting me as an ignoramus but making a claim about knowledge generally. In which case how do you "KNOW" this: "The knowledge that you, the knower, knows is not actually known because you cannot know if it exists," (QED; your foot is bleeding and you will need help to get out of this thread.)
Interesting use of the word "seriously", seemingly not a knowing one. Since the knower is not known then the knowing is not a knowing but an unknowing. An unknowing knowing, as opposed to a knowing unknowing, which is a very bad thing indeed - a real no know, one might say.
You keep saying the same thing; the knower is not known; which is rubbish.
Ever heard of "Know thyself"?
The rest of what you say, thus makes no sense.
The following sentence is nonsense;"Since the knower is not known then the knowing is not a knowing but an unknowing."
it's a non sequitur and starts with a false premise.
I know. However, an unknown unknower would comprise a double negative, resulting in a positive knower but, since we know that nobody knows anything (as the knower doesn't really know what the knower thinks s/he knows) then the unknowing unknower knows that a knower's knowledge knows no knowing, only unknowing ... know what I mean?

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:18 pm

Greta wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote: Interesting use of the word "seriously", seemingly not a knowing one. Since the knower is not known then the knowing is not a knowing but an unknowing. An unknowing knowing, as opposed to a knowing unknowing, which is a very bad thing indeed - a real no know, one might say.
You keep saying the same thing; the knower is not known; which is rubbish.
Ever heard of "Know thyself"?
The rest of what you say, thus makes no sense.
The following sentence is nonsense;"Since the knower is not known then the knowing is not a knowing but an unknowing."
it's a non sequitur and starts with a false premise.
I know. However, an unknown unknower would comprise a double negative, resulting in a positive knower but, since we know that nobody knows anything (as the knower doesn't really know what the knower thinks s/he knows) then the unknowing unknower knows that a knower's knowledge knows no knowing, only unknowing ... know what I mean?
I know that you know that she knows that you know that I know you're two=timing me, la la la.

But if they know that I know that you know that she knows that you know that I know, I know that I'm the knower of the know unknown knowingness, this means that I know something, and you don't know if he knows that you know about nothing too.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3213
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Greta » Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:14 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
You keep saying the same thing; the knower is not known; which is rubbish.
Ever heard of "Know thyself"?
The rest of what you say, thus makes no sense.
The following sentence is nonsense;"Since the knower is not known then the knowing is not a knowing but an unknowing."
it's a non sequitur and starts with a false premise.
I know. However, an unknown unknower would comprise a double negative, resulting in a positive knower but, since we know that nobody knows anything (as the knower doesn't really know what the knower thinks s/he knows) then the unknowing unknower knows that a knower's knowledge knows no knowing, only unknowing ... know what I mean?
I know that you know that she knows that you know that I know you're two=timing me, la la la.

But if they know that I know that you know that she knows that you know that I know, I know that I'm the knower of the known unknown knowingness, this means that I know something, and you don't know if he knows that you know about nothing too.
Now I know that you know! Thing is, while they know that you know that I know that she knows that I know that you know, you must also know that I know that she shows what everyone knows - that we don't know anything (apart from the things we know, which we don't really know). Your latter claim is, in essence, as unknowing knowers, we know almost everything about nothing and almost nothing about everything, which is still more than most.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:16 am

Greta wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote: I know. However, an unknown unknower would comprise a double negative, resulting in a positive knower but, since we know that nobody knows anything (as the knower doesn't really know what the knower thinks s/he knows) then the unknowing unknower knows that a knower's knowledge knows no knowing, only unknowing ... know what I mean?
I know that you know that she knows that you know that I know you're two=timing me, la la la.

But if they know that I know that you know that she knows that you know that I know, I know that I'm the knower of the known unknown knowingness, this means that I know something, and you don't know if he knows that you know about nothing too.
Now I know that you know! Thing is, while they know that you know that I know that she knows that I know that you know, you must also know that I know that she shows what everyone knows - that we don't know anything (apart from the things we know, which we don't really know). Your latter claim is, in essence, as unknowing knowers, we know almost everything about nothing and almost nothing about everything, which is still more than most.
I'll call that the last word on the subject.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3824
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:31 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Ever heard of "Know thyself"?.
To ''know thyself'' is to know ''you don't know'' ....ONLY Knowledge informs (not knowing) as the known...prior to knowledge known... YOU ARE / NOT KNOWING.

If you think backwards to before the ''thought'' of you APPEARED....WHO ARE YOU?...prior to ''thought'' ..you WERE / ARE not knowing)... you had to be other wise you could never have been informed by KNOWLEDGE aka a 'thought'....and in the instant the 'thought' appears....there is a SHIFT from not knowing pure awareness without an object ..to known object.

The KNOWLEDGE is not the knower...in other words the known is not the knower. The knower is ONLY EVER the known...which doesn't know.

Meaning there can ONLY be one knower /no knower in the exact same moment NOW..aka this immediate not knowing KNOWING... You are that knowing that cannot be known.

And that is the wisdom of the wise one.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3824
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:00 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
not your garbled interpretation of what you think she meant.
And the reason ego calls other ego's response 'garble' is because ego doesn't understand what's being discussed, and is why ego always fights for it's imagined lying life to be on the right side of understanding, it's job is to demand centre stage...without realising the stage is already occupied and is standing completely alone by itself with or without ego, and that all the ego needs to do is stay under the standing and be completely out of the way of the bigger picture and stop spoiling the beautiful view with it's bucket load of BS...it needs to back off and see that THIS stage is already standing proud and tall ...it's that intimate, and obvious..THERE IS ONLY this this this, and only this immediate knowing...that can never be known by ego.

Ego cannot know what's already this knowing. How many more times, ego can't show up to the show. The show is already showing, there was only ever ONE admission...but I guess where ego ..I go..but for the grace of God go I... so I guess your allowed along too, but not really two, being that your just my shadow... Sigh!!

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:45 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
not your garbled interpretation of what you think she meant.
And the reason ego calls other ego's response 'garble' is because ego doesn't understand what's being discussed, and is why ego always fights for it's imagined lying life to be on the right side of understanding, it's job is to demand centre stage...without realising the stage is already occupied and is standing completely alone by itself with or without ego, and that all the ego needs to do is stay under the standing and be completely out of the way of the bigger picture and stop spoiling the beautiful view with it's bucket load of BS...it needs to back off and see that THIS stage is already standing proud and tall ...it's that intimate, and obvious..THERE IS ONLY this this this, and only this immediate knowing...that can never be known by ego.

Ego cannot know what's already this knowing. How many more times, ego can't show up to the show. The show is already showing, there was only ever ONE admission...but I guess where ego ..I go..but for the grace of God go I... so I guess your allowed along too, but not really two, being that your just my shadow... Sigh!!
Blah, blah. blah.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest