The Great Unknown is Me - Myself

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

osgart
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

Re: The Great Unknown is Me - Myself

Post by osgart »

we assume there are reasons for existence as it is. we by minds own reasons may find ideals and they could come out to be divine; for the benefit of all, and not just the self.

the universe hangs on the back of a turtle. and if we find the turtle as it truly is, what better are we for knowing existence as it truly is, if we can not effect changes and improvements to it. to the ever reaches of human minds, can we add one single moment to our lives.

we owe it to ourselves to explore every worthy thing, and make quality to life. the tangible, the things able to experience, the invented measures that further our reach, what will get us to truly know reality as it is. are we not inventing life as we go?

we also assume that there is no reason for our existence. brute, indifferent fact. constantly trying to rap our heads around the unknown. when does the unknowable stay unknowable where nothing exists as a bridge to know it? that's why we live within our means, and take forward steps in our Destiny. because digging, you may just find bridges unforseen.

I come to know myself as I act and intend toward others. my I-Ness has many components that act in unison; the seat of cares, hates, loves and ambivalences, and also what the mind creates, and the emerging will. experience is not everything, there is something else enabling it. the universe is there for us to learn ourselves and it.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Great Unknown is Me - Myself

Post by Dontaskme »

seeds wrote: Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:07 pm The whole idea of humans being “kicked out” of the Garden of Eden is simply a mythological representation of our transition from the “ignorance is bliss” level of animal (ape) consciousness into the higher level of human consciousness – thus establishing us as the family members (and siblings) of the “ultimate species” of being...
...And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us...
Yes, I agree with you.

In that my understanding of what you have said ... is that we appear to be born twice...once from our mother and again from our own body and our own existence.

.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Great Unknown is Me - Myself

Post by Dontaskme »

seeds wrote: Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:07 pm
Dam, describe for me - in precise detail - what it is that experiences “ever lasting Nirvana and Unconditional Love.”

In other words (and without using impossible to visualize terms), in what form and context can a non-separate you or a non-separate me experience the feeling of love, or any other qualia or sensation?
_______
Well it is my understanding, one I have intuited, that there is here now an imageless, timeless, ageless, boundless, impersonal presence of being in which all beliefs, feelings, images, sensations, ideas, and concepts arise and dissolve. And that this presence is watching, and experiencing itself as and through each belief, image, feeling, sensation, idea, and concept as and when they arise, but never attaching or holding on to any of what it is experiencing, there is just a letting be, and a letting go of whatever arises, without any dependency upon a particular outcome to be a certain way. In that there is no attachment to the feeling of happiness in order to be happy, neither is there any rejection of the feeling of sadness, to spoil ..for this presence already knows each feeling to be a temporary visitor, that will bear no lasting effect on the presence itself which is able to endure all feeling and sensation, by being already complete and content in every moment as this immediate unconditional all allowing fearless love.

To compliment what I've said...here is an image of what I'm trying to say...https://i.pinimg.com/736x/97/1f/fd/971f ... -doors.jpg

.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: The Great Unknown is Me - Myself

Post by Londoner »

Nick_A wrote: Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:23 am The next section is difficult to understand if you haven’t experienced it. Usually we are attached to what is happening during life’s experiences. We are the experience. Yet Prof. Needleman is referring to the experience that there is I which is consciously aware of experience. It is what allows us to “know thyself” I witnesses the self and continued witnessing as opposed to introspection makes us less of an unknown. Anyhow I’d be interested if anyone has experienced what Jacob Needleman describes....

JN: Maybe. In any case, once Descartes had the experience of certainty, he goes back to logical and mathematical certainty. And as for that possible demon that could trick him into being wrong even about the certainty of logic and mathematics, Descartes turns to the idea of God that he has in his mind. And he asks, what about this idea of God? God is good. God is perfect. And God, a good God, would not allow man to be deceived like that. Therefore, logic and mathematics can be trusted. At this point, of course, many philosophers sharply criticize him, accusing him of smuggling in a cheap trick. But in fact, he says, where did this idea of God come from? That couldn’t have come from this poor, fallible man. The fact that I have this idea of God is a kind of proof that God exists. In one sense, it does seem to be a piece of philosophical sleight-of-hand. On the other hand, if you look at it from the point of view of spiritual truth, it’s really an indication that there is an objective duality in life, and that, in order to harmonize it, you need a higher force, which in the end means also that you need a higher state of consciousness.
This is very confused. Descartes isn't having some kind of 'experience'. It isn't about 'states of consciousness'. It isn't about 'spiritual truth'. None of that is in Descartes.

By all means feel free to discuss 'life's experiences' and 'know thyself', but do not hang it on poor Descartes.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Great Unknown is Me - Myself

Post by surreptitious57 »

Nic wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Nic wrote:
Is there anything you can say for sure that you know
I know that I exist and I know that there is an external world that exists too which is mind independent
I say mind independent since I have no real control over it which I would have if it was mind dependent
If Descartes is right to question how we know we exist? Perhaps you are just experiencing a select flow of conditioned reactions
that calls itself I. Descartes is really asking a profound question. What do I know for certain? Maybe i am the great unknown
One has to start with some first principles or basic axioms even if everything is an illusion because knowledge about it can still
be obtained but if one is sceptical to the point of not accepting absolutely anything as true then knowledge is just not possible
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Great Unknown is Me - Myself

Post by Nick_A »

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:53 am
Nic wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:

I know that I exist and I know that there is an external world that exists too which is mind independent
I say mind independent since I have no real control over it which I would have if it was mind dependent
If Descartes is right to question how we know we exist? Perhaps you are just experiencing a select flow of conditioned reactions
that calls itself I. Descartes is really asking a profound question. What do I know for certain? Maybe i am the great unknown
One has to start with some first principles or basic axioms even if everything is an illusion because knowledge about it can still
be obtained but if one is sceptical to the point of not accepting absolutely anything as true then knowledge is just not possible
But suppose the first principle is the Socratic axiom: I know nothing? Suppose as we are, we are unable to understand what our hearts are called to and we are always experiencing contradictions. We say one thing and do another? The the first principle changes from the need for more knowledge to acquiring the ability to understand.to reconcile contradiction from a higher perspective which begins with efforts to "know thyself."
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Great Unknown is Me - Myself

Post by Nick_A »

Londoner wrote: Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:29 am
Nick_A wrote: Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:23 am The next section is difficult to understand if you haven’t experienced it. Usually we are attached to what is happening during life’s experiences. We are the experience. Yet Prof. Needleman is referring to the experience that there is I which is consciously aware of experience. It is what allows us to “know thyself” I witnesses the self and continued witnessing as opposed to introspection makes us less of an unknown. Anyhow I’d be interested if anyone has experienced what Jacob Needleman describes....

JN: Maybe. In any case, once Descartes had the experience of certainty, he goes back to logical and mathematical certainty. And as for that possible demon that could trick him into being wrong even about the certainty of logic and mathematics, Descartes turns to the idea of God that he has in his mind. And he asks, what about this idea of God? God is good. God is perfect. And God, a good God, would not allow man to be deceived like that. Therefore, logic and mathematics can be trusted. At this point, of course, many philosophers sharply criticize him, accusing him of smuggling in a cheap trick. But in fact, he says, where did this idea of God come from? That couldn’t have come from this poor, fallible man. The fact that I have this idea of God is a kind of proof that God exists. In one sense, it does seem to be a piece of philosophical sleight-of-hand. On the other hand, if you look at it from the point of view of spiritual truth, it’s really an indication that there is an objective duality in life, and that, in order to harmonize it, you need a higher force, which in the end means also that you need a higher state of consciousness.
This is very confused. Descartes isn't having some kind of 'experience'. It isn't about 'states of consciousness'. It isn't about 'spiritual truth'. None of that is in Descartes.

By all means feel free to discuss 'life's experiences' and 'know thyself', but do not hang it on poor Descartes.
Jacob Needleman describes Descartes as asserting the truth of the a priori knowledge of God. The fact that it becomes perverted is not the issue yet. A priori knowledge is the source. It is the same idea expressed in this basic tutorial:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/desc ... tological/
................Despite similarities, Descartes' version of the argument differs from Anselm's in important ways. The latter's version is thought to proceed from the meaning of the word “God,” by definition, God is a being a greater than which cannot be conceived. Descartes' argument, in contrast, is grounded in two central tenets of his philosophy — the theory of innate ideas and the doctrine of clear and distinct perception. He purports not to rely on an arbitrary definition of God but rather on an innate idea whose content is “given.” Descartes' version is also extremely simple. God's existence is inferred directly from the fact that necessary existence is contained in the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being. Indeed, on some occasions he suggests that the so-called ontological “argument” is not a formal proof at all but a self-evident axiom grasped intuitively by a mind free of philosophical prejudice......................
The purpose of this thread is to put these ideas into the higher context of Man as the great unknown. As such our natural inclination to remain attached to the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave inhibits the natural opening of the intuitive mind free of philosophical prejudice. When this thread concludes perhaps we can discuss a priori knowledge and if it does exist, how we can open to it.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: The Great Unknown is Me - Myself

Post by Harbal »

Nick_A wrote: Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:16 pm
But suppose the first principle is the Socratic axiom: I know nothing
I have no difficulty whatsoever in supposing that, Nick.
seeds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: The Great Unknown is Me - Myself

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Humans would love to know the ultimate truth of reality, but they never seem to consider the possible consequences of such knowledge.
Dubious wrote: Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:29 pm Indeed! This is just another instance of being careful what you wish for.
seeds wrote: It should come as no surprise that you and I have a diametrically opposed interpretation of what my quoted statement represents.
Dubious wrote: Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:29 pm In that case, you should have phrased it a little differently because that’s what it seems to imply.
I apologize to you, Dubious, I didn’t mean to give the impression that your suggestion of this being another instance of “...being careful what you wish for...” was an inappropriate response to my statement, for indeed it was perfectly reasonable.

What I was attempting to highlight is that you and I seem to have polar-opposite views when it comes to the reason for our existence.

For example, you apparently believe that we (as individuals) have no ultimate and eternal purpose, which, of course, is in stark contrast with my belief that our eternal purpose is so wonderful that it must be kept hidden from us.

In which case, I simply meant to point out that full and irrefutable knowledge (confirmation) of either one of those scenarios being true would no doubt elicit uniquely different consequences – consequences that could affect humanity in extremely negative ways.

The point is that your warning of “...being careful what you wish for...” was indeed spot on, but for a completely different reason than mine.
Dubious wrote: Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:29 pm It would be wise to recall what happened the first time we got kicked out from the The Garden of Eden, metaphorically speaking. The noumenon may itself be nothing more than a container for all that exists.
seeds wrote: Nah, infinity is the container for all that exists.
Dubious wrote: Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:29 pm Who knows and is it even possible to know!
What I am about to suggest is obviously speculation, however, the unbounded “ARENA” of what seems to be an infinite void into which our universe is continuously expanding – as is metaphorically depicted in the blackened area surrounding the bubble of our reality in the image below...

Image

...not only extends omnidirectionally away from the reality of our universe, but it also extends omnidirectionally away from any other context of reality imaginable (including those of a transcendent nature).

Therefore, there is absolutely nothing (including nothingness itself) that is not contained within the endless and boundless reaches of infinity.

A true visualization of infinity (i.e., the unbounded extent of the infinite void) can reduce the perceived size of the universe down to that of a single grain of sand.
Dubious wrote: Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:29 pm It could be what "Ultimate Reality" as the default of all other realities amounts to; in essence, quite contrary to any divine revelation we assume would be its consequence in knowing.
seeds wrote: Or, it could be that “Ultimate Reality” is so amazing that any direct and irrefutable knowledge of it would cause humans to long for it and seek it out prematurely.
Dubious wrote: Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:29 pm This is more of a religious view than a philosophical one where some supposed knowledge of Ultimate Reality offers humans the perpetually craved anodyne of salvation.
Come on now, Dubious, there’s nothing “religious” in my assertions. I’m not positing any doctrines or dogmas that must be obeyed for the sake of one’s salvation.

I’m simply offering a theoretically plausible description of reality from an idealistic perspective (as in all of reality is “mind-based” and “alive”).

How can that not be a subject of philosophy when according to the first dictionary definition that pops-up when Googled:

Philosophy is “...the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence...”?
Dubious wrote: Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:29 pm The way things are going we will be defeated by reality long before we reach any “irrefutable knowledge” of Ultimate Reality…if there is such a thing.
And therein lies a clear example of the aforementioned diametrical contrast of our opposing views.

Wherein I see that the “irrefutable knowledge of Ultimate Reality” would reveal something amazing and wonderful concerning our ultimate destiny,...

...you, on the other hand, seem to see it as something that would reveal our ultimate and eternal oblivion.
seeds wrote: I understand what you’re getting at, but I highly doubt that “NOTHING” is what Kant had in mind when referring to the “noumenal” aspect of a “phenomenon” or that of the “thing-in-itself.”
Dubious wrote: Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:29 pm The noumenon can also be referred to as the object, itself inaccessible to experience, to which a phenomenon is referred for the basis or cause of its sense content. It doesn’t have to collude precisely with Kant’s definition.
Okay, but my complaint was with your assertion that the “noumenon” is a representation of “NOTHING.”

I have no problem with taking a certain degree of poetic license with a word, but somehow, this just seemed a bit off the mark.
seeds wrote: Philosophy doesn’t demand anything other than an open mind as one pursues truth and wisdom.
Dubious wrote: Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:29 pm I agree, though I would add that truth & wisdom depends on more than just philosophy!
Agreed. Although I’m not real certain of what you’re getting at.
_______
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: The Great Unknown is Me - Myself

Post by Londoner »

Nick_A wrote: Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:31 pm Jacob Needleman describes Descartes as asserting the truth of the a priori knowledge of God. The fact that it becomes perverted is not the issue yet. A priori knowledge is the source. It is the same idea expressed in this basic tutorial:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/desc ... tological/

..............Despite similarities, Descartes' version of the argument differs from Anselm's in important ways. The latter's version is thought to proceed from the meaning of the word “God,” by definition, God is a being a greater than which cannot be conceived. Descartes' argument, in contrast, is grounded in two central tenets of his philosophy — the theory of innate ideas and the doctrine of clear and distinct perception. He purports not to rely on an arbitrary definition of God but rather on an innate idea whose content is “given.” Descartes' version is also extremely simple. God's existence is inferred directly from the fact that necessary existence is contained in the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being. Indeed, on some occasions he suggests that the so-called ontological “argument” is not a formal proof at all but a self-evident axiom grasped intuitively by a mind free of philosophical prejudice..........
The quotation does not support your argument. That would not be 'a priori' knowledge. 'A priori' does not mean 'grasped intuitively'.

It is also tautological to write of 'asserting the truth of the a priori knowledge'. To call it knowledge is already to say it is true.

I do not understand what you mean by 'The fact that it becomes perverted...'
The purpose of this thread is to put these ideas into the higher context of Man as the great unknown. As such our natural inclination to remain attached to the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave inhibits the natural opening of the intuitive mind free of philosophical prejudice. When this thread concludes perhaps we can discuss a priori knowledge and if it does exist, how we can open to it.
You are welcome to expound your own ideas. I simply wished to object to the misrepresentation of Descartes'.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Great Unknown is Me - Myself

Post by Nick_A »

So far JN and RW have questioned the noumenon and if we can know anything with certainty. They introduce the question if we can verify the need for the experience of human reality from inner empiricism and not just rely on outer empiricism or the way of science. The discussion continues:
RW: I think we could dwell on that, but there’s one more question I want to ask relating to the Western philosophical tradition. Socrates is this basic, generative figure, thanks to Plato. So where did Socrates come from? Where did he get his knowledge? I know this can’t really be answered, but it’s still an interesting question, isn’t it?

JN: We have to recognize about Socrates, first of all, that everything we know about him and his greatness is something that took place in the form of dialogue with other people. He was a master of showing people that they did not understand what they thought they understood. He was a master at taking away people’s certainty, particularly as involved moral issues, but all kinds of certainties. This way of interrogating, person-to-person, was a fundamental aspect of Socrates, and Plato captured an aspect of it, but maybe he didn’t capture the whole thing. Another Greek writer, Xenophon, also wrote about his encounters with Socrates and another aspect of the force of Socrates as a person, inquiring, listening.

RW: Socrates delivers people to the unknown, delivers them into question.

JN: Absolutely. And that’s the liberation he brings. To really deepen a question puts you in touch with another part of yourself that your “answers” usually cover over; this is the freedom from the known, that Krishnamurti and others speak about. The great answer is also experienced as a question when a master delivers it to you. The known can be a slave driver. The other main thing about Socrates is that he was concerned that a man, a woman, a human being needs to know himself—above all needs to take care of what he called the soul, take care of the true self. The first aim anyone should have was what he called “tending the soul.” Unless that’s your main aim, everything else will lead you astray. Those two things are part of where I think this theme, “The Unknown,” is leading. Take care of your true self, your true consciousness and divest yourself from the things you think you know, not only about the world, but about yourself. These two belong together.

RW: So this idea of knowing myself—what does that mean? Clearly, the implication is that I don’t know myself.

JN: The great unknown is me, myself. We can talk all we want about Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, and not knowing things in themselves, but this, myself, is the great unknown.

RW: Yes. And are there levels of the unknown? There are things that are metaphysically, irreducibly unknowable, perhaps—and then way over here is ordinary knowing. I know that’s a chair over there and I know what you do with a chair. But is there a gray area between my ordinary knowing and not knowing? For example, I don’t know where I put my glasses. And after awhile, all of a sudden, I remember. Or maybe there’s a problem I don’t know how to solve, but after awhile, it comes to me.

JN: What is the mind and its knowledge? This is certainly part of the fundamental question, who am I? What you say is so understandable, so ordinary—in a decent sense of the word—but behind this fundamental question of knowledge and the mind there’s a hidden question, and this hidden question opens up a world. Down deep, the question that you’re now speaking about is consciousness. We say, “knowing.” I know that’s a chair. I can touch it and so forth. But that doesn’t satisfy us—because we have the wrong question. It has to do with consciousness. And it’s a great unknown, this thing called consciousness. We don’t know what consciousness is. That’s stunning! I don’t know what consciousness is, and yet I’m sure I am conscious! Isn’t it so? The mind, the thoughts, the categories, the words about every kind of specifically human knowing and action —we’re talking about consciousness. This is the hidden question. One of the great questions in philosophy is how do we know?—but this classic philosophical question is actually a question about consciousness. Consciousness is man. That’s his unique possibility. So I think the whole idea of mind, knowledge, certainty, the unknown, has to do first and foremost with consciousness.
Modern philosophy or debate seems to be concerned with arguing answers while Socrates through the Socratic dialogue invites us to deepen the question. Deepening the question is a means for liberating us from the conditioned mind and into the experience of the unknown and what it reveals about what we ARE.

Rather than arguing answers for the purpose of self justification it is possible to deepen the question inviting more meaningful experiences of what we are. Suppose there are levels of unknowing and at the deepest level we are conscious beings not knowing what consciousness is. If true the great unknown is consciousness itself. To “know thyself” is to have the conscious experience of onself. How to do this when we don’t know what consciousness is?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: The Great Unknown is Me - Myself

Post by Harbal »

Nick_A wrote: Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:23 am I’d be interested if anyone has experienced what Jacob Needleman describes:
If he's describing complete apathy then yes, I'm experiencing it at the moment actually.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Great Unknown is Me - Myself

Post by Arising_uk »

Nick_A wrote:...
Modern philosophy or debate seems to be concerned with arguing answers ...
No it is not, it's pretty much exactly what Socrates does and that is asking questions hence you don't like it much as you already have the answer.
while Socrates through the Socratic dialogue invites us to deepen the question. Deepening the question is a means for liberating us from the conditioned mind and into the experience of the unknown and what it reveals about what we ARE. ...
No it's not, it's about clarifying and understanding what the other means when they say what they do another reason why you don't like it.
Rather than arguing answers for the purpose of self justification it is possible to deepen the question inviting more meaningful experiences of what we are. ...
But you already think you know what we are hence all your threads self-justifying yourself and your creation of this 'great beast' and a misapplied definition of 'secularism'.
Suppose there are levels of unknowing and at the deepest level we are conscious beings not knowing what consciousness is. If true the great unknown is consciousness itself. To “know thyself” is to have the conscious experience of onself. How to do this when we don’t know what consciousness is?
Try reading Kant and Descartes instead of quoting what others think about what they said, its called doing Philosophy.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Great Unknown is Me - Myself

Post by Nick_A »

Arising_uk wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:56 pm
Nick_A wrote:...
Modern philosophy or debate seems to be concerned with arguing answers ...
No it is not, it's pretty much exactly what Socrates does and that is asking questions hence you don't like it much as you already have the answer.
while Socrates through the Socratic dialogue invites us to deepen the question. Deepening the question is a means for liberating us from the conditioned mind and into the experience of the unknown and what it reveals about what we ARE. ...
No it's not, it's about clarifying and understanding what the other means when they say what they do another reason why you don't like it.
Rather than arguing answers for the purpose of self justification it is possible to deepen the question inviting more meaningful experiences of what we are. ...
But you already think you know what we are hence all your threads self-justifying yourself and your creation of this 'great beast' and a misapplied definition of 'secularism'.
Suppose there are levels of unknowing and at the deepest level we are conscious beings not knowing what consciousness is. If true the great unknown is consciousness itself. To “know thyself” is to have the conscious experience of onself. How to do this when we don’t know what consciousness is?
Try reading Kant and Descartes instead of quoting what others think about what they said, its called doing Philosophy.
What makes me objectionable is admitting what is said here:
RW: So this idea of knowing myself—what does that mean? Clearly, the implication is that I don’t know myself.

JN: The great unknown is me, myself. We can talk all we want about Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, and not knowing things in themselves, but this, myself, is the great unknown.
By definition I don't have the answers. I have annoying questions which irritate the secular mind living by adaptation. The implications is that if we did know ourselves, conscious evolution would be normal for us. The secular mind only accepts adaptation. That is what makes a discussion like the one between RW and JN valuable. It invites and deepens questions of a higher order. It may not be for you but why discourage others? When the link finishes we may agree to describe ideas that touch all of us like how we can "Know Thyself" and be less of a great unknown?
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Great Unknown is Me - Myself

Post by Nick_A »

Before going on do you believe it is possible to have a philosophical discussion beginning with the premise that we are each a great unknown? If so can right or wrong conceptions connected with acquired beliefs have any objective meaning for the philosophic attraction to "Know Thyself" in order to make the experience of wisdom possible? Our thoughts, emotions, and sensations live our lives often unaware of each other but our I-ness that could reconcile them as a unity is rarely present. Can the premise that we are the great unknown be a foundation for a meaningful discussion?
RW: That’s beautiful. Sometimes it amazes me is that it’s not recognized that everything in life exists, first of all, as experience. We seem to miss this leap we take from experience to “things that are out there.” We just go out to them, without Descartes’ questioning, as if all the stuff out there is the whole story. But sometimes, I’m in a kind of state where it shocks me that nobody seems to recognize that it’s experience we really live in. Do you follow what I’m getting at?

JN: It’s astonishing that this is not at the forefront of our awareness, let’s say, that I am experiencing this. The “I-ness” is lost in my life. I could go through a whole month, year, a whole lifetime and not realize that I am experiencing life. Consciousness is myself in some deep sense of the word. I’m not my arms and legs, my nose, my opinions. I’m not my words, my thoughts, my sensations. I’m not my organs. I’m a human being. A human being is defined by consciousness. That’s what you’re saying, if I understand it.
..................
Post Reply