You have no image of yourself.

[Dontaskme]

And yet you are, but you do not need an image of yourself to BE...BEING is without doubt or error....and because there is here ''Pure Awareness Beingness'' already... is why you are able to create an imagined/illusory image out of yourself.

You have never seen your original face...All attempts to seek and find it is futile. It is like trying to see a mirror without your image. Every time you try to see the Pure Awareness you get trapped into mind the one reflecting back at you and you lose the purpose...

Q: What is the SELF?

A: Pure Awareness, the mirror that reflects everything except itself.

When there is identification with the face in the mirror to be who you are, this obstructs the real you which is the one looking at the face in the mirror.

What you are is going live right here now one without a second...as one unitary movement ..YOU are not a recording. The recording of you is memory past..it's not the pure aliveness of now. This moment is ever pure and fresh not-knowing not happening eternal NOW.

The other you,IS the illusory mirror image aka the known recording. You are watching the recording but you are not the recording... you are always the not-happening prior to the happening.

Trying to take a snap-shot of your original face cannot be done, you are already DONE.

YOU are the faceless mirror...identification with the image of you, will cause you to fail in seeing your original face, which is faceless...believing the image in the mirror to be your real face is like trying to take a picture of a face in the mirror ..you can't because the camera gets in the way...you are the camera, and the photograph is your image, the image of the imageless.

Seeing that you are the seer that cannot be seen is real seeing....that's who you are.

.

.

[Dontaskme]

The above post is consistent with what science is saying.

[ihoardpoetry]

I find this super interesting - perhaps there are even links to be made to Sartean conceptions of Nothingness and how this allows us to separate ourselves from other things: we recognise what we are because we recognise what we are not; as such, when viewing a chair I am explicitly aware of the chair, but implicitly aware of myself, since the Nothingness allows a separation between the chair and me to exist.

In the same way perhaps, I am aware I can never have an image of myself, since, through Sartrean theory, I am still aware of my reflection as a reflection of the mirror, which is still something separate and distinct from me as a consciousness.

I think this would especially perhaps fit with Sartean theory especially when you use the phrase 'the mirror that reflects everything except itself'. Sartre's quote of human reality as "that is what it is not" (I'm sure this is a paraphrase and not a direct quote from Being & Nothingness, but it is close enough) whereby we recognise our self as something distinct from everything else, as a mirror which reflects everything but itself.

It is interesting you mention temporal differences. We experience what we are as a past version of ourselves, as facticity. But there's always the possibility that we move beyond this, and therefore actually never get to achieve ourselves as 'something'. We are constantly re-making ourselves, never ever static.

Do you have any sources for the opinions of current science on this?

[Dontaskme]

I find this super interesting - perhaps there are even links to be made to Sartean conceptions of Nothingness and how this allows us to separate ourselves from other things: we recognise what we are because we recognise what we are not; as such, when viewing a chair I am explicitly aware of the chair, but implicitly aware of myself, since the Nothingness allows a separation between the chair and me to exist.

In the same way perhaps, I am aware I can never have an image of myself, since, through Sartrean theory, I am still aware of my reflection as a reflection of the mirror, which is still something separate and distinct from me as a consciousness.

I think this would especially perhaps fit with Sartean theory especially when you use the phrase 'the mirror that reflects everything except itself'. Sartre's quote of human reality as "that is what it is not" (I'm sure this is a paraphrase and not a direct quote from Being & Nothingness, but it is close enough) whereby we recognise our self as something distinct from everything else, as a mirror which reflects everything but itself.

It is interesting you mention temporal differences. We experience what we are as a past version of ourselves, as facticity. But there's always the possibility that we move beyond this, and therefore actually never get to achieve ourselves as 'something'. We are constantly re-making ourselves, never ever static.

Thanks for your reply...of which I resonate with...with ease.

The act of grasping the notion that existence exists implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

In which case everything is only ever perceived..which appears as knowledge known in the same moment perception takes place rendering the knowledge is only ever one with the knower in the exact same instant...in that both the knower and the known exist together as a unitary phenomena inseparable as one.

However, the perceiving consciousness cannot know or experience itself as the object it is perceiving: it can only be aware of what it perceives. And in that process it appears as if the object of perception gives birth to the subjective perceiver which in turn gives birth to the object perceived in the exact same moment...and all this is taking place in an Awareness that pervades it all.
It's as if there is here a [Not-knowing Latent Awareness State] which must be permanently ON..and within that Awareness there appears to be a faculty of intention or desire that appears to manifest as a state of becoming conscious of knowledge...and that this consciousness can be either ON or OFF..as known during sleep..for during sleep there is no sense of ''I exist'', it's off.. and yet existence IS...because AWARENESS is there which IS CONSTANTLY ON....and then upon waking from sleep, the sense ''I exist'' comes back on...so here it is known that consciousness can be either on or off...but Awareness must constantly be ON

So what is realised here is that Awareness does not need ''thought'' the sense of ''I exist'' in order to BE ...but ''thought'' aka ''I exist'' needs Awareness for that cognition to be recognised.

Do you follow this so far?

.

[Dontaskme]

Do you have any sources for the opinions of current science on this?

There are a ton of science orientated websites all over the internet that support Consciousness being the primary non-moving mover of all material phenomena.
The 'panpsychist' view is increasingly being taken seriously by credible philosophers, neuroscientists, and physicists, including figures such as neuroscientist Christof Koch and physicist Roger Penrose.

Our individual self and worlds are unique to each of us, but they’re all grounded in biological mechanisms shared with every living creature, inanimate or animate alike. Worlds within worlds within worlds within worlds add infinitum.

[Belinda]

Dontaskme wrote:

Q: What is the SELF?

A: Pure Awareness, the mirror that reflects everything except itself.

Thanks for redirecting me.

We may have been at cross purposes. I regarded your concept of self as personal identity, how I differentiate me from not-me: how you differentiate Dontaskme from not-Dontaskme.

According to the unity consciousness isn't it the case that the concepts of Dontaskme, Belinda, Arising_uk, Nick_A, and everybody, are all gathered into one eternally?

Or another way to ask the question is > according to the pure awareness thesis each conceptualisation of each brain/mind is melded in one great conceptualisation which we differentiators usually call "eternity" ?

I first encountered the concept of pure awareness when I read Maharishi's introduction to transcendental meditation which I did for eighteen months.

[Dontaskme]

Dontaskme wrote:

Q: What is the SELF?

A: Pure Awareness, the mirror that reflects everything except itself.

Thanks for redirecting me.

We may have been at cross purposes. I regarded your concept of self as personal identity, how I differentiate me from not-me: how you differentiate Dontaskme from not-Dontaskme.

According to the unity consciousness isn't it the case that the concepts of Dontaskme, Belinda, Arising_uk, Nick_A, and everybody, are all gathered into one eternally?

Or another way to ask the question is > according to the pure awareness thesis each conceptualisation of each brain/mind is melded in one great conceptualisation which we differentiators usually call "eternity" ?

I first encountered the concept of pure awareness when I read Maharishi's introduction to transcendental meditation which I did for eighteen months.

Thanks for your response.
You read Maharishi's introduction to transcendental meditation which you did for eighteen months.

Did that inquiry bring you to the realisation that '' According to the unity consciousness isn't it the case that the concepts of Dontaskme, Belinda, Arising_uk, Nick_A, and everybody, are all gathered into one eternally?''

You ask yourself the question here...and so do you have the answer to your own question? if yes, then share your answer here now.

In other words what are concepts and where do they come from?

.

[Belinda]

Dontaskme wrote:

The act of grasping the notion that existence exists implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

In which case everything is only ever perceived..which appears as knowledge known in the same moment perception takes place rendering the knowledge is only ever one with the knower in the exact same instant...in that oth the knower and the known exist together as a unitary phenomena inseparable as one.

I agree with the two corollary axioms. I also agree that " both the knower and the known exist together as a unitary phenomena inseparable as one.[/quote]

I have disagreed with you on the other thread that the knower is all there is which I thought that is what you claimed. In

both the knower and the known exist together as a unitary phenomena inseparable as one.

there are three concepts, 1. the knower 2. the known 3 . the "unitary phenomena"(sic).

The unitary thingy overarches both the knower and the known. Do you agree?

I hope that Ihoardpoetry will develop their idea regarding Sartrean existential being.

[Belinda]

Dontaskme wrote:

The act of grasping the notion that existence exists implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

In which case everything is only ever perceived..which appears as knowledge known in the same moment perception takes place rendering the knowledge is only ever one with the knower in the exact same instant...in that oth the knower and the known exist together as a unitary phenomena inseparable as one.

I agree with the two corollary axioms. I also agree that " both the knower and the known exist together as a unitary phenomena inseparable as one.

I have disagreed with you on the other thread that the knower is all there is which I thought that is what you claimed. In

both the knower and the known exist together as a unitary phenomena inseparable as one.

there are three concepts, 1. the knower 2. the known 3 . the "unitary phenomena"(sic).

The unitary thingy overarches both the knower and the known. Do you agree?

I hope that Ihoardpoetry will develop their idea regarding Sartrean existential being.
[/quote]

Dontaskme, our posts crossed.'"Where they come from" is where everything comes from: nature. Nature is the name I and other monists call the unitary thing.

I have been suspecting you of trying to introduce a supernatural being into nature and I hope you can dispel my suspicion.

[Dontaskme]

Dontaskme, our posts crossed.'"Where they come from" is where everything comes from: nature. Nature is the name I and other monists call the unitary thing.

And where did nature come from? I'm assuming what you mean by nature is what can be seen by the physical eye? ..is that correct?

My idea is that ''nature'' comes from the artist, and that nature is the unseen artists seen effect...the art ist natural...but the effect aka nature is artificial...the knower cannot be in the nature, which is the effect..the knower has to be prior to the effect known... that which is known cannot know..that would be like a tree knowing it is a tree.

I have been suspecting you of trying to introduce a supernatural being into nature and I hope you can dispel my suspicion.

LOL..yes I know that's what you thought, but no I was doing the complete opposite actually...I was placing it outside of nature as the unseen artist of nature.

What you are essentially has no image of itself..and yet is able to paint one...make one up so to speak.

For Belinda....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gxkewmjgqhk

.

[ihoardpoetry]

I find this super interesting - perhaps there are even links to be made to Sartean conceptions of Nothingness and how this allows us to separate ourselves from other things: we recognise what we are because we recognise what we are not; as such, when viewing a chair I am explicitly aware of the chair, but implicitly aware of myself, since the Nothingness allows a separation between the chair and me to exist.

In the same way perhaps, I am aware I can never have an image of myself, since, through Sartrean theory, I am still aware of my reflection as a reflection of the mirror, which is still something separate and distinct from me as a consciousness.

I think this would especially perhaps fit with Sartean theory especially when you use the phrase 'the mirror that reflects everything except itself'. Sartre's quote of human reality as "that is what it is not" (I'm sure this is a paraphrase and not a direct quote from Being & Nothingness, but it is close enough) whereby we recognise our self as something distinct from everything else, as a mirror which reflects everything but itself.

It is interesting you mention temporal differences. We experience what we are as a past version of ourselves, as facticity. But there's always the possibility that we move beyond this, and therefore actually never get to achieve ourselves as 'something'. We are constantly re-making ourselves, never ever static.

Thanks for your reply...of which I resonate with...with ease.

The act of grasping the notion that existence exists implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

In which case everything is only ever perceived..which appears as knowledge known in the same moment perception takes place rendering the knowledge is only ever one with the knower in the exact same instant...in that both the knower and the known exist together as a unitary phenomena inseparable as one.

However, the perceiving consciousness cannot know or experience itself as the object it is perceiving: it can only be aware of what it perceives. And in that process it appears as if the object of perception gives birth to the subjective perceiver which in turn gives birth to the object perceived in the exact same moment...and all this is taking place in an Awareness that pervades it all.
It's as if there is here a [Not-knowing Latent Awareness State] which must be permanently ON..and within that Awareness there appears to be a faculty of intention or desire that appears to manifest as a state of becoming conscious of knowledge...and that this consciousness can be either ON or OFF..as known during sleep..for during sleep there is no sense of ''I exist'', it's off.. and yet existence IS...because AWARENESS is there which IS CONSTANTLY ON....and then upon waking from sleep, the sense ''I exist'' comes back on...so here it is known that consciousness can be either on or off...but Awareness must constantly be ON

So what is realised here is that Awareness does not need ''thought'' the sense of ''I exist'' in order to BE ...but ''thought'' aka ''I exist'' needs Awareness for that cognition to be recognised.

Do you follow this so far?

Yes, the thing I find interesting about phenomenology is the focus on things as you experience them - as you perceive them, rather than things as they are. Phenomenology is cool in that respect is that it doesn't need to reference or rely on 'things in themselves' i.e. an objective world that we can access: I think the conclusion of using such a methodology in philosophy is that it almost assumes the only thing we can access is our perceptions of things, and that this is the important thing to consider.

I like the concept of knowledge being related to the knower in that instant at which they are perceiving something. Though it has radical conclusions, perhaps, such as knowledge of past experiences perhaps being cut off since we do not 'perceive' the past as such in the way we are talking. Although I suppose, if knowledge is just a collection of what we're perceiving, would you class the perception of a memory as knowledge in this way?

Yeah that's interesting. I think this again relates to Sartrean nothingness: we are aware that our awareness is not the object, we see ourselves as something entirely distinct from the object: in being able to isolate an object as "That is a tree" it is implicit that we are also saying "I am not the tree".

That's interesting: that the faculty of perception gives rise to a subjective reality, which is what creates the perceived object as it is perceived by us. This is interesting when applied with colour: that colour only appears so because it is perceived by us, that the way our eyes intake those particular wavelengths, etc. Faculties of perception around colour give rise to the subjective reality and perceived object of colour.

Could you perhaps explain "not-knowing latent awareness state" further? This sounds interesting, though it remains unclear to me exactly what you mean.

That last part is especially interesting. In sleep then, are we unaware? I'm sure there are several cognitive occurrences within sleep whereby people are within a sleep stage but can perhaps have some awareness of what is around then. Although I find your reversal very cool - that actually "I exist" and "thought" requires awareness rather than the other way around: "I exist" depends on awareness, rather than awareness depending on "I exist". Since we are still 'being' in our sleep, yet we lack the "I exist" of waking life.

[Belinda]

Dontaskme wrote:

And where did nature come from? I'm assuming what you mean by nature is what can be seen by the physical eye? ..is that correct?

My idea is that ''nature'' comes from the artist, and that nature is the unseen artists seen effect...the art ist natural...but the effect aka nature is artificial...the knower cannot be in the nature, which is the effect..the knower has to be prior to the effect known... that which is known cannot know..that would be like a tree knowing it is a tree.

Nature is uncaused and so there is no " where did nature come from". Nature is the cause of itself; nature is the only thing that is the cause of itself. There be nothing that is not nature. Nature is all that there is and includes not only what can be seen by the naked eye but also what is thought, electron microscopes, aware brain/minds, aware consciousnesses, sleeping brain/minds, all phenomena, all human conceptualisations, fruit flies, dreams, excreta, ethics, the plastic that is destroying the oceans, saints, sinners, the Pope, Mr Trump, dead people now long gone, holy books, pornographers, dead people's ideas etc etc.

Humans can understand a little of nature via science , via the arts, and via physical actions. Humans can understand a little of nature from the point of view of eternity(which is what Dontaskme does seemingly all of the time) and from the point of view of this transient, relative, temporal, differentiated world. I am not lecturing but explaining what I meant when I wrote 'nature'.

As for knowers and what is known, nature includes both of those and neither takes causal precedence. If Dontaskme thinks that the knower takes causal precedence then Dontaskme is an idealist .

[Belinda]

Ihoardpoetry wrote:

Yeah that's interesting. I think this again relates to Sartrean nothingness: we are aware that our awareness is not the object, we see ourselves as something entirely distinct from the object: in being able to isolate an object as "That is a tree" it is implicit that we are also saying "I am not the tree".

Differentiating between me and not-me is typical of how in order to survive in a changing habitat all living things are forced to differentiate .

I gather that this being forced to differentiate is how Sartrean Angst arises. Those humans who persist in thinking things out, or persist in seeking and acting their own truths, before they make up their minds generally experience angst more than humans who can accept what some other man said they should believe or do. Did Sartre claim that angst and authenticity are two sides of the same coin?

I don't know what if anything Sartre said about the eternal now.

[ihoardpoetry]

Ihoardpoetry wrote:

Yeah that's interesting. I think this again relates to Sartrean nothingness: we are aware that our awareness is not the object, we see ourselves as something entirely distinct from the object: in being able to isolate an object as "That is a tree" it is implicit that we are also saying "I am not the tree".

Differentiating between me and not-me is typical of how in order to survive in a changing habitat all living things are forced to differentiate .

I gather that this being forced to differentiate is how Sartrean Angst arises. Those humans who persist in thinking things out, or persist in seeking and acting their own truths, before they make up their minds generally experience angst more than humans who can accept what some other man said they should believe or do. Did Sartre claim that angst and authenticity are two sides of the same coin?

I don't know what if anything Sartre said about the eternal now.

Yeah, it is typical of that, so it would be interesting to know what he said on how animals differentiate between objects since they do not possess this nothingness (animals, so far as I'm aware, were not considered Being For-itself or consciousness, and so did not contain the nothingness which allows us to separate ourselves from objects). Of course, animals still need to differentiate but I'm not sure how they would do it, or how Sartre thinks they might. I'd like to hear more on this (if there's any work, I'm not sure).

Kind of, I think. The important thing with Sartre is that more than other philosophers is there is definitely an element of interpretation involved when attempting to elucidate the ideas in his work. His language is so flowery - typical Continental - compared to the more rigorous Analytic tradition (though I'm not sure I totally subscribe to the Continental/Analytic tradition: it definitely holds its own problems).

For me, Sartrean anguish arises out of the stark realisation of freedom. An example used is a man walking a cliff: he is faced with anguish when he realises he could just throw himself off: he is free to do that, nothing holds him back. Anguish is the response to radical freedom. Of course, this radical freedom arises from the ability to separate - or, as Sartre calls it, nihilate - since we can always reject any current influence (facticity about ourselves, such as past events) on our behaviour and radically choose something for ourselves. Nothing constrains us in our freedom, and anguish is the response to becoming aware of this, the realisation that we must constantly choose to re-make ourselves again and again through our action, and nothing we can do will allow us to avoid this.

That's true. The person who seeks out their own life path, carving it out for themselves, will probably experience angst more - they're going to be more consciously aware of their freedom versus someone who passively floats through life. The man who carves their own path is also more authentic though: it is authentic to accept our freedom, and we are in 'bad faith' if we deny our freedom. Bad faith is the anti-thesis to authenticity, and it is a common response to anguish. I would say bad faith and authenticity are two sides of one singular coin: anguish, with each side being a different response. We can lead our authentic life, accepting that there are things which constitute facticity about us, but also accepting in our radical freedom there is always the possibility to reject this. Or, we can live in bad faith, where we either totally deny our facticity as a part of us, or we deny our radical freedom. But both are responses to the coin of authenticity. I hope this makes sense. Feel free to challenge or question me further, I'm studying Sartre at the minute so discussing this is actually super helpful for my studies (Ironically, me writing this post is actually a form of me procrastinating from planning my Sartre essay.).

As for the idea of an 'eternal now', I think Sartre saw the present as a consistent flight away from the past, and the present is constantly becoming the past - but this is a process we are always in. It's interesting. I'm sure you could make a connection between the idea of an 'eternal now' and Sartrean ideas surrounding the way human reality is constantly "wrenched away from itself", and thus the future can never be reached, and the past can always be rejected. But alas, I don't think that's something I yet possess the power to do, admittedly, although I definitely think there is something to be said there.

[Dontaskme]

As for knowers and what is known, nature includes both of those and neither takes causal precedence. If Dontaskme thinks that the knower takes causal precedence then Dontaskme is an idealist .

The problem with two way communication between two unique minds with their own unique lens of perception is that they may often misinterpret what is being communicated, I myself is guilty of this too.

What I've consistently said about the knower is that knowing is only ever one with the knowing in the instant knowing arises from the only knowing there is which is Consciousness. Knowing is not known by a ''someone'' ...a ''someone'' is the known..known by that which cannot be known. You are that knowing, aka Consciousness.

Every atom in the universe is imbued with the same one consciousness which is self-aware to a certain degree on every conceivable level. Consciousness is not-a-thing..it's not alive and it's not dead. It doesn't belong to any one or thing. IT is all thing, it's everything and everywhere all at once one without a second...This will take for ever to explain ....but personal direct experience can take you straight to the point of realising this - effortlessly.

Like I've said countless times before...Dontaskme doesn't know anything, dontaskme is a concept known arising from the unknown- known in the instant awareness become aware of that knowing one with the knowing....dontaskme cannot be an idealist, dontaskme is just an IDEA known by the only knowing there is which is Consciousness...

Words are NOT what I AM...I AM is prior to words...words are just illusory story arising in the I AM.

That goes for the concept causal ...it too is an idea formed in what can only be described as this Acausal I AM structure...which is unknowable.

.