Knowing

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Walker
Posts: 4369
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Knowing

Post by Walker » Tue Mar 07, 2017 9:36 am

Dontaskme wrote:That which is known is inseparable from the knowing.

While ever knowing all that is knowable, Knowing knows not itself, nor the nature of it's knowing.

Knowing and Being are One. All that is known, is One's image... it is what One imagines itself to be.

As for 'imagination' and 'knowing'... is there any 'thing' 'imagined' that is not 'known'?
I think so, when imagination learns to discover and not simply repeat.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Knowing

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:19 pm

The perceiver can be perceived, as a reflection in your perceptual field, you just can't directly experience it objectively only, as it is both subject and at the same time, object.

The image on the screen of awareness knowing is nothing other than the screen itself knowing.

Thoughts, sensations, perceptions can't appear without an awareness present.
Therefore, there is no such thing as the absence of awareness, awareness has to be always present. Unconscious is not the absence of awareness, it is the awareness of the absence of thoughts, sensations, perceptions. It's the real knower that can't be known by any thing, because things are already known by this one and only knowing knowing itself.

Be knowingly the open, empty, allowing presence of Awareness, in which all experience appears, with which all experience is known and out of which all experience is made.

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

Re: Knowing

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Tue Mar 07, 2017 3:40 pm

Dontaskme wrote:The perceiver can be perceived, as a reflection in your perceptual field, you just can't directly experience it objectively only, as it is both subject and at the same time, object.

The image on the screen of awareness knowing is nothing other than the screen itself knowing.
This is only because you don't know what knowing is. No one said knowledge was perfect, it is at all times bourn by human interested perception, and fit to the utility of metaphor.
By your way of thinking there is no kind of knowledge at all, which rather undermines everything you say; as I have said before and you have ignored.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Knowing

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:27 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Dontaskme wrote:The perceiver can be perceived, as a reflection in your perceptual field, you just can't directly experience it objectively only, as it is both subject and at the same time, object.

The image on the screen of awareness knowing is nothing other than the screen itself knowing.
This is only because you don't know what knowing is. So the ''knowing'' is self evident. However, this immediate ''knowing'' cannot be known by any other agent or knower outside of this immediate knowing.

No one said knowledge was perfect, it is at all times bourn by human interested perception, and fit to the utility of metaphor.
By your way of thinking there is no kind of knowledge at all, which rather undermines everything you say; as I have said before and you have ignored.

There is an awareness of knowledge. And that awareness cannot be known. For it is already being, being itself aware.

There is no other thing knowing what knowing is, (there is only knowing) and that knowing IS you that cannot be known.

Awareness doesn't require a knower to be what it is, it is plainly self evidently THIS KNOWING/ THIS BEING.
(if you didn't ever know a single piece of ''existential knowledge'' )
it would not take away the fact that you are already this self evident knowing /being.

There is awareness of objective knowledge, but awareness is not a knower of objects and, being attributeless, is itself not an object that can be known as such. Awareness is simply the metaphorical light in which all objects appear, are identified, and thus known as knowledge, as a rainbow is to the sky, both are empty of substance. There is no place that any thing can hang.To know an object you would have to be that object, but, the awareness of every object is not an object...therefore, neither the object or the awareness can be known.. In other words...No object/thing is aware.

ONLY AWARENESS IS AWARE...as this self evident ''KNOWING''



I guess Hobbes has ignored or overlooked this simple pointing?

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

Re: Knowing

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:35 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Dontaskme wrote:The perceiver can be perceived, as a reflection in your perceptual field, you just can't directly experience it objectively only, as it is both subject and at the same time, object.

The image on the screen of awareness knowing is nothing other than the screen itself knowing.
This is only because you don't know what knowing is. So the ''knowing'' is self evident. However, this immediate ''knowing'' cannot be known by any other agent or knower outside of this immediate knowing.

No one said knowledge was perfect, it is at all times bourn by human interested perception, and fit to the utility of metaphor.
By your way of thinking there is no kind of knowledge at all, which rather undermines everything you say; as I have said before and you have ignored.

There is an awareness of knowledge. And that awareness cannot be known. For it is already being, being itself aware.

There is no other thing knowing what knowing is, (there is only knowing) and that knowing IS you that cannot be known.
You keep asserting this without argument, reason or rationality. And you are still wrong.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Knowing

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:41 am

The thought of ''YOU'' registers in the mind, but both the thought and the mind are only reflected awareness.
The mind is the machine that generates the thought when illumined or activated by awareness. In this case, however, the thought is not the thought of an apparent object, but rather the apprehension of your true nature as awareness. Though it may take time for the mind, which is essentially the apparent individual, to accept the fact that that such a thought reflects it's true nature, and though the thought itself is not pure awareness, for the thought is an object, the thought is the direct reflection of awareness in the mind. Thus, we might say, that pure awareness sees itself - which is not an object - reflected in the mirror of the mind.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Knowing

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:47 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote: And you are still wrong.
The mirror never lies. And there is only the mirror reflecting itself everywhere at once...one without a second.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Knowing

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:02 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
You keep asserting this without argument, reason or rationality. And you are still wrong.
Who the heck do you imagine you are arguing with here Hobbes? Do you not understand the absurd notion of ONENESS?..which apparently is what the whole of reality is constructed of in a nutshell.

Who is it that knows I ? which in your example is taken to be Hobbes. You see, Hobbes may come and go as thoughts come and go - Hobbes is a thought remember? or to put it more appropriately your identification with Hobbes may come and go - but you are always present. Were you not present, how would you know that you or, rather, Hobbes had been absent? Someone had to be there to see that Hobbes was here, then gone, then back again. That ''someone'' is you, pure awareness.

Again, you are never the known object. By implication, of course, you are thus never the ''knower'' either, since in the absence of any object to know there can technically be no knower.

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

Re: Knowing

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:18 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
You keep asserting this without argument, reason or rationality. And you are still wrong.
Who the heck do you imagine you are arguing with here Hobbes? Do you not understand the absurd notion of ONENESS?..which apparently is what the whole of reality is constructed of in a nutshell.

Who is it that knows I ? which in your example is taken to be Hobbes. You see, Hobbes may come and go as thoughts come and go - Hobbes is a thought remember? or to put it more appropriately your identification with Hobbes may come and go - but you are always present. Were you not present, how would you know that you or, rather, Hobbes had been absent? Someone had to be there to see that Hobbes was here, then gone, then back again. That ''someone'' is you, pure awareness.

Again, you are never the known object. By implication, of course, you are thus never the ''knower'' either, since in the absence of any object to know there can technically be no knower.
This is not any kind of argument. None of what you say is relevant or truthful.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Knowing

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:55 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
This is not any kind of argument. None of what you say is relevant or truthful.

In technical terms, the mind-body-sense i.e. the person inside my body complex is a limiting adjunct. The mind-body-sense is an agent whose influence causes another entity to seemingly assume it's qualities. (Superimpose upon, limit itself to those qualities only)

The classic example used to illustrate this idea is that of a clear crystal behind which is positioned a red rose. Though the crystal itself has no colour, it appears red due to it's proximity to the rose. Similarly, pure awareness, which has no attributes of it's own, seemingly assumes the attributes of the mind-body-sense complex. Hence, not only does awareness take itself to be the body, but also the mind and it's function of knowing.

Moreover, when it identifies with the limitation of a particular mind-body-sense complex it becomes limited, experientially, by that limiting adjunct. Hence, awareness identified with the apparent individual person only knows what appears within the mind of that particular apparent individual (i.e. that particular mind-body-sense complex).

Never quite grasping the enormity of it's vast boundless infinite freedom to be i.e. ( the true self)
And that is the suffering of which the sages refer to...i.e. the suffering that comes with the falsely assumed concept of I am an individual named (what ever? )

If this is wrong, untruthful, or not relevant, then please explain what is in regard to the actual topic...don't just say those things without counter argument of your own to back up your assertions, since you have yet again stuck your beak into another one of my topics, please explain why my assertions are wrong and if you can't, then at least give the correct ones....otherwise you just make your self appear like a right plonker showing up on other peoples thread topics with nothing of any significance to say...except your obsession with telling other folks...your wrong, your wrong, your wrong, your wrong... you never have anything significant to say do you, you do the exact same thing you accuse others of doing..what a joke you are.

Anyway, think what you like Hobbes, this one here, has no interest in dead people, let the dead bury the dead.

Boundless aliveness knows no death. :shock:

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

Re: Knowing

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:40 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
This is not any kind of argument. None of what you say is relevant or truthful.

In technical terms, the mind-body-sense i.e. the person inside my body complex is a limiting adjunct. The mind-body-sense is an agent whose influence causes another entity to seemingly assume it's qualities. (Superimpose upon, limit itself to those qualities only)

The classic example used to illustrate this idea is that of a clear crystal behind which is positioned a red rose. Though the crystal itself has no colour, it appears red due to it's proximity to the rose. Similarly, pure awareness, which has no attributes of it's own, seemingly assumes the attributes of the mind-body-sense complex. Hence, not only does awareness take itself to be the body, but also the mind and it's function of knowing.

Moreover, when it identifies with the limitation of a particular mind-body-sense complex it becomes limited, experientially, by that limiting adjunct. Hence, awareness identified with the apparent individual person only knows what appears within the mind of that particular apparent individual (i.e. that particular mind-body-sense complex).

Never quite grasping the enormity of it's vast boundless infinite freedom to be i.e. ( the true self)
And that is the suffering of which the sages refer to...i.e. the suffering that comes with the falsely assumed concept of I am an individual named (what ever? )

If this is wrong, untruthful, or not relevant, then please explain what is in regard to the actual topic...don't just say those things without counter argument of your own to back up your assertions, since you have yet again stuck your beak into another one of my topics, please explain why my assertions are wrong and if you can't, then at least give the correct ones....otherwise you just make your self appear like a right plonker showing up on other peoples thread topics with nothing of any significance to say...except your obsession with telling other folks...your wrong, your wrong, your wrong, your wrong... you never have anything significant to say do you, you do the exact same thing you accuse others of doing..what a joke you are.

Anyway, think what you like Hobbes, this one here, has no interest in dead people, let the dead bury the dead.

Boundless aliveness knows no death. :shock:
Ending with pseudo-profundities might make you think you are clever but they just undermine anything useful you might say.
Let's take a look at what you are trying to say.
1) You start off with an out-of-date mind body dualism that Descartes might have cringed at, but is no longer relevant to the way decent philosophers examine the problem of knowledge.
You claim it is "limited" but I could easily conclude that is it due to nothing more than you disabling dualism. Perhaps if you mind were not stuck in the 16thC you would not see this as a limit.
Limits are not relevant. Knowledge is a human interested phenomenon. Far from being limited by our direct physical experiences, we have managed to extend our senses with intstruments such as microscopes an telescopes; scanners listening devices and many other things that allow us to "see" and "hear" well beyond our immediate senses.
Knowledge has thus grown well beyond all expectation.
2)
This is bollocks;"Never quite grasping the enormity of it's vast boundless infinite freedom to be i.e. ( the true self) "
It's not only bollocks but nothing to do with the thread topic.
Then you blather on about suffering. Poor you. Get over it! Life is suffering. Knowledge can help alleviate suffering, even end it completely Why you think this has any part of a thread about knowledge I know not.

3) Then you launch into some nonsense about backing up your arguments! This is risible given your pseudo word salads.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Knowing

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:39 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:your pseudo word salads.
ALL knowledge is pseudo word salad.

REAL ''Knowing'' ..IS silent.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Knowing

Post by Greta » Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:42 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:your pseudo word salads.
ALL knowledge is pseudo word salad.
As with money, knowledge is insubstantial but it can hugely and positively transform people's lives.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Knowing

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:04 am

Greta wrote:
As with money, knowledge is insubstantial but it can hugely and positively transform people's lives.
Knowing that no one is or was ever transformed by pseudo money or pseudo knowledge except to say on a temporal superficially shallow basis are in reverse permanently transformed by that realisation.

A person who sees through the illusion of ''personal transformation'' never looks at their life in quite the same way as they did before.

AND...Just to put this in proper context, no person ever saw through the illusion of materialism, it was only and ever the innate intelligence of non-physical consciousness dictating the realisation....When even a poor pious beggar in the street is a king in his own kingdom.

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

Re: Knowing

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:28 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:your pseudo word salads.
ALL knowledge is pseudo word salad.

REAL ''Knowing'' ..IS silent.
Then STFU

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests