Explicit Knowledge

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dontaskme
Posts: 3868
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by Dontaskme » Thu May 11, 2017 6:44 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Dontaskme wrote:
I know that to question existence is a philosophical long discussion that can go on forever indefinitely

But to know God without knowing is not a philosophy ... it is an absolute irrefutable self withstanding truth
Is it and what about knowing without knowing God ... is that also an absolute irrefutable self withstanding truth
Yes it is..it reads both ways, like a two way mirror.

'God' is also a concept known. Can anything said to be known that is not a concept?

Yes, knowing is knowing, there is only knowing.
There is here an immediate presence knowing itself that cannot be refuted or denied. No one knows this.

This presence cannot see itself. Anything seen cannot be the seer. Anything seen can only be what's seeing...known as seen in the instant...seer,seeing and seen are instantaneous.
surreptitious57 wrote:I know that this is your philosophy but it is not mine
Nor could it ever be since it is not grounded in logic
God is just another word for SEER...Only if God /SEER exist can you ASSUME the trust worthiness of anything, you have no logical right to assume anything is trustworthy or real if you do not start with the foundation of an intelligent mind making things trust worthy. Seer/sensation /mind are all synonymous as this immediate ultimate presence that is not an experience. An experience is an appearance in it, not it...and at the same time inseparable from it.

.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1602
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu May 11, 2017 7:09 pm

I do not require the existence of God as you define it to understand any thing. Logic and reason can be rigorously employed
with out reference to any entity. I find the concept entirely meaningless. An intelligent mind is not required to impart logic
and reason because they can and indeed do stand on their own merit. Furthermore I have no psychological need for such an
entity which is another reason why I reject it entirely. I have no problem with anyone else needing God. But it is not for me

Dontaskme
Posts: 3868
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by Dontaskme » Thu May 11, 2017 9:36 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:I do not require the existence of God as you define it to understand any thing. Logic and reason can be rigorously employed
with out reference to any entity. I find the concept entirely meaningless. An intelligent mind is not required to impart logic
and reason because they can and indeed do stand on their own merit. Furthermore I have no psychological need for such an
entity which is another reason why I reject it entirely. I have no problem with anyone else needing God. But it is not for me
You say I have no need for an entity and so reject it entirely and then go on to say God is not for 'me'

So who is this 'me' if there is no entity?

And to be absolutely true here...There is no entity called 'me'

Nothing is absolute.

That statement is an absolute statement. It is an incorrect absolute statement,
but it is an absolute statement nonetheless. Therefore, it is self-refuting and necessarily false.

CONCLUSION: There are most definitely absolutes.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1602
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat May 13, 2017 12:13 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
You say you have no need for an entity and so reject it entirely and then go on to say God is not for me

So who is this me if there is no entity

And to be absolutely true here there is no entity called me
Entity as in metaphysical or supernatural not biological

And there is an entity called me for I am me

Dontaskme
Posts: 3868
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by Dontaskme » Sun May 14, 2017 8:00 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Dontaskme wrote:
You say you have no need for an entity and so reject it entirely and then go on to say God is not for me

So who is this me if there is no entity

And to be absolutely true here there is no entity called me
Entity as in metaphysical or supernatural not biological

And there is an entity called me for I am me

A deeper understanding of the 'SELF' points to a supernatural metaphysical realisation. That most of us identify ourselves as an entity fixed in time and space, with a history, personality, and individual memories distinct from any other. Upon deeper introspection we begin to discover that this sense of a fixed or permanent self is an illusion, that we are simply a witness to a series of personalities that come and go.

That there is such a witness here at all is a miracle in itself beyond all human comprehension. A human being or any other animal does not just appear at the wave of a magic wand, the process that has developed a human mind capable of being rational, being conscientious, having critical thinking skills, being skeptical, having empathy and compassion, having the strong will to live over inertia all point to an obvious supernatural witnessing presence. What we currently believe ourselves to be is our personal identity name tag we call a biological entity, but in reality there is no such actually entity. There is only 'SELF' it has a transcendental supramental quality embodied as and through the human mind body mechanism.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1602
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun May 14, 2017 8:35 am

Dontaskme wrote:
A human being or any other animal does not just appear at the wave of a magic wand the process that has developed a human mind capable
of being rational being conscientious having critical thinking skills being sceptical having empathy and compassion having the strong will to
live over inertia all point to an obvious supernatural witnessing presence
There is nothing obviously supernatural about the development of the human mind. Since if there was it could be demonstrated and every one
would be able to accept that it exists. And also those critical thinking skills would question the soundness of such an evidence free proposition Thinking or wanting something to be true does not make it so. That is not how reality works

Dontaskme
Posts: 3868
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by Dontaskme » Sun May 14, 2017 8:48 am

surreptitious57 wrote:That is not how reality works
Reality does work though ....it's working right now accurately and precisely...prior to what thought infers upon it.

Life is a supernatural event since it's ridiculous to say that it just suddenly popped into existence between two blank black voids.

Life is already this living known void that cannot be known for there is nothing outside it.

Union with the Absolute is available in all places, at all times, to all peoples, and requires nothing more than 'a change of heart' (metanoia). It is not limited to the philosophically inclined, or rather 'very great souls' need not be philosophers.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1602
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun May 14, 2017 9:12 am

Thought infers absolutely nothing upon reality which has existed
for much longer and also life is not universal whereas non life is

Dontaskme
Posts: 3868
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by Dontaskme » Sun May 14, 2017 9:16 am

surreptitious57 wrote:Thought infers absolutely nothing upon reality which has existed
for much longer and also life is not universal whereas non life is
What is non life?

commonsense
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by commonsense » Sun May 14, 2017 7:06 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:I do not require the existence of God as you define it to understand any thing. Logic and reason can be rigorously employed
with out reference to any entity. I find the concept entirely meaningless. An intelligent mind is not required to impart logic
and reason because they can and indeed do stand on their own merit. Furthermore I have no psychological need for such an
entity which is another reason why I reject it entirely. I have no problem with anyone else needing God. But it is not for me
There seems to be a great chasm between Don’t Ask and surreptitious57. I am not surprised at all and I can see no resolution. Believers believe. Thinkers think. Here’s how I see the contrast between faith and thought.
For the believer, the existence of “ “ (I prefer to use the ancient Hebrew for God) is an absolute truth, a given, the foundation of all other truths. Blind faith is not mindful. It is irrational and possibly insane. Belief occurs without thinking. There are no questions, no doubts and no need to justify one’s faith by means of logic. Faith is without reason. It appears instead of reason. Truth to the thinker is derived from truth statements, proved by employing rules of logic and subject to rational argument. But truth statements cannot prove the existence of “ “. Logic does not apply to matters of faith.

Believing does not apply to, does not affect and cannot change thinking. Likewise for the reverse.

There you have it. Not a condemnation of either viewpoint, just a commentary. If you find that I have been judgmental at all on either side, do understand that I only meant for each side to have a snapshot of the other. In any case, I am anticipating rebuttal from believers and thinkers both.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1602
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am

I value thought over belief because it is a discipline interested in trying to understand the universe from as objective a perspective as possible Whereas belief is more interested in doing this from a subjective perspective that conforms to a pre conceived notion of the entity commonly known as God. A notion that is conveniently non falsifiable meaning it can never be disproven. However I am only interested in what actually exists not what may exist because I want it to. That is not the way reality works. Though either way what we think of it makes no difference
to how it actually functions. Even so it still makes more sense to be interested in it from an objective perspective and is therefore why I am

Belinda
Posts: 1797
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by Belinda » Mon May 15, 2017 8:40 am

Surreptitious57 wrote:
However I am only interested in what actually exists not what may exist because I want it to. That is not the way reality works.
But sometimes beliefs do cause people in societies to act according to the beliefs. We often want what peer pressure or manipulation makes us believe; look at electioneering! The other cause of men's actions is material necessity.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3868
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by Dontaskme » Mon May 15, 2017 10:10 am

commonsense wrote:'' ''
Thanks for your input. I agree with everything you said. :D

Dontaskme
Posts: 3868
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by Dontaskme » Mon May 15, 2017 11:16 am

surreptitious57 wrote:I value thought over belief because it is a discipline interested in trying to understand the universe from as objective a perspective as possible.
Thoughts create reality, belief endorses thought as if thought is actually real. . . beliefs and thoughts are not real, but no one thinks about that...but that's the point, thoughts and beliefs have to be real else reality would not work the way it does, from the human perspective.Without thought or belief we'd all be living without the story of 'me' ...and we'd be no different than a cat or a dog.

However, thoughts, and beliefs, are of a supernatural nature, the human entity does not make them happen. The human entity has not made itself. Such happenings are beyond human comprehension...they don't appear to be present in other sentient creatures to the extent they are present in a human...to deny that thought and belief is a supernatural miracle .. is to agree that everything has basically evolved from pond scum by accident, which would imply life is a totally random event that has no meaning nor significance whatsoever and therefore in essence nothing really matters what happens here, it's all just sprang up from total nothingness, there was no designer involved, no intelligence behind anything, it's all just been flung together for no reason other than that's just how it all decided to configure itself, in that that's just what appeared to happen by complete and utter chance. . . Therefore, there can be no such thing as morals, right or wrong, there is no good or bad, there is no love or compassion or empathy, it's okay to hate and kill, because it's all just a cosmic accident... and it's all just a relative senseless idea, that will eventually run it's course until there is total nothingness again...meaning that everything that ever existed including all our words are just meaningless things that have just popped out of thin air.And that when we die it'll all be a blessed relief from the stress and strain of it all.
So if there is no God, then what the heck are we even living for?




surreptitious57 wrote:Whereas belief is more interested in doing this from a subjective perspective that conforms to a pre conceived notion of the entity commonly known as God. A notion that is conveniently non falsifiable meaning it can never be disproven.
Nor can it be proven without a witness presence... that presence is the only SEER, the only KNOWER, the only EXPERIENCER of all that appears ...that witness presence is the absolute seeing, knowing, experiencing.


surreptitious57 wrote:Even so it still makes more sense to be interested in it from an objective perspective and is therefore why I am
An objective point of view cannot prove or disprove the validity of it's truth statement....without a witness presence. That witness presence is without doubt, error or belief...it is the I am aka God.

God is not a ''thing'' but limits it's power as all things. Things simply cannot exist without the witness which is just another name for light...which is just another name for God.

Everything is light don't you know...and there is only one light. I don't think I've ever seen two lights existing apart from each other, not that I've noticed anyway, and I'm pretty good at noticing things, so I can honestly say, I have never seen two sources of light. I haven't even seen one source of light...maybe because I already am the light that is trying to look at itself.


.

We all know light is good. We like the light, light feels good, especially the sun, we like the sun, and it's warmth, nothing would exist without it, nothing would grow, so it's all goodness, just like God.

So you see, if there was no good God, nothing would be. And we like being..that is self evident.


There is only goodness that is real, because no one like to feel bad, it's just not the way reality works.


.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1602
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Explicit Knowledge

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon May 15, 2017 11:42 am

Thoughts do not create reality. Reality pre dates thoughts by billions of years. We are not here for any reason. We just are
There is no meaning to life or the universe. They just are. Looking for meaning where there is none is completely pointless

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests