All We Can Know Is We Don't Know.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

lazyfordumbpeople444
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 1:40 am

Re: All We Can Know Is We Don't Know.

Post by lazyfordumbpeople444 »

Dontaskme wrote: Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:08 am
Impenitent wrote: Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:57 pm how do you know that you do not know?

how did you prove that negative?

-Imp
The mind knows itself...it says I AM

You have TO exist first to be able to know I AM ..to be able to say it.

The saying of it is the known....but the knower of the known is not known since the knower and the known is the same ONE

How can ONE THING know itself? ....I've no idea?

Therefore, all knowledge is illusory.

And the illusion is real apparently.

The How's and Why's consciousness IS are impossible to answer....for that would need two separate consciousnesses which is impossible.

It's like the gurus and sage have said all along....to be able to claim I AM ...this is perceived, but can that which is the perceiver percieving the perceived...can that ONE be perceived?

Maybe, but only when you look in the mirror...even then, the reflection is only the image of the looker inseparable from it, it's an image of the imagless.

.

.

I have no idea of what I AM ..before I knew I AM ...I have no idea what I AM when I am not I AM...and I have no idea what I AM when I AM except what I make up.

The life of the I AM ..is nothing more than words made of water colour written upon a flowing river.

.

yet, we all have separate consciousnessess, and this is evident, if we haven't you weren't here exposing yourself to the ridiculous contradictions to others that have separate consciousnessess than you, they would simply learn with you as they would have shared consciousness... yet they don't. where is the impossible in it? you really are a clown, dont you?
lazyfordumbpeople444
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 1:40 am

Re: All We Can Know Is We Don't Know.

Post by lazyfordumbpeople444 »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:58 am
commonsense wrote: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:26 pm
I thank you for this revision/correction. I also wonder how you would handle a knowledge statement that does not require sensation to understand the knowledge nor to evaluate the truthfulness of the knowledge, such as a statement that is wholly symbolic, e.g., "! + @ = #".
Thank you too.

All knowledge statements have some form of subtle undertone of sensation within them. Any of the bodies sensory receptors can be involved in knowing...But as for the sense of sight...Symbolic signals inform the brain into making an interpretation ..if recognised, there is instant knowing in the moment. As all recognition/remembering/ is already stored in memory...if there is no recognition .. this just means that a particular brand of knowledge has not entered into the reality that is your mind brain body mechanism yet.
The entire contents of the universe is inside you...and not the other way around, you are not in the universe.
And your experience that is your mind brain body mechanism is just a tiny pin-hole perspective, just one of an infinite experiences within the entire universe as a whole experiencing itself infinitely.

Awareness is infinity right now without beginning nor end..it's unborn, undying perfect brilliant stillness that has to be...for any movement to be possible...but any movement is always within this non-mover, not outside of it. The mind is the mover.
As seen in this zen quote>

Two men were arguing about a flag flapping in the wind. "It's the wind that is really moving," stated the first one. "No, it is the flag that is moving," contended the second. A Zen master, who happened to be walking by, overheard the debate and interrupted them. "Neither the flag nor the wind is moving," he said, "It is MIND that moves."


commonsense wrote: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:26 pm "! + @ = #" seems to be a rule-based statement, meaning if the rules are followed the statement is true. In that case, reason would be required, and only reason, rather than experience via sensation, to know that one set of symbols is the same as another symbol.
Not sure what you mean, but all I can interpret of this is that you are saying something can be true when we collectively agree via reasoning that it is true. But then again, all reasoning is a subtle form of sensation where the stimulation triggers the capacity to know and be aware.
commonsense wrote: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:26 pmIt seems reasonable to revise the sentence, "When latent unawareness knows sensation ..consciousness is born ...the known....only the known is born...the knower is unborn." to suggest that even though sensation, consciousness and the known are born, the knower would require both the ability to experience and the ability to reason in order to know, and yet the knower does not exist anyway.
Knowledge informs existence as existing, existence doesn't know it exists.

Where is existence in deep dreamless sleep or in death,?.. and yet you are always present, you are because awareness is a constant presence, and that which is constantly present cannot be born, nor can it die.

Knowing is born of sensation known by the constant presence of awareness, without which no sensation would ever be known...this knowing gives birth to the idea one exists, when awareness becomes aware via sensation, eg: becomes conscious of itself....awareness and consciousness are the same one state, alternating between not-knowing/ knowing....the whole idea there are multiple consciousnesses is an illusion. As awareness is all there is, including the contents of awareness which are the same one appearing as the many.

So in essence, experience, knowledge and reasoning are what appear to be born here, while all this is known in awareness that is not born....awareness is not an experience, it is the experiencing.

Awareness is the constant that has to be prior to anything being known... becoming conscious of itself...(knows) come and go in this constant presence inseparable from it...awareness does not come and go, it's unborn.

There can be awareness without knowledge...but there CANNOT be knowledge without awareness. No thing has ever been born, only the mind of knowledge is born which is inseparable from the awareness of it.


commonsense wrote: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:26 pmI see a problem that maybe you could resolve, though. How is the known separated from the knower? After all, the known would not be known by a knower unless a knower exists, and the knower would not know anything unless an unknown exists, waiting to be known.
The known is never separated from the knower, because knower and known are one in the same instant. The mind divides oneness into two via knowledge known...but that which is known is not the knower, that which is known cannot know anything, for it is already known in awareness which is oneness...so there is no other knower to know apart from unborn constant awareness.
commonsense wrote: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:26 pmAgain, thanks for correcting my supposition, and I hope you can solve our problem, else the entire schema of what is born and what isn't comes into question.
Any problem is mis-identification with the wrong I ..Awareness is the original I aka the SELF ....the self is not the mind that claims I am the self. The I AM is prior to any claiming by the mind...in other words only the mind aka the idea of you is born ..not Awareness...the idea is known by awareness.

Everything is known....and yet no ''things'' have ever been seen, they're just ideas, empty images of imageless awareness.

We only know things, but we have never seen them as literal things that have existence INDEPENDENTLY in and of them selves. Things have no existence of their own apart from the seer / knower...which cannot be seen and known...for it is the seeing and knowing...ALL ONE

.

.
lazyfordumbpeople444
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 1:40 am

Re: All We Can Know Is We Don't Know.

Post by lazyfordumbpeople444 »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:58 am
commonsense wrote: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:26 pm
I thank you for this revision/correction. I also wonder how you would handle a knowledge statement that does not require sensation to understand the knowledge nor to evaluate the truthfulness of the knowledge, such as a statement that is wholly symbolic, e.g., "! + @ = #".
Thank you too.

All knowledge statements have some form of subtle undertone of sensation within them. Any of the bodies sensory receptors can be involved in knowing...But as for the sense of sight...Symbolic signals inform the brain into making an interpretation ..if recognised, there is instant knowing in the moment. As all recognition/remembering/ is already stored in memory...if there is no recognition .. this just means that a particular brand of knowledge has not entered into the reality that is your mind brain body mechanism yet.
The entire contents of the universe is inside you...and not the other way around, you are not in the universe.
And your experience that is your mind brain body mechanism is just a tiny pin-hole perspective, just one of an infinite experiences within the entire universe as a whole experiencing itself infinitely.

Awareness is infinity right now without beginning nor end..it's unborn, undying perfect brilliant stillness that has to be...for any movement to be possible...but any movement is always within this non-mover, not outside of it. The mind is the mover.
As seen in this zen quote>

Two men were arguing about a flag flapping in the wind. "It's the wind that is really moving," stated the first one. "No, it is the flag that is moving," contended the second. A Zen master, who happened to be walking by, overheard the debate and interrupted them. "Neither the flag nor the wind is moving," he said, "It is MIND that moves."


commonsense wrote: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:26 pm "! + @ = #" seems to be a rule-based statement, meaning if the rules are followed the statement is true. In that case, reason would be required, and only reason, rather than experience via sensation, to know that one set of symbols is the same as another symbol.
Not sure what you mean, but all I can interpret of this is that you are saying something can be true when we collectively agree via reasoning that it is true. But then again, all reasoning is a subtle form of sensation where the stimulation triggers the capacity to know and be aware.
commonsense wrote: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:26 pmIt seems reasonable to revise the sentence, "When latent unawareness knows sensation ..consciousness is born ...the known....only the known is born...the knower is unborn." to suggest that even though sensation, consciousness and the known are born, the knower would require both the ability to experience and the ability to reason in order to know, and yet the knower does not exist anyway.
Knowledge informs existence as existing, existence doesn't know it exists.

Where is existence in deep dreamless sleep or in death,?.. and yet you are always present, you are because awareness is a constant presence, and that which is constantly present cannot be born, nor can it die.

Knowing is born of sensation known by the constant presence of awareness, without which no sensation would ever be known...this knowing gives birth to the idea one exists, when awareness becomes aware via sensation, eg: becomes conscious of itself....awareness and consciousness are the same one state, alternating between not-knowing/ knowing....the whole idea there are multiple consciousnesses is an illusion. As awareness is all there is, including the contents of awareness which are the same one appearing as the many.

So in essence, experience, knowledge and reasoning are what appear to be born here, while all this is known in awareness that is not born....awareness is not an experience, it is the experiencing.

Awareness is the constant that has to be prior to anything being known... becoming conscious of itself...(knows) come and go in this constant presence inseparable from it...awareness does not come and go, it's unborn.

There can be awareness without knowledge...but there CANNOT be knowledge without awareness. No thing has ever been born, only the mind of knowledge is born which is inseparable from the awareness of it.


commonsense wrote: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:26 pmI see a problem that maybe you could resolve, though. How is the known separated from the knower? After all, the known would not be known by a knower unless a knower exists, and the knower would not know anything unless an unknown exists, waiting to be known.
The known is never separated from the knower, because knower and known are one in the same instant. The mind divides oneness into two via knowledge known...but that which is known is not the knower, that which is known cannot know anything, for it is already known in awareness which is oneness...so there is no other knower to know apart from unborn constant awareness.
commonsense wrote: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:26 pmAgain, thanks for correcting my supposition, and I hope you can solve our problem, else the entire schema of what is born and what isn't comes into question.
Any problem is mis-identification with the wrong I ..Awareness is the original I aka the self....the self is not the mind that claims I am the self. The I AM is prior to any claiming by the mind...in other words only the mind aka the idea of you is born ..not consciousness...the idea is known by awareness.

Everything is known....and yet no ''things'' have ever been seen, they're just ideas, empty images of imageless awareness.

We only know things, but we have never seen them as literal things that have existence INDEPENDENTLY in and of them selves. Things have no existence of their own apart from the seer / knower...which cannot be seen and known...for it is the seeing and knowing...ALL ONE

.

.

So now Dontaskme says she is not in the universe anymore as we know it, so where is she? is she hiding somewhere in some quantum invisible room? outside of the known part of the universe she is in? who knows? she says she has the almost the entire content of what is in the universe inside her mind (can't be everything as it's proven by science that our brain has storage a limit, otherwise you would explode and die), so let's ask her our password. She surely knows it, as it will be as simply as knowing what Trump is doing right now... as she know almost everything, she surely knows that, or she may enlighten us about some other thing we don't know yet.
Post Reply