All Knowledge is Assumption, Assumption is Knowledge

[Eodnhoj7]

Most people make an assumption about a book within the first few sentences, they assume it will be of value or not, and very rarely do they see value within the first sentence itself unless it stands out from all the other message’s they receive throughout the day amidst the various other messages that they must assume on first hand accounts as we live in a time where information exists in bit sized pieces taken upon assumption with little thought about the assumption itself.



This first sentence is too long for most readers, and most already are saying to themselves “what the fuck”. Other’s are saying “wow, that is deep, I want to hear more”.


The second sentence is not.


All books intend to convey a message. In order to convey this message they must start with an assumed point that is self-evident. This self-evident assumption is called an “axiom”. This book is strictly self-evident “as is” for those who understand it. It will also be self-evident that others will not understand it, this absence of understanding where the book appears without “form” is also paradoxically axiomatic…it is “absurd” and this absurdity is also assumed. It again will be self-evident that people will not care. In simpler terms this book will be positive for some, negative for others, and completely neutral to most.


This statement above is absurd precisely because it is so simple, but because it is so simple many will observe it as rational. It is this dualism of irrationality and reason that provides the foundation for all “knowledge”. As with most knowledge, its degree of “genius” or “insanity” is determined quite literally because of its reciprocation with the intended audience and most audiences are fundamentally split.



In the long history of transferring information, whether through oral tradition, the written word or story telling, the “bearer” of information of seeks to reference or provide quotes in order to observe a connection with an authority figure. Some stranger may quote Einstein in order to connect a message of “self-empowerment” and overcoming the odds. A student may have to reference an argument in a paper to some “expert” in a field.



This is a fallacy of authority. We assume because a person is an authority what they say is true. We do this on a group basis so as to create a hierarchy in which to delegate knowledge to a specific group, and elite class you could say, that is fundamentally separate from the rest. This we do democratically as group agreement in itself is an authority. This is a fallacy as well because we assume the group is an authority and this is called “the bandwagon fallacy”.



Most of what you learn is a fallacy. A fallacy is that which is contradictory. A contradiction makes little sense. Yet we go through our lives taking contradictions as “true” primarily because we assume. Being told to “think for yourself”, because an authority figure told you to…is also a contradiction.



If an outside authority is quoted in this book, a contradiction occurs. However, people will be able to “relate to it more”. However, if they need an outside source in order to relate to it…a contradiction also occurs as the author has to reference an outside source in order to make his point understood. Now read these three sentences and apply them to your own life. How many times have you had to “reference” something or someone because you are not understood? How many times have you failed to explain something adequately? How many times have you asked yourselves these basic questions…if at all?



All of these questions are grounded in our ability to “connect”. To transfer one axiom to another observer and maintain some sense of “unity” between what both people are seeing. Even referencing other’s so they have the credit…is still observe an inherent relation, a sense of “separateness” you could argue between the observer’s and their understanding of the subject which paradoxically still unites them.



But that in itself is its own question considering “who must it relate to?” At least that is the question most books, including this one, must answer. You could take this question, cut out “book”, and apply your own thoughts and see for yourself how complicated this little question can be at the personal level of day to day life. You have a thought, a message, some form of information you either desire or need to transfer to another person. It may be work related, it may be relational…it may strictly be just “talking to yourself” and sorting out your own perceived problems or identity. However, regardless of the manner you approach this question, it breaks down to connecting one set of self-evident truths to another. Seeing the same things someone else sees. Seeing things as “they are” within yourself.



The nature of self-evidence is universal to all of mankind due to its grounding in “assumption”. It is precisely because of not just this nature of “assumption” but effectively the large amount of assumptions that the general state of…well…”things”…is very confusing. We see this in ourselves. We see it in other’s. We see this in the whole of society if we take a moment and look outside our “bubble” or “sphere of influence”. There are a lot of assumptions and because there are a lot of assumptions people, when instinctively looking for deeper truth or understanding over an issue, go to a source of information.



Some truths, if not most, are relative to a specific set of circumstances, a “part” of our own lives. Again this usually breaks down to work, relationships, or understanding the self. If the questions are deeper in the sense one is trying to see “the truth”…people generally pick a specific field of studies they assume to have the answer. The problem occurs in not only that this is an assumption but that these fields are grounded in assumed axioms.



This nature of “assumption” occurs in a wide variety of books ranging from philosophy, to the sciences, to religion, with all of these books existing as “axioms” or “self-evident truths” in themselves relative to other fields. A book on philosophy may observe an axiom in science, such as a specific scientific truth, where this specific scientific truth may observe an axiom grounded both in a separate philosophy book or from mathematics. This occurs in religion as well where some axioms of science are used to understand religion and some axioms of religion are used to understand science. One could argue “x” field begins with “y” assumption and give insight into “x” field. This would give a thought, or at least a “feeling”, one has learned something…but this would in itself be an assumption.



Walking into a book store, library, or even simply using an online search engine one can observe not just a large number of books, all with “axioms” as their base, but also the books as axioms in themselves which are referenced to further sources. We assume the author knows what he or she is talking about precisely because of a title or reference to some other person, often times with a title as well. It is precisely because of this “title” we assume “truth”.



The title represents not only an air of mystery, but some form of elitism in which the person has some depth of knowledge the average person, or even an expert in some other field, does not have. This depth of knowledge is presumed precisely because the expert is able to connect a variety of axioms. He, or she, is a “deep thinker”, a “genius”, or even “insane” precisely because of the large number of self-evident truths they are able to assume. All of this we “assume”.



This “assumption”, a title in this case, acts much like a veil. They know something we do not and we assume this. We assume this because of complexity, with complexity observing fundamentally at its root, a multiplicity of assumptions. Now pay attention to the following four paragraphs and observe the multiple times “assume” or “assumption” are used.



It is a fair assumption though that these people know something we do not, but the great irony is that we rarely assume that they themselves are assuming something. Any reference back to grade school and memory always directs itself to the first day of class assumingly. This class may be physics, math, religion, English, “x” foreign language, philosophy, social studies or a variety of other courses assumed to be had by the student. Each of those courses begin with a specific set of assumptions about their specific field.



These assumptions, while perceivable separate, are then connected to form new assumptions based off the prior assumption. A basic assumption may be learning an axiom of Euclid where a line exists between two points…with an assumption that we where all taught this same…well “assumption”. The basic line between to points, as an assumption, is then observed in relation to another assumption of “the whole is greater than the part” and we can assume that the square is greater than a line as it is composed of multiple lines. This is really simple precisely because it is assumed what “greater” really is.



In religion I may learn that King David (an assumed figure) within the Abrahamic tradition (assuming such a tradition exists), committed the sin of adultery (which is also an assumption based upon the stories of others). Some assume this story is literal, other’s assume it is metaphorical. Both assume they know what “literal” or “metaphorical” means. This is assumed because that same faith is grounded in the axiom of “adultery” being a sin. This further grounded in the assumption that these laws where effectively “revealed”.



On the other hand, I may learn, from a separate set of assumption that “King David” might have been viewed as a moral man relative to “a will to power” which is regarded as a basic assumption in Nietzschean philosophy. This “will to power” is assumed based off the premise of an inherent tension within the state of existence where one force exists in opposition to another force. We assume this axiom as true without realizing this assumption is not really in a state of opposition to itself. We also assume it is strictly Nietzsche that observed this and not some other philosopher such as the assumptions pre-Socratic Heraclitus or the perpetually moving monads of Leibniz’s assumptions.





Now observing the above paragraphs, and the words “assumption” or “assume” take on a relatively large role in giving definition to the nature of “schooling”. One simple word is applied to such a large manner of “connections” that it effectively becomes of “no value” precisely because it means and can be applied to well “everything”. With an increase in complexity, comes an increase in depth, and depth has little value because it represents intuitively a degree of chaos. The above four paragraphs may appear deep, but with that depth comes an inherent chaos within the minds of some of the people reading…and well re-reading, them.



We observe assumptions; hence the reader now has some degree of understanding about the nature of “quoting” others and going into some fallacy of authority or bandwagon…which are precisely fallacies because of this nature of “assumption” grounded in them. If “all” is assumed, we are left fundamentally on very shaky grounds relative to the nature of knowing. An inherent relativity seems to be the foundation of knowledge. This relativity is grounded in the individual state of the observer as an assumer.



“All axioms, as self-evident truths, are assumed”, this is a grounding of what many philosopher’s call the Munchausen Trilemma. This axiom however is well “assumed” and a contradiction occurs. We are assuming assumption, axiomatizing an axiom and fundamentally the grounding of knowledge is grounded in empty mindness where the projecting of the void (the empty mind) into some form whether it be an empirical sensory act or mental/intuitive image is fundamentally an act of belief that maintains itself to a self-referentiality and fundamentally acts as its own judgement base.


Any demonstration of this is in itself an assumption.

[Impenitent]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbPa3MGlVS8

"Assumption is the mother of all f* ups"

-Imp

[Eodnhoj7]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbPa3MGlVS8

"Assumption is the mother of all f* ups"

-Imp

That is an assumption...and yes its nature of void is akin to a "motherly" type role:


The nature of assumption, where knowledge exists as "is", is grounded in an absence of thought or an empty mind which is synonymous fundamentally to boundless space or "point space". The origin of knowledge is grounded, in the definition of phenomenon, as the projection of this "formlessness" or "empty mind" into form much in the same manner where one empties there minds in such a manner where spontaneous forms arise from it or the vaccuum experiment in physics where particle appear and disappear spontaneously.

All abstract and empirical phenomenon are "birthed" from void which reflects itself at the biological level of the womb/yani in the feminine aspect of creation or the negation of moral values in nihilism/atheism giving rise to a psychological void in values that effectively revert to some level of moral system (ie atheism communism in Russia giving root to the current rise of orthodoxy.).

All is one observed in infinite variations where the One is observed in an a multiplicity of forms as it is fundamentally "approximated" in a manner where it is percieved in multiple states. This multiple states is the One observed through a veil of "void" or "darkness", akin to the dark night of the soul in mystic traditions, the emergence of particles from vaccuum in physics, or the simple stars existing through void which mirror this same form and function at the macro level.

This "One" in itself is an assumption, fundamentally proofless as it is the foundation of proof but not limited to it, in the respect it is simultaneously boundless.

[Dontaskme]

Knowledge is assumption because reality is not a word. Therefore there is no reality apart from the word.

The blue sky never says it's blue.

Knowledge is an illusory auditory appearance of sound and light, every word is empty to the core.

No word can descibe emptiness, yet every word describes it, it's a divine paradox.

.

[Walker]

The real nature of all things is emptiness, even though appearances differ.

This perfectly explains emptiness, but it doesn't guarantee understanding.
Understanding it is the responsibility of the one who hears it in sound or mind.

A teacher can point to the meaning of the explanation with various tools of body, voice, and mind, but the pointing does not guarantee understanding.

*

However to say: The real nature of all things is not emptiness, does not describe emptiness.

*

One thing I liked about college studies, back before students evaluated the professors, was that the professors didn't give a flying f*** if you understood or not, because they were teaching large groups. As I recall, my first chemistry class had at least a hundred people, probably more.

[Dontaskme]

All knowledge is a fiction superimposed upon what is essentially a blank screen. We identify the word as reality when in truth reality has no word to say about itself.

For the sense of an assumed separate self .. No word can define 'what is', or every crap word defines 'it'. . .( the dream of separation)

The images seen on the blank screen of awareness are inseparable from the empty seer.

.

[Dontaskme]

The real nature of all things is emptiness, even though appearances differ.

This perfectly explains emptiness, but it doesn't guarantee understanding.
Understanding it is the responsibility of the one who hears it in sound or mind.

A teacher can point to the meaning of the explanation with various tools of body, voice, and mind, but the pointing does not guarantee understanding.

Real understanding can only come from the primary subjective first person appearance, to know thyself, and not from another. No one else can make you see your unborn self, you have to see that for yourself only...here there is a seeing that there is no ''thing'' seeing...or doing.

To self-inquire into the nature of Self is to see it directly for what it actually is instead what thought thinks it is, as thought superimposes a condition on it to be a certain way..appearances are deceptive. For humans to function sanely in the word they have to use language which in essence is empty of substance...and that is why animals are luckier than humans, for they don't have a story about reality. And that's another reason why humans suffer, because they identify with a story about themselves...attachment is suffering. Letting go is simply dying to your unborn self, the natural self.



.

You cannot tell yourself you are alive or dead. There's just life living itself. Knowing you are alive or dead is knowledge and knowledge is language and language informs the illusory nature of you in that you only appear to exist as a word, an idea...which is a fiction.

.

[Eodnhoj7]

Its self-negation effectively creates it as a continuum as itself self-negating properties must effectively continue if "self-negation" is the core defining factor which determines it...this is again considering "negation" itself is an assumption as it is axiomatic; hence void.

Contradiction is effectively all in these respects as this infinitism not only necessitates a necessary infinite regress to justify all of being but effectively this "regress" observing each variation of being as a law of contradiction in itself where each localization of reality effectively is in and of itself a fallacy not just because of its regressive nature but because each localization of reality (whether it be the localization of power in the fallacy of authority, slippery slope in linearism, bandwagon as group agreement, etc.) is a grounding of contradiction in and of itself.

To localize to assume and divide one facet of being from another. To "localize" being itself under the symbol term of "all" or "I am" (given the complexity of the self) observes:

1. All/I AM is assumption.
2. These points are assumptions as well as my awareness.
3. Assumption is all/I AM; hence implied as the nature of "being" ranging from the empirical to the abstract as "being" stems from void canceling itself out.

The above is assumed, both the three points as well as the previous argument, and as such it does not negate itself without causing further points to "assume" under a progressively infinite negation which sets the boundary of being. "Being" effectively is "contradiction" as the negation of nothingness, the voiding of void, and as such is divisive in nature when relativistically observing void as the origin point of awareness as "assumption" itself.

All assumptions project to further assumptions, much in the same manner void/mass effectively projects into "being"/volume. The nature of projection where the assumption as effectively "empty" space (given the nature of empty mindedness regarding all assumption- ie no thought) effectively takes form in accords to some "movement" that is conducive to the nature of being itself. Void which "moves" is no longer "void" as it is not "nothing" but rather form conducive to volume in the sense of physics or a "volume" of knowledge which is conducive to a "form of knowledge" (such as a "volume" in a book is always a given subject that effectively exists under a form).

This empirical reality, that which you sense, effectively is assumed in and of itself as not only does it imprint itself on empty mind (void) but effectively the constantly changing nature of the reality itself is grounded in particles spontaneously popping in and out of vacuum in such a manner they mimic entirely the nature of empty mind (where images spontaneously project from void). This "mimicking", or replication, where the vacuum of empirical reality is of the same nature of that of abstract (mind) is effectively grounded in a third "void" space of "emotion" where the grounding of empirical senses and what is perceived abstractly in the minds eye is deemed as congruent in accords to a sense of "feeling" or "intuition" which effectively is irrational because of its continuous nature.

Hence we can observe 3 fundamentally interwoven "voids" of the empirical/abstract/intuitive whose reciprocal qualities (where one is directed to another effectively given form to another) is observed in the base traidic nature of the human constitution (under the popular terms of mind/body/spirit) but effectively under the whole of "being" itself under an infinite variety of dualisms that exist through a third element of synthesis.

[Speakpigeon]

I know some things. No assumption there. Just knowledge, what Bertrand Russell called "knowledge by acquaintance". It's basically one species of knowledge. For example, I know pain whenever I am in pain. And I don't know pain whenever I'm not in pain. So, as soon as I stop being in pain, I stop knowing pain.
Quite simple though perhaps somewhat perplexing for many people because most people assume that knowledge is something you keep with yourself once you have it. Well, not this kind of knowledge. One moment it's here, the next moment it may well be gone for good. Which sometimes is just as well, for example in the case of the knowledge of pain, which, obviously is, literally, painful...
When I am in pain, I'm definitely not assuming I am in pain. No assumption in the case of knowledge by acquaintance. Things we know in this way are many: redness when we believe we are looking at something red, sadness when we feel sad, the memory of what we think was the time in our life when we were schoolchildren etc.
So, no, knowledge is not assumption.
Suppose I assume there is a camembert in my fridge. So, given my assumption, would I know that there is a camembert in my fridge?
Given my assumption, I wouldn't go to the shop to buy a camembert but come the time to eat something, there may well not be any camembert in my fridge, and, in this case, it is clear that I didn't know that there was a camembert in my fridge when I assumed that there was one.
So, no, assumption is not knowledge.
EB

[Dontaskme]

I know some things. No assumption there. Just knowledge, what Bertrand Russell called "knowledge by acquaintance". It's basically one species of knowledge. For example, I know pain whenever I am in pain. And I don't know pain whenever I'm not in pain. So, as soon as I stop being in pain, I stop knowing pain.
Quite simple though perhaps somewhat perplexing for many people because most people assume that knowledge is something you keep with yourself once you have it. Well, not this kind of knowledge. One moment it's here, the next moment it may well be gone for good. Which sometimes is just as well, for example in the case of the knowledge of pain, which, obviously is, literally, painful...
When I am in pain, I'm definitely not assuming I am in pain. No assumption in the case of knowledge by acquaintance. Things we know in this way are many: redness when we believe we are looking at something red, sadness when we feel sad, the memory of what we think was the time in our life when we were schoolchildren etc.
So, no, knowledge is not assumption.
Suppose I assume there is a camembert in my fridge. So, given my assumption, would I know that there is a camembert in my fridge?
Given my assumption, I wouldn't go to the shop to buy a camembert but come the time to eat something, there may well not be any camembert in my fridge, and, in this case, it is clear that I didn't know that there was a camembert in my fridge when I assumed that there was one.
So, no, assumption is not knowledge.
EB

Knowledge implies a knower.

There is no known knower....therefore all knowledge is a fictional idea.

There is no knower of pain...there is awareness of pain by association ...but to claim pain is my pain is an assumption.

Awareness makes no such claim or assumption...the claim is a fabricated mental construction..an idea.

Pain arises in unborn boundless empty awareness.....there’s awareness of a body in pain.....but the body has no awareness/knowledge of it being in pain...because the body is an idea ....there’s an awareness of the idea.

Awareness is in no body...it’s unborn.


You are Awareness. Awareness cannot know it's aware...to know it's aware it would have to be outside of awareness to know that. Awareness cannot be outside of itself for there is no outside or inside of what is essentially empty boundlessness.

Have you ever tried steppting outside of your awareness to look back and say yes that's me, that is my awareness?

Knowing is ONE..therefore fictional...appearing and believed to be real...as and through the idea of I, the fictional story of I ..the mental construction.
.

[Speakpigeon]

I know some things. No assumption there. Just knowledge, what Bertrand Russell called "knowledge by acquaintance". It's basically one species of knowledge. For example, I know pain whenever I am in pain. And I don't know pain whenever I'm not in pain. So, as soon as I stop being in pain, I stop knowing pain.

Knowledge implies a knower.

Broadly, yes.

There is no known knower....therefore all knowledge is a fictional idea.

Fallacy.

There is no knower of pain...

Non-sequitur.

but to claim pain is my pain is an assumption.

I didn't claim that at all.
I claimed: I know pain whenever I am in pain.

Awareness makes no such claim or assumption...the claim is a fabricated mental construction..an idea.

No, whenever I am in pain, not only do I know pain itself, but I also know that I know pain. No assumption.
Don't ask me how I do that, though. I have no idea.
The rest of your post is insane gobbledegook.
EB

[Dontaskme]

but to claim pain is my pain is an assumption.

I didn't claim that at all.
I claimed: I know pain whenever I am in pain.

Well as long as you realise there is no person being an I..the person is a known concept of I and not the actual I

The I aka Awareness never says it knows..it's already the first and last ''knowing'' that cannot be known twice, it's a verb reality.

A conceptual I cannot know sensation or claim to be the knower. The conceptual I is already known in Awareness. The sensation and the awareness of sensation are mutually present in the same instant inseparably one undivided experience...there is no pain separate from the awareness of the pain. Both pain and the awareness of pain arise simultaneously together as one instantaneous knowing that cannot be known twice.

The I amness emerges downstream within sentient-awareness and evolves to become self-awareness.
The only problem with that is that there is no self. There's only self less KNOWING.

There is no personal I being aware I am Awareness Knowing.

I is not an aware person, I is impersonal Awareness of the known concept person. That which is known as concept cannot know anything.

.

[Dontaskme]

There is no knower of pain...

Non-sequitur.

According to whom?

..

There is no knower of pain...

No, whenever I am in pain, not only do I know pain itself, but I also know that I know pain. No assumption.
Don't ask me how I do that, though. I have no idea.

What do you mean ? you don't know how you do what? ...do you mean you don't know how you know you are in pain, or what?
Thinking you are the knower is not the knower, it's a thought.

The thought creates the thinker in the same instant, it's one with itself, there is no separation. Thinker and thought are ONE, impersonal UNITARY action... no person ever thought a thought...a person is a thought.

There is no knower of pain...

Instantaneous Knowing Awareness doesn't have to think before there is an Awareness of something. The awareness and that which is being awared is automatically arising together in the same instantaneous seamless reality....there is no awareness here and a separate thing over there separate from the awareness of that thing happening here.

To say I know I am in pain is a thought..thoughts are KNOWN in the instant they arise one with the knowing awareness, thoughts are fictional add ons within impersonal awareness, they are the fictional personal story of I...already couched within Awareness.

There is No personal thinker or knower here, there or anywhere.

It's magic.

.

[thedoc]

Knowledge implies a knower.

There is no known knower....therefore all knowledge is a fictional idea.

There is no knower of pain...there is awareness of pain by association ...but to claim pain is my pain is an assumption.

Awareness makes no such claim or assumption...the claim is a fabricated mental construction..an idea.

Pain arises in unborn boundless empty awareness.....there’s awareness of a body in pain.....but the body has no awareness/knowledge of it being in pain...because the body is an idea ....there’s an awareness of the idea.

Awareness is in no body...it’s unborn.


You are Awareness. Awareness cannot know it's aware...to know it's aware it would have to be outside of awareness to know that. Awareness cannot be outside of itself for there is no outside or inside of what is essentially empty boundlessness.

Have you ever tried steppting outside of your awareness to look back and say yes that's me, that is my awareness?

Knowing is ONE..therefore fictional...appearing and believed to be real...as and through the idea of I, the fictional story of I ..the mental construction.
.

That is very Buddhist, very non-dualistic. I don't quite agree with the Buddhist belief system.

[Speakpigeon]

There is no knower of pain...

Non-sequitur.

According to whom?

According to your inability to prove otherwise.
You can't, because you're trying to argue from a fallacy.
The fallacy is this one:

There is no known knower....therefore all knowledge is a fictional idea.

That's a fallacy and you can't deduce anything valid from a fallacy.
Score: logical thought 1 - Awareness 0.

Thinking you are the knower is not the knower, it's a thought.

Sure, thinking is thought and knowing is knowledge.
We all express our thoughts here, that's all we can do. Including you. What do you think you're doing?! Are you saying you can meaningfully talk about awareness while I can't?! Subjective experience is what it is. Thought is what it is. Prove to me we can't possibly think truthfully about subjective experience. Prove to me I don't know pain whenever I am in pain.
I know pain whenever I experience pain. There's nothing to know of pain beyond the experience of the painfulness of pain, and I certainly experience the painfulness of pain whenever I'm in pain. If I didn't, I would not be in pain. And pain is nothing but what I call "pain". And what I call "pain" is the painful quality of pain as I experience it whenever I am in pain.

The thought creates the thinker in the same instant, it's one with itself, there is no separation. Thinker and thought are ONE, impersonal UNITARY action... no person ever thought a thought...a person is a thought. Instantaneous Knowing Awareness doesn't have to think before there is an Awareness of something. The awareness and that which is being awared is automatically arising together in the same instantaneous seamless reality....there is no awareness here and a separate thing over there separate from the awareness of that thing happening here. To say I know I am in pain is a thought..thoughts are KNOWN in the instant they arise one with the knowing awareness, thoughts are fictional add ons within impersonal awareness, they are the fictional personal story of I...already couched within Awareness. There is No personal thinker or knower here, there or anywhere.

Prove it. Prove that a person is a thought. I'm not sure how you're going to go about that. Seems a stretch. A person is a social construct rooted in the interaction and communication between different people. There is a very large number of people who could bear witness to the reality of my person. The same people know nothing of my subjective experience. For society, I'm a person. I'm subjective experience only to myself. Prove I'm wrong.
We have not a clue as to what is subjective experience. Maybe it is a sort of impersonal consciousness, possibly stretching across the entire universe, and experiencing and thereby knowing the thoughts as they arise in brains. OK, possible, but nobody actually knows it's true or knows it's false. So, please, a bit of modesty. You don't know shit as to the reality of subjective experience outside what we all know. There's not one bit in what you say here that you could prove.
And read Descartes: the "I" is the thinking thing, and thinking is the awareness of thoughts, and thoughts include ideas, beliefs, sensations, perception, memory and all mental events of which you are aware. Nothing new here.
EB