AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:06 am
AlexW wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 3:48 amIt cannot know what is not in agreement - which is: the conceptual content of thought.
I would say that It can KNOW what is NOT in agreement - the conceptual content of thought, because;
1. It is within EVERY thing and IS able to Observe/SEE EVERY thing.
2. The conceptual content of thought is always HEARD in spoken words and SEEN in written words.
The conceptual content of thought is actually SPLASHED throughout these pages, on this forum, for ALL to SEE.
The conceptual content of thought can also be SEEN through ALL of human beings' creations.
The conceptual content of thought is, literally, EVERYWHERE in this human made "world".
I think this is where we seem to have different opinions.
1: "It" is not within "EVERY thing" - simply because there are no things (there are only ideas of things).
If as you propose that there are no things, then there is NO 'it' also.
If, as you propose, there are NO things, then there is absolutely NOTHING, which must also include " 'ideas' of things" also. Yet, and funnily enough, there are these strange shaped black things appearing, (some times called letters, which become what are some times known as words, which then form what are some times labelled as sentences, in response, to other strange shaped black things, (which are also same as above) on and about some thing, in front of some thing.
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm2. The heard is simply sound or thought - the content can not be heard or seen it can only be inferred by chains of thought which seem to generate meaning, but these meanings are only an abstraction they are not "real" (they don't really exist - they are ideas only)
But, according to you there are NO things, therefore there are NO abstractions NOR ideas.
Also, you did say that meanings are only an abstraction, which are NOT "real" and do NOT really exist - they are ideas only. But, WHERE did the ideas come from, and WHERE do they arise?
And, if there is a 'heard', then WHERE did the heard come from, AND, WHERE/WHAT did the 'heard' arise in?
Also, of course a thought of some thing, by definition means that the heard does NOT exist, so there is, as you put it, no thing. But also, which is just as obvious is the fact that the heard came from some thing.
The Truth is there IS no thing, when the sound or thought arises, but there WAS some thing that caused a sound, which then created a thought.
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pmYes, "The conceptual content of thought is actually SPLASHED throughout these pages" , but it cannot be seen, it exists only in the map that is being created by interpreting the words that have been written.
But the conceptual content of thought, which is actually splashed throughout these pages, can be SEEN when, and if, written proficiently enough.
See, if we state "I feel the wind on my skin" then this is an interpretation - chains of thought might state that "It" can really feel/know "wind" or "skin", but ultimately this is not true. [/quote]
But WHY would a chain of thought state such a ridiculous thing?
I KNOW I certainly do NOT.
Of course chains of thoughts proclaim to KNOW such things, but that is just how thought, tricks itself into believing that it knows best.
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm"It" can only know what it IS.
Disagree.
'It' can, for example, KNOW other things like when thought/concept/ideas arise and when thoughts/concepts are WRONG.
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm"It" is not an idea, not a concept and can and will never be one.
Of course not. That just speaks for itself. No thing can be some thing else. That just stands to reason.
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm "It" knows the direct experience of "wind on skin", the real (no-)thing, but not the interpretation -
But It can KNOW the difference between interpretation AND real. It can also KNOW when interpretation is taking place. It, after all, KNOWS EVERY thing, therefore It can KNOW Itself, and also KNOW and point out how 'you', the thinking/interpreting one is just thinking/interpreting, instead of LOOKING AT that,
what IS real. For example, like when you just interpret things, like you are doing here, and when you do NOT look at
what IS real and True. Like, that It can EXPLAIN and SHOW
what 'It', actually IS.
You, through interpretative thought, say that It can NOT through words, terms, and language be able to EXPLAIN and SHOW exactly Who/What It is. But the REAL Truth is different from what the interpreting thinking brain thinks.
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm"It" doesn't know any meanings - they are reserved for the map and for interpretative thought.
But the 'It', which is just thee one and only Mind, which does KNOW EVERY thing, does KNOW any and ALL meanings. Because 'It/Mind/I KNOWS ALL things, including interpretative thought.
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pmYes, "It" also knows thought, but it has nothing to do with the ideas/beliefs that seem to be formed by linking thoughts up into imaginary pictures (like "wind on skin" or a "human made world").
WHY would 'you', a no thing, THINK it KNOWS more than what It/Mind/I KNOW?
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pmThis "human made world" exists only as an idea - even "world" is an idea, a concept that "It" can never know (yes, "It" knows the thought, but this thought has no meaning for "It").
It/Mind/ KNOWS ALL, so It can ALWAYS KNOW.
"The human made world" is, literally, just some "made up idea of (a) world".
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pmAgain:
"It" only knows itself by being itself.
"It" knows the terrain by being the terrain.
"It" cannot know the map as it is NOT the map.
It, I/Mind, KNOWS the map BECAUSE you/thought are seemingly always expressing your own individual maps. Again, the evidence is just about everywhere in this perceived up/conceptual "world" created by human beings. This is what the thinking brain does instead of just LOOKING AT the 'terrain', that is; the
what IS.
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pmThe map is an illusion/interpretation that exists only as chains of thought that seem to prove the existence of things, but these things are only ideas - they are not ultimately real
I agree up to now.
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pmand this "It" (=absolute reality) has nothing to do with them.
What do you mean has nothing to do with ALL of 'you', chain of thought, human beings?
The I/Mind/It has everything to do with you/thoughts. Absolutely EVERY thing has every thing to do with every thing. That is HOW the one and only Universe creates Itself.