Self-awareness

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Nick_A » Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:07 am

Age

I may be wrong but it seems to me that you re involved with some New Age ideas.
Why not just be rid of the 'personality outer self' and just let the 'inner Self' flourish?
The inner Man and the potential New Man is in the stage of infancy the same as the kernel of life within the acorn having the potential to become an oak. The inner man consists of qualities we are born with The shell of the kernel of life feeds and protects it until it is strong enough to break free and root itself. The inner man needs a personality to function in the world. However at some point a person needs to break free of being attached to its habits and acquired preconceptions so it can begin to experience life rather than interpret it. A person needs to become free of the power of attachments and habits to become able to grow as intended. St. Paul wrote:
1 Corinthians 9:22

To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.
St Paul could create the personality that was needed. He was more than a personality
To be truly Self-aware is to be able to distinguish between the self (the human being) and thee Self (Being).
The lower can never understand the higher. Only the higher can experience the lower which is the process of self awareness. I may be wrong but it seems to me that you are expressing the idea that "I am God" so common in New Age thought. If so, I believe it is a dangerous mistake, Animal Man has no inner unity. Inner unity exists as a potential for conscious Man, not the Man animal who changes minute by minute. Be careful.

Age
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Age » Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:36 am

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:07 am
Age

I may be wrong but it seems to me that you re involved with some New Age ideas.
Plain and simply, you are wrong in that I am NOT involved with some new age idea nor ideas. You, however, can NOT be wrong in if that is what "seems to you", then that is what it is and how it comes across. My apologies.

If what i say is involved with any thing, then it is completely unintentional. However, what will be found is what I write is involved with ALL ideas, religions, spirituality, sciences, et cetera, not by choice but just because it IS.

The Unity that is NEEDED, in order to create what I have set out to achieve, is, and comes from, ALL things and perspectives. No one views or set of views can be secluded, as some of the most important things are found in the most unusual of places.

ALL views are LOOKED AT, as there is NO one source, group, nor body of knowledge, at the moment, that has ALL the True, Right, and Correct answers. I just LOOK and SEE from a truly OPEN perspective.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:07 am
Why not just be rid of the 'personality outer self' and just let the 'inner Self' flourish?
The inner Man and the potential New Man is in the stage of infancy the same as the kernel of life within the acorn having the potential to become an oak.
Yes agree.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:07 am
The inner man consists of qualities we are born with The shell of the kernel of life feeds and protects it until it is strong enough to break free and root itself.
Yes agree.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:07 am
The inner man needs a personality to function in the world.
Disagree.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:07 am
However at some point a person needs to break free of being attached to its habits and acquired preconceptions so it can begin to experience life rather than interpret it.
Yes agree.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:07 am
A person needs to become free of the power of attachments and habits to become able to grow as intended. St. Paul wrote:
Agree.

These 'agreements' and 'disagreements' are OBVIOUSLY based on the views within this body now of what the definitions of those words are and what they mean, which, also just as OBVIOUS, is that 'you' might have completely different and even opposing definitions of those words and what they mean. So, until a thorough investigation, through clarifying questions, is obtained we really are unclear of what each is talking about. We are ONLY interpreting what is being said here.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:07 am
1 Corinthians 9:22

To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.
St Paul could create the personality that was needed. He was more than a personality
Who/what is a 'st paul' and how does one 'create' a personality, and what was 'that' personality 'needed' for?

Who/what is the 'he' that was more than a personality? Who/what is a 'personality', exactly?
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:07 am

The lower can never understand the higher.
Yes agree, to a certain degree.

Because when the so called "lower" understands the so called "Higher", then the "lower" becomes the "Higher".
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:07 am
Only the higher can experience the lower which is the process of self awareness.
Yes agree, to a degree.

When 'you' talk about 'self-awareness' what are you referring to, exactly?
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:07 am
I may be wrong but it seems to me that you are expressing the idea that "I am God" so common in New Age thought.
If it is in New Age thought, or not, I do NOT know, and quite frankly do not really care.

What I expressed is just the view/s that are within this body. If they are incorrect, not true, or just plain old WRONG, then fair enough. Just point that out to me and explain WHY. I am VERY OPEN to being challenged and thrive on being SHOWN the errors of my ways. In fact, I truly enjoy it. The more you can SHOW me, then the better for me.

BUT, if people want to grasp an understanding of what it is that I am actually saying BEFORE they make assumptions about what I am saying, then the best, quickest, simplest and easiest way I found is to just ask me a clarifying question. But if people do NOT want to understand what it is that I am saying, then they can just move on. They probably KNOW enough already and therefore there is nothing that I could offer them anyway.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:07 am
If so, I believe it is a dangerous mistake,
I am not sure if you have noticed but I am continually pointing out to "others" when they make assumptions.

Now, you could have just asked me a clarifying question, remained open, and waited for my response.

See, what happens when people do NOT do this, and just jump straight to a conclusion instead, based on that assumption, then they think and write things that could be so far off topic and off track, and it then makes it much harder to get back on track again.

If what I say is common in new age thought, then just accept that that is just what it IS. What i say does not come from new age thought, nor come from anywhere else. Just take I say as though it came from within this body only.

I have only ever read about three books in my life. I do NOT follow any anything at all. I do NOT follow any one. I do NOT quote "others" as though they know best. I do NOT associate as any one thing. I am NOT involved in any one group. I have NO 'ism' that I belong to or relate to. If what i say is so common in new age thought, OR, in buddhism, in islam, in christianity, in science, or in any other thing, then it was completely unintentional and was NOT in any way meant to relate or belong to any thing else, including any one's views whatsoever. What I say is only what it IS. That is: My view/s, which obviously could be WRONG or partly WRONG. I do NOT need any one else to back up and support what I say and I do NOT need references, evidence, proofs, links, or any thing else to any thing else, because what I am learning to communicate will speak for Itself.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:07 am
Animal Man has no inner unity.
Who/what is 'animal man', exactly? What do you mean by 'no inner unity', exactly?
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:07 am
Inner unity exists as a potential for conscious Man,
How does 'inner unity' actually work, exactly? Where does 'inner unity' exist or come from, exactly?

Who/what is 'conscious man', exactly?
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:07 am
not the Man animal who changes minute by minute.
Who/what is the 'Man animal', exactly? Why is there a capital M in this word 'Man'? Where does this 'Man animal' exist, exactly?
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:07 am
Be careful.
Heeded.

Now, I can explain EXACTLY, down to the finest of details, ALL things I say. So, when I ask clarifying questions. I hope, at least, some sort of clarity can be and is given. As of yet so far throughout this forum my hopes have been dashed.

Nick_A
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Nick_A » Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:09 am

Age

Read the following excerpt from this deep conversation between Jacob Needleman and Richard Whittaker. Hopefully it will explain what we mean here by self awareness.

https://parabola.org/2016/03/04/the-gre ... needleman/
The Great Unknown Is Me, Myself: A Conversation with Jacob Needleman

.............RW: So this idea of knowing myself—what does that mean? Clearly, the implication is that I don’t know myself.

JN: The great unknown is me, myself. We can talk all we want about Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, and not knowing things in themselves, but this, myself, is the great unknown.

RW: Yes. And are there levels of the unknown? There are things that are metaphysically, irreducibly unknowable, perhaps—and then way over here is ordinary knowing. I know that’s a chair over there and I know what you do with a chair. But is there a gray area between my ordinary knowing and not knowing? For example, I don’t know where I put my glasses. And after awhile, all of a sudden, I remember. Or maybe there’s a problem I don’t know how to solve, but after awhile, it comes to me.

JN: What is the mind and its knowledge? This is certainly part of the fundamental question, who am I? What you say is so understandable, so ordinary—in a decent sense of the word—but behind this fundamental question of knowledge and the mind there’s a hidden question, and this hidden question opens up a world. Down deep, the question that you’re now speaking about is consciousness. We say, “knowing.” I know that’s a chair. I can touch it and so forth. But that doesn’t satisfy us—because we have the wrong question. It has to do with consciousness. And it’s a great unknown, this thing called consciousness. We don’t know what consciousness is. That’s stunning! I don’t know what consciousness is, and yet I’m sure I am conscious! Isn’t it so? The mind, the thoughts, the categories, the words about every kind of specifically human knowing and action —we’re talking about consciousness. This is the hidden question. One of the great questions in philosophy is how do we know?—but this classic philosophical question is actually a question about consciousness. Consciousness is man. That’s his unique possibility. So I think the whole idea of mind, knowledge, certainty, the unknown, has to do first and foremost with consciousness.

RW: That’s beautiful. Sometimes it amazes me is that it’s not recognized that everything in life exists, first of all, as experience. We seem to miss this leap we take from experience to “things that are out there.” We just go out to them, without Descartes’ questioning, as if all the stuff out there is the whole story. But sometimes, I’m in a kind of state where it shocks me that nobody seems to recognize that it’s experience we really live in. Do you follow what I’m getting at?

JN: It’s astonishing that this is not at the forefront of our awareness, let’s say, that I am experiencing this. The “I-ness” is lost in my life. I could go through a whole month, year, a whole lifetime and not realize that I am experiencing life. Consciousness is myself in some deep sense of the word. I’m not my arms and legs, my nose, my opinions. I’m not my words, my thoughts, my sensations. I’m not my organs. I’m a human being. A human being is defined by consciousness. That’s what you’re saying, if I understand it..........................
They are discussing self awareness. An animal experiences and reacts to earthly influences. They are speaking of a quality of consciousness that enables a person to be aware of their reactions. What is this “I” that becomes aware but soon disappears? Real self awareness begins with the awareness that we are aware. Sometimes the experience of seeing oneself momentarily can change ones life. The experience of self awareness can begin superficially but has the potential to result in profound human understanding and the wisdom philosophy seeks.

Judaka has raised the question of how we can psychologically profit from the study philosophy if we haven’t made efforts to know ourselves: have the experience of ourselves? Experience provides the verification essential for philosophy to be more than egoistic theoretical arguments. Do you disagree with this summary?

Age
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Age » Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:09 am

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:09 am
Age

Read the following excerpt from this deep conversation between Jacob Needleman and Richard Whittaker. Hopefully it will explain what we mean here by self awareness.
I have NOT read it yet but I WILL, and will get back to you.

Just so you are aware I do NOT really care what the 'we' mean here by 'self-awareness'. (By the way who/what is the 'we' here?)

Also, what do you mean by using the word 'hopefully' here?

Do you mean 'hopefully' I will UNDERSTAND this the way that 'you' do, and whoever/whatever the 'we' does?

Just to be clear I am pretty sure I have already grasped an fair understanding of what you and jakada have been discussing. This way of thinking is fairly old and nothing new in it, for me. And, just to be clear you were both pretty much on the mark. It was just that one of you came across, to me, as BELIEVING that they were better than others are. That was about all I have been disputing here.


Anyway to me, there is absolutely NOTHING hard nor complex about self-awareness.

Once one can answer the question; Who am 'I'? properly and correctly, then they are self-aware.

When this is done, then all this stuff about only being able to "do" philosophy properly when having self-awareness will be MUCH BETTER UNDERSTOOD then what has been shown here in this thread.

As I explained earlier absolutely EVERY adult human being has some level of self-awareness, but only when, and IF, one is able to fully and Truly answer the question Who am 'I' is when they Truly and Fully Self-aware, which by the way is different from just having self-awareness.

I will get back you after I finish reading this.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:27 am

Age wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:09 am
Once one can answer the question; Who am 'I'? properly and correctly, then they are self-aware.
What do you think is the correct and True answer to "Who are you?"

Age
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Age » Thu Jan 17, 2019 12:57 am

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:27 am
Age wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:09 am
Once one can answer the question; Who am 'I'? properly and correctly, then they are self-aware.
What do you think is the correct and True answer to "Who are you?"
An utterly different answer to 'Who am 'I'?'

You NEED to be able to LOOK objectively first before you will ever understand this.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:09 am

Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 12:57 am
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:27 am
What do you think is the correct and True answer to "Who are you?"
An utterly different answer to 'Who am 'I'?'
That goes without saying.

The answer to "Who am I?" is "I am Logik".
The answer to "Who are you?" is "You are Age".

Do you think both of those answers are "correct and True"?
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 12:57 am
You NEED to be able to LOOK objectively first before you will ever understand this.
I understand it already. See above.

Age
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Age » Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:16 am

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:09 am

The Great Unknown Is Me, Myself: A Conversation with Jacob Needleman
Well even the heading starts of absolutely INCORRECT to begin with.

Of course who is 'me', 'myself' is unknown to some, but not to ALL. So, that is NOT any type of unknown as it is already KNOWN by Me.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:09 am
.............RW: So this idea of knowing myself—what does that mean? Clearly, the implication is that I don’t know myself.

JN: The great unknown is me, myself. We can talk all we want about Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, and not knowing things in themselves, but this, myself, is the great unknown.
I really wish human beings would talk about themselves only, instead of making generalized statements as though EVERY one is the same in understanding and knowing as they are. This would help in the confusion that human beings cause and create.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:09 am
RW: Yes. And are there levels of the unknown? There are things that are metaphysically, irreducibly unknowable, perhaps—and then way over here is ordinary knowing. I know that’s a chair over there and I know what you do with a chair. But is there a gray area between my ordinary knowing and not knowing? For example, I don’t know where I put my glasses. And after awhile, all of a sudden, I remember. Or maybe there’s a problem I don’t know how to solve, but after awhile, it comes to me.
Knowing thy True Self, fully, will also come to you human beings, eventually.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:09 am
JN: What is the mind and its knowledge? This is certainly part of the fundamental question, who am I? What you say is so understandable, so ordinary—in a decent sense of the word—but behind this fundamental question of knowledge and the mind there’s a hidden question, and this hidden question opens up a world. Down deep, the question that you’re now speaking about is consciousness. We say, “knowing.” I know that’s a chair. I can touch it and so forth. But that doesn’t satisfy us—because we have the wrong question. It has to do with consciousness. And it’s a great unknown, this thing called consciousness. We don’t know what consciousness is. That’s stunning! I don’t know what consciousness is, and yet I’m sure I am conscious! Isn’t it so? The mind, the thoughts, the categories, the words about every kind of specifically human knowing and action —we’re talking about consciousness. This is the hidden question. One of the great questions in philosophy is how do we know?—but this classic philosophical question is actually a question about consciousness. Consciousness is man. That’s his unique possibility. So I think the whole idea of mind, knowledge, certainty, the unknown, has to do first and foremost with consciousness.
ALL of these words can be very easily explained in, and with, defining words, which when done properly and correctly fit together, perfectly like a puzzle, to form a picture perfect crystal clear description showing the full and True extent of Life, Itself. Even the meaning behind each and ALL words here can be easily done and also given.

There is nothing complex nor hard here.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:09 am
RW: That’s beautiful. Sometimes it amazes me is that it’s not recognized that everything in life exists, first of all, as experience. We seem to miss this leap we take from experience to “things that are out there.” We just go out to them, without Descartes’ questioning, as if all the stuff out there is the whole story. But sometimes, I’m in a kind of state where it shocks me that nobody seems to recognize that it’s experience we really live in. Do you follow what I’m getting at?
I could also write; Sometimes it amazes me that people like rw are still so far behind in knowing what the person, or human self, is and how that personal self ONLY exists because of what the body has experienced. I could be amazed but because I KNOW exactly WHAT human beings are and WHY ALL human beings are the way they are, then this nor any thing else really amazes me now.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:09 am
JN: It’s astonishing that this is not at the forefront of our awareness, let’s say, that I am experiencing this. The “I-ness” is lost in my life. I could go through a whole month, year, a whole lifetime and not realize that I am experiencing life. Consciousness is myself in some deep sense of the word. I’m not my arms and legs, my nose, my opinions. I’m not my words, my thoughts, my sensations. I’m not my organs. I’m a human being. A human being is defined by consciousness. That’s what you’re saying, if I understand it..........................
Consciousness is NOT 'myself' in some deep sense of the word because who/what is the 'my' in relation to 'self'? 'My-self' is a contradiction of terms. There is an actual reason WHY the word 'my-self' exists, this is because that is so that the One, that is the 'My', can be understood from the human 'self', and vice-versa. There is a My-self and a my-Self. A me and a Me, in other words. Now being able to sort through all of this and being able to fully distinguish between the "two" is what having True self-or Self-awareness entails.

If the answer to the question Who am I? is a human being, then who/what is a human being? I only ask that because defining a 'human being' by the word consciousness only confuses this, thousands of years, issue even more.

The VERY reason WHY you human beings are still looking for the exact same answers you were thousands upon thousands of years ago is so OBVIOUS, when you KNOW how to find the answers.

If one wants to gain a thorough and full understanding of the self, and thee Self, then obviously what they have been doing hitherto does NOT work. Human beings are still confused in how to LOOK AT and SEE things properly and correctly. You, human beings, just need to discover or learn the KNOW-HOW. Once you discover or learn this, then you can, literally, move on.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:09 am
They are discussing self awareness.
Do you really think this needed to be said?

Remember it was I who said I KNOW Who 'I' am. Therefore I am the one saying that I already have self-awareness, and have SHOWN this by providing some answers to who is the self question.

And remember it was you and others here who have NOT showed any sign of KNOWING any of this at all.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:09 am
An animal experiences and reacts to earthly influences.
An animal experiences and reacts to earthly influences, just like the human animal does.

Human beings are just an animal. This seems to be forgotten by those who think that they are NOT solely influenced by the "outside".
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:09 am
They are speaking of a quality of consciousness that enables a person to be aware of their reactions.
For a person to be aware of their reactions, AFTER they happen, then that is just about one of the easiest things in life for a person to do. However, to be aware of the thoughts first, BEFORE the reaction/behavior, then that takes, and is, the highest quality of consciousness, or awareness. From this consciousness an understanding of who and what the actual person or self, and Being or Self, IS can be realized.

In order to be Truly AWARE and have a True UNDERSTANDING of one's reactions, or behaviors, what has to be noticed first is the thoughts, which caused the behavior. (If you want to delve further into the difference between 'reactions' and 'behaviors', then other things need to be understood first.)

With the words you are using you are just continuing on with the cause of the confusion here. The reason why human beings still do not understand consciousness fully is because of the language used, and the definitions and meanings they give to the words they use.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:09 am
What is this “I” that becomes aware but soon disappears?
If you do NOT yet know, then that is extremely easy to answer and understand.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:09 am
Real self awareness begins with the awareness that we are aware.
Who/what is the 'we' being referred to here?

Human beings may be aware but obviously they are not yet self-aware creatures. Otherwise the question Who am 'I'? would have already been answered properly and correctly.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:09 am
Sometimes the experience of seeing oneself momentarily can change ones life.
So what?

In fact is there any experience at all that can NOT change one's life?

If, and when, you are truly self-aware, then you will understand and KNOW that 'you' are only the sum of ALL the experiences that that body has had. Absolutely EVERY experience a body has changes one's life. It IS, in fact, impossible NOT to change. Although with some of the BELIEFS that some people hang onto, with their lives, some could easily argue that this is NOT true. And, i would be very happy to agree with them, but the Truth is that I just could NOT.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:09 am
The experience of self awareness can begin superficially but has the potential to result in profound human understanding and the wisdom philosophy seeks.
'Philosophy' does not seek any thing. Only human beings seek things.

Profound human understanding is just that what has already been discovered and understood. This understanding is just some thing that most human beings in that year called "2019" have yet to learn.


One just needs to "step away" from looking at things from the subjective and closed human perspective and look from the truly objective and OPEN perspective, which is not that hard to do at all.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:09 am
Judaka has raised the question of how we can psychologically profit from the study philosophy if we haven’t made efforts to know ourselves: have the experience of ourselves?
In what definition of the word 'philosophy' is being used here?

Once the self, and thee Self, are already KNOWN, thus to know ourselves has already been accomplished, there is NO 'studying' of philosophy. The 'love-of-becoming wiser' [phil-o-sophy] just returns.

Also, the word 'psychology' just relates to the study-of-psyche, or the study-of-self, so once again once this is KNOWN there is NO need to study philosophy as there is nothing to 'psychologically profit' from. When, and if, one has reached knowing thy Self, fully and truly, then in this regard there is nothing more to psychology. To KNOW that thy self, that is; the 'human being self' is just the result of, the sum of, or the outcome of, an experiencing human body, then discovering or learning Who and What thy Self is comes next. Once this is discovered, then Consciousness is fully and Truly understood also.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:09 am
Experience provides the verification essential for philosophy to be more than egoistic theoretical arguments. Do you disagree with this summary?
That all depends on what definitions and meanings YOU are giving to words you use here.

ALL of the above can be so EASILY explained.

The human being is just another animal experiencing and reacting to earthly influences. Being able to "stand back" and look at that self completely objectively, is what Consciousness IS. SEEING that the human self is nothing more than the thoughts (and emotions) of an experiencing and reacting human body, with the 'person' living within that human body just being those thoughts and emotions. A person is NOT more nor less of a person because of any of the physical body parts, for example a person is not less of a person if an arm is missing. A person therefore is NOT the physical component of a human body. The person, which is just the self, is the thoughts and emotions within a human body. The person within a human body, is just a self, which is a result of what that human body has experienced. This definition of 'person' is ALSO the cause of how that human body behaves, or "reacts", which could be used as a word, but just for now.

"Studying philosophy" or "expressing one's own philosophy", or "doing philosophy" are just different terms that people use. The word 'philosophy' once meant love-of-wisdom, or having the love of becoming wiser. ALL human beings are born with this love. Unfortunately though, that innate love within children is driven out by adult human beings, and then lost to most human beings, if not all.

When, and if, that PHILOSOPHY is regained within a human being, then what I have been saying here, in this forum, can and WILL be fully understood. Until then, and has been proven multiple times already human beings will continue to just TRY TO use "egotistical theoretical arguments" against what I have been saying, which what I have been saying is really nothing more than just thee Truth.

If people are NOT going to inquire into what I am expressing and saying here, and thus continue to SHOW with evidence of how much PHILOSOPHY has been lost, in those people in the years of when this is written, then so be it. But I am NOT here to "convince" any one of any thing with any arguments.

As I have explained previously if one LOOKS from the Truly OPEN and KNOWING Mind, instead of from one's own closed and thinking brain, FIRST, and then use past experiences to verify what is being SEEN is True or NOT, then the actual and real Truth can and WILL be discovered, found, and/or revealed.

If a person wants to use EXPERIENCE to verify things, then use THOSE past experiences to verify WHY are you still looking for answers, when I am NOT?

What those two named human beings, nick_a, and jakada have been discussing and talking about is as old to Me as when discussing whether or not the earth revolved around the sun first began to be talked about, is to those four people. In relative terms what you are discussing here nick_a is probably much older for Me. Knowing that you human beings are just experiencing creatures is absolutely nothing new to Me, and for human beings to think that they are Consciousness, Itself, does not amaze Me at all either. Human beings do have a tendency to think and believe that they are at the highest level of consciousness. Understanding HOW and WHY they are so delusional at times, especially in this regard, will help them in understanding thy selves better.

Age
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Age » Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:21 am

Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:09 am
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 12:57 am
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:27 am
What do you think is the correct and True answer to "Who are you?"
An utterly different answer to 'Who am 'I'?'
That goes without saying.

The answer to "Who am I?" is "I am Logik".
The answer to "Who are you?" is "You are Age".

Do you think both of those answers are "correct and True"?
Lol Even I could NOT have come up with a better example of LOOKING at things from a truly subjective human perspective ONLY, than the example that you have just provided here logik. Thank you for this.

This is such a one-sided view and perspective of things, that I really find this truly humorous.
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:09 am
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 12:57 am
You NEED to be able to LOOK objectively first before you will ever understand this.
I understand it already. See above.
LOL

You, logik, could NOT be any further off understanding "it" even if you tried to be.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:30 am

Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:21 am
Lol Even I could NOT have come up with a better example of LOOKING at things from a truly subjective human perspective ONLY, than the example that you have just provided here logik. Thank you for this.

This is such a one-sided view and perspective of things, that I really find this truly humorous.
But I have given you the ONLY complete, multi-faceted and objective answers to the questions!

Any other answer would be only a small aspect of who you are, or who I am. Why reduce ourselves to rhetoric?
Did you expect me to tell you what I do, what I like, where I come from, where I am going, what I know, what I strive for, what I value, how I fit in my community and in the world?

Surely if that is what you wanted to know then those are the questions you would ask? But you don't ask those questions. You ask "Who am I?"

The only complete answer to “Who am I?” Is “I am Logik.”. Everything else is a reduction. A "one-sided view" as you say...
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:21 am
You, logik, could NOT be any further off understanding "it" even if you tried to be.
Are you sure that I misunderstand?
Is it possible that you misunderstand?

Shall we flip a coin?

Age
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Age » Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:27 am

Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:30 am
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:21 am
Lol Even I could NOT have come up with a better example of LOOKING at things from a truly subjective human perspective ONLY, than the example that you have just provided here logik. Thank you for this.

This is such a one-sided view and perspective of things, that I really find this truly humorous.
But I have given you the ONLY complete, multi-faceted and objective answers to the questions!
Yet another great example of a truly subjective human perspective.

This person is only able to LOOK from one perspective ONLY, and also BELIEVES that it has and knows the true, right, and correct answers.
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:30 am
Any other answer would be only a small aspect of who you are, or who I am. Why reduce ourselves to rhetoric?
If that is what you believe, then that is so.
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:30 am
Did you expect me to tell you what I do, what I like, where I come from, where I am going, what I know, what I strive for, what I value, how I fit in my community and in the world?
Not at all.
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:30 am
Surely if that is what you wanted to know then those are the questions you would ask?
But that is NOT what I wanted to know at all.


And, this my friends is yet another example of the one called "logik" making up their own assumption, and then jumping straight to a conclusion, without any clarification first.

All you are doing here is just replying to your OWN assumption.

I wonder how many times this person will keep doing this?
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:30 am
But you don't ask those questions. You ask "Who am I?"
Of course that is THE question I ask, and not the other questions. They were solely of your OWN doing.

Also, you are free to give absolutely any answer you like to My question.

And, by the way, I like your answers, as they provide MORE evidence of how the Mind and the brain actually work.
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:30 am
The only complete answer to “Who am I?” Is “I am Logik.”. Everything else is a reduction. A "one-sided view" as you say...
Again, if that is what you BELIEVE, then the answer could NOT be any thing else.

Just to make it clear THE (complete) answer to the question Who am 'I'?, which human beings have been pondering over for millennia IS "I am logik". Is this correct, logik?
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:30 am
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:21 am
You, logik, could NOT be any further off understanding "it" even if you tried to be.
Are you sure that I am mistaken?
From what I am talking about, YES.
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:30 am
Is it possible that you are mistaken?
From the perspective of what I am talking, how could I be mistaken?
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:30 am
Shall we flip a coin?
But I already have, and already KNOW, thee answer.

You, however, can do whatever you want to do. Like I said, I do NOT use coins to find answers, like you do.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:39 am

Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:27 am
This person is only able to LOOK from one perspective ONLY, and also BELIEVES that it has and knows the true, right, and correct answers.
So the person can only give one-sided answers? That leaves you with absolutely no chance to answer "Who are you?"!

Unless you aren't a person.
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:27 am
If that is what you believe, then that is so.
It's not what I believe. It's what we, humans, know about logic. How it works and how it doesn't.

All of our theories are incomplete. Even our theories about ourselves.

Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:27 am
But that is NOT what I wanted to know at all.
You wanted to know "Who am I?".
I am putting myself in your shoes and I am answering the question from your perspective. You are Age.

From your perspective, do you not like this answer?
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:27 am
All you are doing here is just replying to your OWN assumption.
No. I am just trying to help you answer the question "Who am I?".
You don't like the answer "Age".
You don't like the answer about your history, values, experiences.

What answer would you like?
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:27 am
Of course that is THE question I ask, and not the other questions. They were solely of your OWN doing.
Did you assume which question I am answering? I answered the question you asked. Not the question I asked.

Your answer to to your question "Who am I?" is "I am Age".
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:27 am
Also, you are free to give absolutely any answer you like to My question.
I know. But I am giving your answer to your question.
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:27 am
Just to make it clear THE (complete) answer to the question Who am 'I'?, which human beings have been pondering over for millennia IS "I am logik". Is this correct, logik?
My answer is "I am Logik".
Your answer is "I am Age".
Nick A's answer is "I am Nick A".
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:27 am
From the perspective of what I am talking, how could I be mistaken?
Because you don't seem to like any of the right answers.
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:27 am
But I already have, and already KNOW, thee answer.
So your answer to your question is not "I am Age." ?
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:27 am
You, however, can do whatever you want to do. Like I said, I do NOT use coins to find answers, like you do.
I am not convinced. So far you haven't been able to explain how you get to your answers. Might as well be flipping a coin.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:13 am

Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:16 am
ALL of these words can be very easily explained in, and with, defining words...
That's a GREAT idea.

Can you define the word "define" for us please?

Age
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Age » Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:58 am

Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:39 am
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:27 am
This person is only able to LOOK from one perspective ONLY, and also BELIEVES that it has and knows the true, right, and correct answers.
So the person can only give one-sided answers?
Once again you put a question mark at the end of what you write, which contradicts what you write.

You have ONCE AGAIN made up another assumption, and have already jumped to the conclusion, which is obviously and clearly WRONG by the way, once again.

Really, how many times are you going to do this?

When will you STOP?
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:39 am
That leaves you with absolutely no chance to answer "Who are you?"!

Unless you aren't a person.
Both your question and point here are moot, as YOUR assumption AND conclusion IS WRONG.
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:39 am
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:27 am
If that is what you believe, then that is so.
It's not what I believe. It's what we, humans, know about logic. How it works and how it doesn't.
LOL Speaking for ALL human beings, again.

Very much a human trait is to think that what they do ALL "others" do also.
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:39 am
All of our theories are incomplete. Even our theories about ourselves.
Yes, VERY, VERY True.

That is WHY I am always critical of you, human beings, making and using theories in the first place.

A more better thing to do is just LOOK at what IS, instead. That way it is possible to just SEE and RECOGNIZE the real and actual Truth for what It IS.
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:39 am
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:27 am
But that is NOT what I wanted to know at all.
You wanted to know "Who am I?".
I am putting myself in your shoes and I am answering the question from your perspective. You are Age.
LOL
LOL
LOL

Do NOT even attempt to put your-self in My shoes, just yet. They will NOT fit you.

I already KNOW THE answer to the question Who am 'I'?

You are the one who is answering only from the subjective human being perspective, thus your responses here.
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:39 am
From your perspective, do you not like this answer?
LOL.

I love ALL your responses, especially these extremely humorous ones.
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:39 am
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:27 am
All you are doing here is just replying to your OWN assumption.
No. I am just trying to help you answer the question "Who am I?".
You don't like the answer "Age".
You don't like the answer about your history, values, experiences.

What answer would you like?
Lol

Once again, TRYING your hardest to twist things around and NOT look at what WAS being discussed earlier.
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:39 am
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:27 am
Of course that is THE question I ask, and not the other questions. They were solely of your OWN doing.
Did you assume which question I am answering?

No.
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:39 am
I answered the question you asked. Not the question I asked.
Are you sure?

Your answer to to your question "Who am I?" is "I am Age".
WRONG.

But, if that is the answer you want to give and BELIEVE is right, then that is perfectly fine with me.
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:39 am
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:27 am
Also, you are free to give absolutely any answer you like to My question.
I know. But I am giving your answer to your question.
But that is certainly NOT My answer. It is NOT even an answer that resembles thee Truth.
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:39 am
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:27 am
Just to make it clear THE (complete) answer to the question Who am 'I'?, which human beings have been pondering over for millennia IS "I am logik". Is this correct, logik?
My answer is "I am Logik".
Your answer is "I am Age".
Nick A's answer is "I am Nick A".
LOL.

You could NOT be any more WRONG, from My perspective.

You have completely misunderstood what I have been talking about here.
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:39 am
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:27 am
From the perspective of what I am talking, how could I be mistaken?
Because you don't seem to like any of the right answers.
But they are NOT all the right answers.

They are NOT even close at all to being all the RIGHT answers, from My perspective.
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:39 am
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:27 am
But I already have, and already KNOW, thee answer.
So your answer to your question is not "I am Age." ?
Wow. This is NEARLY a Truly OPEN clarifying question, and probably about the closest you have got to one. Unfortunately, it is still just a statement pretending to be a question.

So, was it meant to be one or the other?

Or, this is just the way you think and write?
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:39 am
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:27 am
You, however, can do whatever you want to do. Like I said, I do NOT use coins to find answers, like you do.
I am not convinced.
You are NOT convinced about WHAT EXACTLY. That statement seems to have come from nowhere or way off field.
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:39 am
So far you haven't been able to explain how you get to your answers.
Yes I have. You seem to keep missing them.

I, unlike you, reason.
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:39 am
Might as well be flipping a coin.
As I said go right ahead.

You are unable to deduce, decisively thus correctly, anyway.
You are unable to justify your conclusions and answers, anyway.
You also state that you do not reason, anyway.
Therefore, you are probably better off just "flipping a coin".

By the way, WHY do you have to take, seemingly, every thread you discuss in to your, seemingly, favorite topic of "Flipping coins"?

You really do appear to be obsessed by some theory, which could after all just be WRONG, anyway.

Age
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Age » Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:01 am

Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:13 am
Age wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:16 am
ALL of these words can be very easily explained in, and with, defining words...
That's a GREAT idea.

Can you define the word "define" for us please?
Yes I can.

Which definition would you like?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests