Closing Imagined Explanatory Gaps

[Dontaskme]

On the other hand solipsism posits the non-existence of the external void right at the beginning, and says that no further inquiry is possible.

Deific Solipsism - Understanding that there is One Mind, and This Mind belongs to an Ineffable Uncaused Isness.

In other words, God's Self Awareness aka Absolute SELF (as this seemingly objective world experience) is exploring, being, knowing, seeing Its Self - "we" are Divine Mind being Lived appearing as all possible individual states.

[mickthinks]

So.... what it seems you are saying is that you know at least the following two things with 100% certainty.

1. There is a limit to knowledge.
2. Human omnipotence is impossible.

Did you mean "omnipotence" or "omniscience"?

I think it follows from " I experience uncertainty where knowledge requires certainty" that there is a limit to my knowledge, and I have no reason to imagine the same does not apply to the rest of humanity. But I don't claim to "know for certain" about limits or about knowledge or about humanity.

[Skepdick]

Did you mean "omnipotence" or "omniscience"?

For the purpose of this discussion, I guess "omniscience" is more on-point.
But they go hand-in-hand. Omnipotence requires omniscience.

I think it follows from " I experience uncertainty where knowledge requires certainty" that there is a limit to my knowledge

Did you experience any uncertainty before you uttered that phrase? Or were you certain in its truthfulness?

and I have no reason to imagine the same does not apply to the rest of humanity. But I don't claim to "know for certain" about limits or about knowledge or about humanity.

But you do claim to experience uncertainty. Are you 100% certain that you experience uncertainty on matters where knowledge requires certainty?

I can go as recursive as it needs to... until you say "yes".

[mickthinks]

Did you experience any uncertainty before you uttered that phrase?

Dude, I am not even certain I uttered the phrase.

[Skepdick]

Dude, I am not even certain I uttered the phrase.

THE phrase?

The one you are not certain of having uttered?

[mickthinks]

lol I think so, but naturally I am not sure. Are we dicussing the same phrase? Are we discussing? Are we even we?

[SteveKlinko]

The Self that is Ramu is the same Self that is Steve.

If this is true then, if I stub my toe Ramu should curse as loudly as I would.

[Skepdick]

The Self that is Ramu is the same Self that is Steve.

If this is true then, if I stub my toe Ramu should curse as loudly as I would.

It is true.

Because "Ramu" and "Steve" are different names for the same "self".

[SteveKlinko]

The Self that is Ramu is the same Self that is Steve.

If this is true then, if I stub my toe Ramu should curse as loudly as I would.

It is true.

Because "Ramu" and "Steve" are different names for the same "self".

Of course according to that Philosophy, Ramu, Steve, Dontaskme, Skepdick and … are all different names for the same Self.

[Dontaskme]

The Self that is Ramu is the same Self that is Steve.

If this is true then, if I stub my toe Ramu should curse as loudly as I would.

The Self which is just another word for Awareness
And Awareness is who you are, so when the SELF the awareness from the unique perspective as and through the mind body character that is Ramu HERE....a stub of the toe would be experienced and felt here, and while this sensation is felt and known as experienced here, there is no other thing happening or known or being experienced anywhere else, for awareness is only ever here which is the only source of all sensation known and experienced.

Sensation is not known or felt by the mind, body character Ramu, the body mind character is just the instrument
Awareness uses as and through that instrument as there is no other instrument.
So it is awareness aware of the sensation that knows and feels and experiences sensation as and through that instrument the mind body mechanism...the instrument on the other hand feels and knows nothing of it’s existence because it’s just a made up concept of awareness.
From the perspective of the mind body mechanism that is awareness here there is no awareness of any other awareness external to awareness here, there is simply nothing outside or separate from here. For awareness ..there is only here ...and here is everywhere because awareness that is everywhere cannot move...it is only the mind that moves which is already within the awareness here aka the unmoved mover.

When latent awareness knows sensation consciousness mind is born. Only the mind is born, awareness is the unborn born as and through the knowledge mechanism the instrument of knowing.
The reason there is the belief in another awareness separate from here is only apparent because there is the knowing and experiencing of all sensation here. Here is everywhere and nowhere now here.

There is nothing outside of awareness because there is nothing inside of awareness except as an inner mental projection appearing to be external to the inner...which is only ever known and experienced here the only source of knowledge sensation and experience.

Sorry if this all sounds complicated, but it’s hard to put this into words, but I can only keep trying my best.
.

[Skepdick]

Of course according to that Philosophy, Ramu, Steve, Dontaskme, Skepdick and … are all different names for the same Self.

No. You are just playing silly language games.

Surely you are aware of the fact that the referent "self" is relative to the speaker?
Surely you are also aware of the use-mention distinction?

When I use the word "self" the referent is me - Skepdick.
When you use the word "self" the referent is you - SteveKlinko
When I mention your use of the word "self" the referent is you - SteveKlinko.
When you mention my use of the word "self" the referent is me - Skepdick.

Surely you are aware of these subtleties of language, in which case you are being deceitful.
Or you are unaware of such things, in which case you are being ignorant.

Either way attempting to exchange ideas with you is a waste of time.

[SteveKlinko]

Of course according to that Philosophy, Ramu, Steve, Dontaskme, Skepdick and … are all different names for the same Self.

No. You are just playing silly language games.

Surely you are aware of the fact that the referent "self" is relative to the speaker?
Surely you are also aware of the use-mention distinction?

When I use the word "self" the referent is me - Skepdick.
When you use the word "self" the referent is you - SteveKlinko
When I mention your use of the word "self" the referent is you - SteveKlinko.
When you mention my use of the word "self" the referent is me - Skepdick.

Surely you are aware of these subtleties of language, in which case you are being deceitful.
Or you are unaware of such things, in which case you are being ignorant.

Either way attempting to exchange ideas with you is a waste of time.

You must have forgotten the first part of the sentence by the time you got to the end of the sentence. I said: "According to that Philosophy". I didn't say I believe it.

[Skepdick]

Of course according to that Philosophy, Ramu, Steve, Dontaskme, Skepdick and … are all different names for the same Self.

No. You are just playing silly language games.

Surely you are aware of the fact that the referent "self" is relative to the speaker?
Surely you are also aware of the use-mention distinction?

When I use the word "self" the referent is me - Skepdick.
When you use the word "self" the referent is you - SteveKlinko
When I mention your use of the word "self" the referent is you - SteveKlinko.
When you mention my use of the word "self" the referent is me - Skepdick.

Surely you are aware of these subtleties of language, in which case you are being deceitful.
Or you are unaware of such things, in which case you are being ignorant.

Either way attempting to exchange ideas with you is a waste of time.

You must have forgotten the first part of the sentence by the time you got to the end of the sentence. I said: "According to that Philosophy". I didn't say I believe it.

Did I accuse you of believing it? No. I am accusing you of misrepresenting it.

Either you are misrepresenting it intentionally, in which case you are being deceitful.
Or you are misrepresenting it unintentionally, in which case you are being ignorant.

Either way attempting to exchange ideas with you is a waste of time.

[SteveKlinko]

No. You are just playing silly language games.

Surely you are aware of the fact that the referent "self" is relative to the speaker?
Surely you are also aware of the use-mention distinction?

When I use the word "self" the referent is me - Skepdick.
When you use the word "self" the referent is you - SteveKlinko
When I mention your use of the word "self" the referent is you - SteveKlinko.
When you mention my use of the word "self" the referent is me - Skepdick.

Surely you are aware of these subtleties of language, in which case you are being deceitful.
Or you are unaware of such things, in which case you are being ignorant.

Either way attempting to exchange ideas with you is a waste of time.

You must have forgotten the first part of the sentence by the time you got to the end of the sentence. I said: "According to that Philosophy". I didn't say I believe it.

Did I accuse you of believing it? No. I am accusing you of misrepresenting it.

Either you are misrepresenting it intentionally, in which case you are being deceitful.
Or you are misrepresenting it unintentionally, in which case you are being ignorant.

Either way attempting to exchange ideas with you is a waste of time.

Ok, Good Luck, and Bye.

[Dontaskme]

Ok, Good Luck, and Bye.

Show me a person who has finished with words, so that I may have a word with them.

Closing explanatory gaps, is so easy, but that is not what we want. We want knowledge, simply because we don't know but want to.

.