Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:37 am
Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 12:17 pm
If some wants to just express their BELIEF that some ineffable 'thing' exists, then so be it. But I, for one, would wonder; How would they, themselves, KNOW some thing exists if they, themselves, can not even express nor describe in words what that thing actually is?
Listen, we've been through this many times before, that which knows thing is not a thing. Do you not get that?
What I get IS, this is YOUR BELIEF, which is NOT necessarily absolutely thee Truth of things. Do you get this?
IF I KNOW what KNOWS things, then I do KNOW. Therefore, your claim that what I KNOW is 'not a thing' is just plain WRONG, to me. Did you hear this?
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:37 amI've repeated this to you many times before that it is not a ''someone'' that knows. You are the 'knowing' that cannot be known.
You have NEVER, if I recall correctly, EVER used the word "someone" before. But I have heard you many times before say that it is 'not a thing' that knows things. And, I have told you many times before that I KNOW what the 'KNOWING' IS.
Just because you BELIEF that 'IT' can not be known, does NOT meant that this IS thee Truth of things.
You are basing your own ALREADY held BELIEF, on the ASSUMPTION that just because i have NOT worked some thing out AND thus do not YET know some thing, then "IT' can not EVER be KNOWN.
Well I am HERE NOW to tell you that thee actual Truth IS what you say can not be known CAN and actually IS ALREADY KNOWN. Okay?
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:37 amA 'someone' lets call it a person is a concept KNOWN. It is not-known how a concept is KNOWN, for the KNOWN know nothing.
Do you see?
.
I had SEEN that BEFORE 'I' even had my first discussion with 'you'.
Why you would even start to ASSUME that 'IT' is a 'someone/person' that is the KNOWING? I have said countless times ALREADY, that to ASSUME any thing prevents some one/people from SEEING the actual Truth of things.
If 'you' had EVER been curious, and ask some Truly OPEN clarifying questions to me, then you would ALREADY KNOW that what I say I KNOW, which you say can not EVER be known, is NOT a "someone/person" at all.
I have ALREADY, from about the second, third, or fourth discussion with you, explained that what you are saying is correct from a certain perspective, but it is NOT the actual Truth of things. And, asked you if you would like some help in just finding the right language I could help you in PROVING what you are saying. You rejected and refused any help.
It does not matter how many times you say "some thing can not be known". If I ALREADY KNOW 'what' that 'not a thing' IS, then I ALREADY KNOW.
How can you be so SURE that forever more that 'not a thing' can not be KNOWN?
If the Universe IS evolving, with Consciousness, then Awareness of things also evolves, correct?
Do you think that Infinity is not quite enough time for Consciousness to evolve to a point of complete Self-Awareness. If Consciousness, the Knower, the Knowing, or Awareness Itself can keep evolving, then become Truly Aware or FULLY Self-Conscious of Its own Self, then is also POSSIBLE, correct?
If no, then WHY NOT?
Also, just because 'you', "dontaskme", do not know YET know how a concept is KNOWN, this does NOT mean that the KNOWN know nothing.
If there IS a Knower, which knows EVERY thing, then that Knower IS also KNOWN, so the KNOWN would KNOW EVERY thing.
IF there IS a knower of ALL things, or ALL-THERE-IS, then that It also would be the Knower and the KNOWN of Its own Self.