Why knowing 'Yourself' will never make sense.

[Dontaskme]

'I' ALREADY KNOW who and what the KNOWER IS,

EXACTLY, and so have ALREADY PROVED 'your' CLAIM here to be absolutely and irrefutably False, Wrong, and Incorrect

'I' have ALREADY DONE what 'you' CLAIM IS IMPOSSIBLE.

You just saying....('I' ALREADY KNOW who and what the KNOWER IS )...doesn't mean anything, it's just an empty claim, empty of any sense whatsoever..

It's like saying....I already know I existed before I existed.

It's like saying...I already know what's going to happen before it happens.


To KNOW is to be in relationship to some thing, it is to know a thing. So all you have said is that the knower is a thing.

.

[Iwannaplato]

If we mean some kind of 100% knowing oneself, well, that would be unlikely.
But to know yourself more, to consider some less aware and knowledgable about themselves, to consider someone else more aware and knowledgable about him or herself, to realize 'oh, that's what's going on in me', to get more insight into one's patterns, to realize what one really wants and a host of other kinds of knowing yourself all make sense and I have experienced it in relation to myself and seen/felt it in others.

[Dontaskme]

If we mean some kind of 100% knowing oneself, well, that would be unlikely.
But to know yourself more, to consider some less aware and knowledgable about themselves, to consider someone else more aware and knowledgable about him or herself, to realize 'oh, that's what's going on in me', to get more insight into one's patterns, to realize what one really wants and a host of other kinds of knowing yourself all make sense and I have experienced it in relation to myself and seen/felt it in others.

Thanks for your input...just for arguments sake, in no way am I dismissing your input with what I am about to say in reply, nor am I saying you are wrong and that I am right...I'm just trying to POINT to the emptiness, using words, that is the concept of SELF

What you have described in your response, is a genuine knowledge that is our immediate and direct sensory experience. So your response is indeed a KNOWLEDGE which can only be KNOWN conceptually....in other words, concepts are known in their immediate conception. But the KNOWER of concepts cannot and never know of it's own conception, think about that point carefully. The 'knower' of concept, in and of itself, cannot KNOW of it's own conception that it claims to know.

You go on to talk about a ..'your-self...' But this knowledge of 'your-self' is not the 'self' I am referring to. The 'I' which is just another concept for 'SELF' who claims to know sensory experience is also an experience, insofar as here, there is a sense known, a sense of autonomous identity, as a concept known, so to speak. So yes this sense of self, self-awareness is known but only as a sensory experience..

However much the concept of 'I' is known, it is not known, nor can it ever be known how 'I' is known. . because concepts cannot know anything.

Concepts are known, but the known cannot know what is knowing them. So what this is pointing to is that only the KNOWN can be known, not the KNOWER.


If the knower could be known the knower would be able to choose to be born or not be born...it would know to choose life because it would know life even before life became an experience for it....but no one who knows they are born ever chose to be born...because there is no knower, there is no self who can know itself...there is here only sensation and experience that arise and fall, come and go, is on and off...asleep or awake...etc

It's like do we even die? is death even possible? insofar as it can be an experience known?

No, death cannot be known, because only what is known can be known...death is a concept known in the living only.

If there is only the living state that can be known through sensory experience, then there cannot be a 'someone' aka an 'I' or 'Self' here who knows they know they are this living experience. This immediate living experience is not being known by a 'someone' the knowing is totally ONE without a SECOND.


So the conundrum for the mind is HOW can ONE THING exist, and know it exists, without splitting itself in two into knower and known?

It cannot. It does not ... except in this illusory conception. There is no SELF, the self is an illusion.

.

[Iwannaplato]

So the conundrum for the mind is HOW can ONE THING exist, and know it exists, without splitting itself in two into knower and known?

We have a model of perceiving/knowing.
It can come from science, but it is present in folk ideas of perception. It's there in psychology.
It's something like
subject perceives ---------> object
In most models, then, we have two 'things'
the perceiving and the perceived

often there are three 'things''

subject [process of perception] object (or the perceived)

And based on this model we think we can deduce that all perception includes at least the split into two.

But that is not how i experience perception, especially when I am really present, not automatically going through my day.

I am suffused by both perception and the object, especially when I am perceiving parts of myself. That last phrase is both true and a metaphor.

I am suffused with emotion while I perceive the emotion.

I'm not a pinhole camera. I am a mobile field of perceiving essence. And that essence can even feel itself while perceiving outside things. Feel the whole field of percieving essence while also staring in wonder at a tree.

So, I don't experience it the way you do. I mean, it happens, but that's in my scattered moments.

And I urge caution in using deduction. Because the biases in our assumptions can make conclusions that are false seem utterly necessary if one or more of the assumptions are even a little bit false or over generalized.

We can perceive like those first models above. I am not saying they are wrong. I am saying they are limited models. and they are falsely applied the perception of the self, which is a whole 'nother can of beans.


As an aside, the Buddhists might say something very much like what you say here. However they believe that in higher states of meditation one can transcend the perceiver/perceived split and have a non-dual experience, and also stop suffering.

They transcend. I notice that actually myself is not some pinprick witness.

Either way I don't think it has to be that way.

We have different experiences, and I think different models, so I am not sure it is worth ping ponging back and forth.
I think what you are saying is a partial model. You think what you are saying must necessarily be the truth.
I will leave it at that between us. Perhaps others will respond to me, or not, and I might purue that.

[Dontaskme]

We have different experiences, and I think different models, so I am not sure it is worth ping ponging back and forth.

We all experience the same one sense of awareness, this self-awareness is the same for each and every one of us. But what we are aware of as a concept known, will often be different for all of us, according to what our awareness is focusing on in any given moment... so yes, our experiences are all different, but the one who is aware of all our experiences is the same for all of us.

However, the one who apparently claims to know it's own personal conceived self...as and through sensory experience, the one who knows sensation..can never be aware of it's own personal conception, this 'personal one' can never be aware of the actual moment of it's own personal conception or birth that is known as a solid person.

So the one who claims to know can only be an illusion born out of the conception known to no one. In other words, the conception of self is just an empty word, it is an empty conception appearing as a some-thing...which can only be an apparent appearance of emptiness taking the form of some conceptual physical thing known as a solid person. And since emptiness cannot be known as a solid thing, then the solid thing is all that can be known, but only as an empty concept.

There is no personal person present during it's own conception, or be aware of the birth of itself..to be able to witness it's own personal birth and claim to know that conception and birth took place. And that's the same for every personal conceived self...which again is just another empty concept.

So any claim to know the knower, or know the awareness that is knowing...is a false claim, it's an illusion.

What I have said here, makes perfect sense to me, but it may read as perfect nonsense to someone else.
For me here, I am the author of my own knowledge, so it will only make sense to me here, but this me here was never present at my own personal conception or birth. .to be able to tell myself I have been conceived and born... so all I have to work with here is the illusion of me...and this illusion is the only thing that makes sense to me here.

And that goes for everyone else, only they can make sense of their own being, no one else can do that, only they can do it.
So when someone else tells you that you are not making sense, they have absolutely no way of knowing that, because no one can make sense of another self...they can only make sense of their own sense of self, they can only know the illusion of self through direct sensory experience, known in this artifically conceived conception of themself as an illusion.

The 'I' can only know itself through the conception of the word 'I'

In reality, no 'I' was ever present to witness it's own personal conception or birth...the 'I' is an empty concept known, that can know nothing of it's conception or birth, aka existence.

'I' is known as a concept only...the 'I' that is known, is NEVER seen...the seen is only known as an illusion appearing real.






.

[Iwannaplato]

We all experience the same one sense of awareness, this self-awareness is the same for each and every one of us. But what we are aware of as a concept known, will often be different for all of us, according to what our awareness is focusing on in any given moment... so yes, our experiences are all different, but the one who is aware of all our experiences is the same for all of us.

However, the one who apparently claims to know it's own personal conceived self...as and through sensory experience, the one who knows sensation..can never be aware of it's own personal conception, this 'personal one' can never be aware of the actual moment of it's own personal conception or birth that is known as a solid person.

So the one who claims to know can only be an illusion born out of the conception known to no one. In other words, the conception of self is just an empty word, it is an empty conception appearing as a some-thing...which can only be an apparent appearance of emptiness taking the form of some conceptual physical thing known as a solid person. And since emptiness cannot be known as a solid thing, then the solid thing is all that can be known, but only as an empty concept.

There is no personal person present during it's own conception, or be aware of the birth of itself..to be able to witness it's own personal birth and claim to know that conception and birth took place. And that's the same for every personal conceived self...which again is just another empty concept.

So any claim to know the knower, or know the awareness that is knowing...is a false claim, it's an illusion.

What I have said here, makes perfect sense to me, but it may read as perfect nonsense to someone else.
For me here, I am the author of my own knowledge, so it will only make sense to me here, but this me here was never present at my own personal conception or birth. .to be able to tell myself I have been conceived and born... so all I have to work with here is the illusion of me...and this illusion is the only thing that makes sense to me here.

And that goes for everyone else, only they can make sense of their own being, no one else can do that, only they can do it.
So when someone else tells you that you are not making sense, they have absolutely no way of knowing that, because no one can make sense of another self...they can only make sense of their own sense of self, they can only know the illusion of self through direct sensory experience, known in this artifically conceived conception of themself as an illusion.

The 'I' can only know itself through the conception of the word 'I'

In reality, no 'I' was ever present to witness it's own personal conception or birth...the 'I' is an empty concept known, that can know nothing of it's conception or birth, aka existence.

'I' is known as a concept only...the 'I' that is known, is NEVER seen...the seen is only known as an illusion appearing real.

Well, I read that a couple of times and I can't see where you responded to what I wrote. I have someone saying that he cannot know himself, telling me about myself and everyone else. He uses deduction to do this and basically in this post repeats his position. I get it. I know you believe this.
I do see that you have the qualification that others may find it to be nonsense. I don't think it's nonsense, but I disagree that it is a complete truth. I think you don't know so much about me and others. Whether you are correct about yourself, I have no idea. But this is what I meant about ping pong. It seems you will simply repeat and tell me and everyone what we cannot know. Some deduction and a lot of unsupported assertions. That's peachy, but if I don't respond to any more of your posts on the topic, it's because it isn't a discussion. I can read books that have a similar position to yours if I want to just be talked at.

[Dontaskme]

We all experience the same one sense of awareness, this self-awareness is the same for each and every one of us. But what we are aware of as a concept known, will often be different for all of us, according to what our awareness is focusing on in any given moment... so yes, our experiences are all different, but the one who is aware of all our experiences is the same for all of us.

However, the one who apparently claims to know it's own personal conceived self...as and through sensory experience, the one who knows sensation..can never be aware of it's own personal conception, this 'personal one' can never be aware of the actual moment of it's own personal conception or birth that is known as a solid person.

So the one who claims to know can only be an illusion born out of the conception known to no one. In other words, the conception of self is just an empty word, it is an empty conception appearing as a some-thing...which can only be an apparent appearance of emptiness taking the form of some conceptual physical thing known as a solid person. And since emptiness cannot be known as a solid thing, then the solid thing is all that can be known, but only as an empty concept.

There is no personal person present during it's own conception, or be aware of the birth of itself..to be able to witness it's own personal birth and claim to know that conception and birth took place. And that's the same for every personal conceived self...which again is just another empty concept.

So any claim to know the knower, or know the awareness that is knowing...is a false claim, it's an illusion.

What I have said here, makes perfect sense to me, but it may read as perfect nonsense to someone else.
For me here, I am the author of my own knowledge, so it will only make sense to me here, but this me here was never present at my own personal conception or birth. .to be able to tell myself I have been conceived and born... so all I have to work with here is the illusion of me...and this illusion is the only thing that makes sense to me here.

And that goes for everyone else, only they can make sense of their own being, no one else can do that, only they can do it.
So when someone else tells you that you are not making sense, they have absolutely no way of knowing that, because no one can make sense of another self...they can only make sense of their own sense of self, they can only know the illusion of self through direct sensory experience, known in this artifically conceived conception of themself as an illusion.

The 'I' can only know itself through the conception of the word 'I'

In reality, no 'I' was ever present to witness it's own personal conception or birth...the 'I' is an empty concept known, that can know nothing of it's conception or birth, aka existence.

'I' is known as a concept only...the 'I' that is known, is NEVER seen...the seen is only known as an illusion appearing real.

Well, I read that a couple of times and I can't see where you responded to what I wrote. I have someone saying that he cannot know himself, telling me about myself and everyone else. He uses deduction to do this and basically in this post repeats his position. I get it. I know you believe this.
I do see that you have the qualification that others may find it to be nonsense. I don't think it's nonsense, but I disagree that it is a complete truth. I think you don't know so much about me and others. Whether you are correct about yourself, I have no idea. But this is what I meant about ping pong. It seems you will simply repeat and tell me and everyone what we cannot know. Some deduction and a lot of unsupported assertions. That's peachy, but if I don't respond to any more of your posts on the topic, it's because it isn't a discussion. I can read books that have a similar position to yours if I want to just be talked at.

Knowledge is a phenomena that can only be known within the ping ponging of opposite sides of the same coin ...to coin a phrase.


I'm not telling anyone anything, I'm simply leaving a message for the reader...it's up to the reader to resonate or not.
There is only one reader by the way....reading information that arises as many authors of the information being read.


It's not supposed to be a complete truth..there is no complete truth that can be known....there is only your truth, the illusory truth.

Anyways, thanks for nothing...bye.

[Dontaskme]

but if I don't respond to any more of your posts on the topic, it's because it isn't a discussion.

But it is a discussion, it's a discussion that has nothing to offer and is why it's pointless to have such a discussion.

The mind always wants to know something as if there is somehting to know, if it didn't want to know anything, then the mind wouldn't even exist.

Never mind, discussions like these are only interesting for minds that are searching for knowledge...which can only point to the illusory nature of reality...but the mind is not interested in illusions.

Ok, that's all folks.

[Age]

ANOTHER absolutely False CLAIM of 'yours' here "dontaskme".

It may look like a false claim to you, because it is your belief or assumption that I have made a false claim.

But it is NOT my belief NOR assumption.

What you claimed is False BECAUSE it can be proved irrefutably so.

But your belief is wrong.

But I do NOT have a belief here.

My claim that life is a game I'd rather not play is ABSOLUTELY 100% true, FOR ME HERE.

If it was ABSOLUTELY 100% true, for 'you', "dontaskme", that you would REALLY rather not play, then you would NOT play.

There IS a percentage where you REALLY would rather STAY and PLAY.

I did not make myself BE BORN, but if I had, I probably would have dismantled all the pieces, and put them back in the package they arrived in, stuck a post-it note on the front saying, thanks, but no thanks, and returned the whole package back to the sender, who ever that is/was.

1. We have ALREADY AGREED that 'you' did NOT make 'you' be born.

2. So, there is NO need to keep repeating this.

But joking aside, I would rather not have been born,

'Would rather not have been born' is very different to 'would rather not play'.

but since I am born, then of course I have no other choice but to play this dumb game.

You OBVIOUSLY have choices.

Now, you may think I could just kill myself, but then that's just another dumb activity to do with oneself while playing this stupid game. Oh, it's like what shall I do today, oh I know, I could go for a walk or I could kill myself, or I could make my self a cup of coffee or I could kill myself, or I could change my bed sheets or I could kill myself.

So, you do AGREE that you DO have choices, correct?

Hmm, I guess it pretty much looks like I am swayed more toward choosing the lesser of two evils while being forced to play this awful idea life came up when it created sentient feeling living organisms, where nobodies had to put on this silly act of pretending to be somebodies.

But you are NOT being 'forced'. This is because you DO have 'choices'.

Absolutely NO one is forcing you to play, so if you REALLY would rather NOT PLAY, then you WOULD just 'walk away'. But because you do NOT, then this PROVES that you REALLY DO prefer TO PLAY.

By all means "dontaskme" tell us WHAT and HOW you VIEW things, I, for one, Truly ENJOY this, but until you REFRAIN from TELLING us that WHAT and HOW you VIEW things is the absolute truth, then I, for one at least, will STOP responding to you. And, if that is what you Truly WANT, then you NOW KNOW what TO DO.

Why do you keep telling lies about me. Your responses are full of lies, liar.

"full of"

And WHERE and WHEN, exactly, are the perceived 'lies'.

Just making claims WITHOUT backing them up is can be perceived as a form of lying, itself.

You are so bad at lying, that your back is well bent out of shape, I can clearly see that it's developing a really bad hunch, all because you lie so badly, that you are even incapable of lying straight in bed.

.

Will you show where these perceived lies are EXACTLY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

[Age]

I'm not dismissing any one.

What do you call telling "another" to: "Just walk away, I'm sure there is plenty of porn elsewhere you can be watching instead of boring me half to death with your emotional crapola meaningless stories", if this is NOT 'dismissing them'?

I'm allowing people to walk away, but I have no power to dismiss anyone, ultimately it's their choice to stay or not. Someone like Walker who likes to drop in on my every thread, is to me, like some annoying supersized killer hornet at my picnic blanket.

Why ALLOW other 'things' to have control OVER 'your' feelings?

His only intention is to slap me down to make himself look big. His futile attempt of always trying to get me to reform my character is a disgusting arrogance that I find tedious and mind numbingly boring. So that's why I am always prompted to shoo him away, even though my attempts are always unsuccessful, because there are always going to be louder mouths than my own, and some are just eventually going to swallow me whole, and so that is why I have to back off now and again, just knowing that motor mouth is on the prowl again, I either have to warn the predator to walk away, or I take a break from the forum for awhile, but even that doesn't work.


.

What is that saying, 'just ignore the bully', and they will eventually give up'.

[Age]

Do 'you' think or believe that 'your stories' here "dontaskme" enlighten or enthrall 'the readers'?

Are 'your stories' meaningless AS WELL?

Yes, everything in life is meaningless to me, that's why I am able to give it meaning. Even though I know my meaning will be in reality totally fake and meaningless, nevertheless, any meaning is better than none at all.

Again, you are 'trying to' TELL us what is REAL here.

WHY do you do this, especially when it is pointed out that 'it' is ACTUALLY NOT REAL, you will 'change your tune'?

If people reading like what they are reading here, then good for them, but if they don't, then good for them too, I couldn't care less either way.

[Age]

Who else do you propose puts labels on 'things' besides 'you', human beings?

AND, I have NEVER even thought a 'label' is able to label itself, let alone have said it. To assume otherwise is absolutely ridiculous.

The 'thing' known as 'human beings' is what places 'labels' to 'things'. Human beings do this as doing it makes is much easier and simpler to make sense of 'the Universe' or 'the world', (whichever label one prefers to use), in which 'they' have found themselves within.

So finally we are back on topic...that's a relief.

So, you AGREE now just how RIDICULOUS it was for 'you' to bring up the nonsensical 'labels putting labels on things', correct?

Now, just answer my question properly.

Who put the label human being on the human being?

'you', human beings, OF COURSE. Or, in other words, the 'thing' known as 'human being'.

[Dontaskme]

'you', human beings, OF COURSE. Or, in other words, the 'thing' known as 'human being'.

So here you are again repeating the same thing you said before.

So again, I will respond by saying can a label label itself as such?

Can the label on a can of tomato soup know there is tomato soup inside the can?

Can a THING tell itself it is a THING?

That's what you are claiming can..but that claim is wrong.

[Age]

AGE: wrote

The 'thing' known as 'human beings' is what places 'labels' to 'things'.

But the thing known as the label ''human being'' is a label already known to the thing.

NO IT IS NOT.

'you' are just once again introducing NONSENSICAL 'things', which I have NEVER said NOR claimed, in the hope that dismissing or countering those NONSENSICAL things will somehow back up and support your held on BELIEFS and/or ASSUMPTIONS here.

Why would the thing that is already known as the label ''human being'' then put the label 'human being' on what is already known...?

But the 'thing' that is already known WITH the label 'human being' is NOT the same thing that is already known AS the label 'human being'.

The 'label' human being is VERY DIFFERENT to the 'thing' known WITH or BY 'the label' 'human being'.

Your question is written SO Wrongly and SO CONFUSINGLY that 'it' just becomes completely moot.

If the thing already knows what the thing is, why does it put a label on what it already knows?

If the thing, human beings, already knows what 'it' is, then it does NOT 'then' put 'a label' on what has ALREADY been 'labeled'.

Again, you TWIST 'things' in such a Truly DISTORTED way that it takes sometime to CORRECT, so that the readers can CLEAR SEE what is going on here.

Does that even make sense to do that?

OF COURSE it does NOT make sense to do what you say here. What you are saying is Truly NONSENSICAL, AGAIN, so it would NEVER makes sense to do 'that'.

It is like you are a True expert in creating 'straw men'.

And also, why is the label that is known as a 'human being' also known as a 'thing' that can put a label on itself...can things do that? ...can things put labels on themselves now?

LOL ONCE AGAIN. It is NOT 'the label' that is known as a 'human being'. 'The label' 'human being' is put on, or placed upon, the 'thing', (which is known as 'human being'. That 'thing' is the 'human body' with 'a being' inside it.

[Dontaskme]

Why ALLOW other 'things' to have control OVER 'your' feelings?

Why don't you just mind your own fucking business.

This has nothing to do with you. This is to do with me and Walker, it is both our feelings that are involved, so please stay out of what doesn't concern you personally.

You have no idea what is the history between Walker and I ...so just keep your busy body nose out...ok