Age wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:06 am
AlexW wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 01, 2019 3:48 am
It 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).
2. 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)
Yes, "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.
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.
"It" can only know what it IS.
"It" is not an idea, not a concept and can and will never be one. "It" knows the direct experience of "wind on skin", the real (no-)thing, but not the interpretation - "It" doesn't know any meanings - they are reserved for the map and for interpretative thought.
Yes, "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").
This "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" 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.
The 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 and this "It" (=absolute reality) has nothing to do with them.