The Logic Behind Everything and Nothing

[Dontaskme]

To me EVERY human being is born a Natural and True 'philosopher', and HAVING 'philosophy' IS UNAVOIDABLE.

Only the mind is born - NOT YOU

I know that I know nothing is all you can know. As you had no awareness of a before your birth or of after your death. All you know is an apparent appearance of you between two unknowing unawarenesses.
An appearance of nothingness.


“You must know nothing before you can learn something, and be empty before you can be filled. Is not the emptiness of the bowl what makes it useful? As for laws, a parrot can repeat them word for word. Their spirit is something else again. As for governing, one must first be lowest before being highest.”

[Dontaskme]

It is BECAUSE if being born WITH and HAVING the True love-of-wisdom and HAVING the ABILITY to LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and REASON ANY and EVERY 'thing' children, AGAIN VERY SADLY, and VERY UNFORTUNATELY, end up COPYING, and growing INTO, adult human beings.

What else is a child supposed to copy and grow into, but an adult human being?

[Dontaskme]

“To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge. For a man who claims to have knowledge, while actually knowing nothing, is less smarter than you, who claim to know nothing.”
— Socrates

No need to mud this out using concepts. Would be like washing away blood using blood.

[Age]

To me EVERY human being is born a Natural and True 'philosopher', and HAVING 'philosophy' IS UNAVOIDABLE. BUT, which, VERY SADLY, gets LOST, MISPLACED, and REPLACED 'aling the way' by UNKNOWINGLY and UNINTENTIONALLY Wrong DOING ADULTS who end up turning those True 'philosophers' INTO Truly STUPID ASSUMING and BELIEVING adults human beings.

It is BECAUSE if being born WITH and HAVING the True love-of-wisdom and HAVING the ABILITY to LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and REASON ANY and EVERY 'thing' children, AGAIN VERY SADLY, and VERY UNFORTUNATELY, end up COPYING, and growing INTO, adult human beings.

The only thing the 'human being' needs to understand as a philosopher, via ''thought'' is that everything is fundamentally nothing ( no thought required to understand this ) nothing is known AS AND THROUGH the experience of being aware, it is known via experience that ( being aware is simply self-evident, effortless and requires no thought to be )

But there is absolutely NO 'thing' that 'you', human beings, NEED to understand as 'philosophers'.

The very idea that 'philosophers' NEED to understand absolutely ANY 'thing' DEFEATS the WHOLE REASONING and PURPOSE of BEING an ACTUAL 'philosopher' and of HAVING or DOING 'philosophy'.

Also, what IS fundamentally NO 'thing' is the 'thing', existing in the Universe, also sometimes known as 'nothing', AND, what IS fundamentally SOME 'thing' IS the OTHER 'thing', existing in the Universe, also sometimes known as 'everything'.

See, the Everything, also known as the Universe, IS fundamentally made up of NOT just 'no thing' and 'nothing' but ALSO the OTHER 'thing' known as 'matter', 'something', or 'some thing'

That understood,is to simply know you know nothing, and yet to know you know nothing, is to also know everything,which can only be the same as nothingness at it's fundamental base level. It's only ''thought'' that seemingly changes NOTHINGNESS into SOMETHING or EVERYTHING.

AND, when one LEARNS what the SOME 'Thing' or Everything IS, EXACTLY, and what THAT 'Thing' is made up of EXACTLY and FUNDAMENTALLY, which IS NOT JUST NOTHING AT ALL, OBVIOUSLY, then that one, OBVIOUSLY, KNOWS some 'thing'.

The empty SILENT space between all ''thought'' is all there is to know, meaning, there is nothing knowing every THOUGHT ....meaning all ''thought'' is fundamentally empty, only appearing as something, meaning, 'thoughts' are appearances in the same context every dream is an appearance of something, full of images and stories, which are in essence quite inanimate, and yet appear animate, biological, and seemingly psychological and spiritual....in this apparent conception, nothing is making.

I have ASKED you PREVIOUSLY to EXPLAIN how ALL-OF-THIS could come from absolutely NOTHING AT ALL so I will NOT ASK you THIS QUESTION AGAIN, but I WILL now ASK, Could it be a POSSIBILITY that this MEANING here is for 'you' ALONE "dontaskme"? BECAUSE 'this' is CERTAINLY NOT 'the meaning' for 'me'.

See, to 'me', WHO and WHAT KNOWS EVERY 'thought' is CERTAIN NOT 'nothing', and thus what THIS ACTUALLY MEANS that 'I' KNOW WHO and WHAT KNOWS EVERY 'thought'.

There is here, now here, nowhere, only nothing being everything, and that's all there is to understand.

But there is LOTS MORE to UNDERSTAND, well to some of 'us' anyway.

Philosophy and philosophizing goes nowhere, because there is nowhere else to go.

If 'I' was to ASK 'you' here, What is 'philosophy' and 'philosophizing'? Then how would you respond, EXACTLY?

The ultimate point of view is that there is nothing to understand, so when we try to understand, we are only indulging in acrobatics of the mind.

Do 'you' even KNOW what this 'mind' 'thing' IS, EXACTLY, which 'you' CLAIM 'you' are only indulging in acrobatics of, when 'you' 'try to understand'?

[Age]

To me EVERY human being is born a Natural and True 'philosopher', and HAVING 'philosophy' IS UNAVOIDABLE.

Only the mind is born - NOT YOU

So, to 'you', a human being, 'you', and thus human beings, are NOT born. BUT, of ALL things the 'Mind' IS born.

I know that I know nothing is all you can know.

After ALL of the years that this MOST ABSURD and SELF-CONTRADICTORY SAYING and CLAIM, 'I KNOW that I KNOW nothing', there are STILL SOME of 'you' who CONTINUE 'this' on.

How could it be POSSIBLE for one who KNOWS 'nothing' to KNOW that 'it' KNOWS 'this'?

As you had no awareness of a before your birth or of after your death.

BUT 'you' just TOLD 'us' that 'you' are NOT born, so HOW can there now be a 'before 'your' birth'?

All you know is an apparent appearance of you between two unknowing unawarenesses.
An appearance of nothingness.

If 'this' is ALL 'you' KNOW, then so be 'it'. BUT, do NOT FORGET that 'I' am NOT 'you'.

“You must know nothing before you can learn something, and be empty before you can be filled.

one can KNOW some 'things' BEFORE they can LEARN some MORE 'things'. and, one can be somewhat filled BEFORE they can be, fully, FILLED.

Is not the emptiness of the bowl what makes it useful?

This could HELP in EXPLAINING HOW and/or WHY 'you', adult human beings, have BECOME USELESS. See, when one is BELIEVING or ASSUMING that they ALREADY KNOW some 'thing', then 'they' could be classed as being completely and utterly USELESS here.

Whereas, the YOUNGEST ARE 'empty' AND OPEN, and thus Truly USE-FULL. Which then LEADS TO what the ACTUAL PURPOSE IS for 'you', human beings, in Life.

As for laws, a parrot can repeat them word for word. Their spirit is something else again. As for governing, one must first be lowest before being highest.”

But the HIGHEST in Intelligence are the ones who ARE, for arguments sake, AT BIRTH. So, they were NOT first to be LOWEST, but RATHER HIGHEST FROM the outset.

[Age]

It is BECAUSE if being born WITH and HAVING the True love-of-wisdom and HAVING the ABILITY to LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and REASON ANY and EVERY 'thing' children, AGAIN VERY SADLY, and VERY UNFORTUNATELY, end up COPYING, and growing INTO, adult human beings.

What else is a child supposed to copy and grow into, but an adult human being?

Children are NOT 'supposed' to do absolutely ANY 'thing', OTHER than TO LEARN.

What adults are 'supposed' to do is TEACH children how to be thy (Natural) Self. Which is EXACTLY NOT what 'you', adult human beings, ARE, in the days when this is being written.

BUT, OBVIOUSLY, 'you', adult human beings, can NOT TEACH 'this' BECAUSE 'you' have NOT YET been TAUGHT, thus NOR LEARNED, 'this' "yourselves".

[Age]

“To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge. For a man who claims to have knowledge, while actually knowing nothing, is less smarter than you, who claim to know nothing.”
— Socrates

No need to mud this out using concepts. Would be like washing away blood using blood.

To SAY and/or CLAIM that, 'I KNOW nothing', is about one of the MOST STUPIDEST of 'things' one could SAY and CLAIM. For the OBVIOUS Fact that 'it' is a PURELY SELF-CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT.

However, to SAY and/or CLAIM that, I KNOW, RELATIVELY, nothing or NOT MUCH AT ALL REALLY, is about one of the MOST INTELLIGENT of 'things' one could ADMIT.

After all there is One 'thing', and ONLY One 'thing', which IS KNOWN, FOR SURE, or WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.

[Dontaskme]

Also, what IS fundamentally NO 'thing' is the 'thing', existing in the Universe, also sometimes known as 'nothing', AND, what IS fundamentally SOME 'thing' IS the OTHER 'thing', existing in the Universe, also sometimes known as 'everything'.

See, the Everything, also known as the Universe, IS fundamentally made up of NOT just 'no thing' and 'nothing' but ALSO the OTHER 'thing' known as 'matter', 'something', or 'some thing'

The knower does not require any tests for knowing his own existence. The knower therefore is the only reality behind knowledge and objects. 'Knower' is always separate from things 'known' Herenow, nowhere, is this immediate KNOWING.
Why or how can the 'Knower' seem separate from the things 'known' is because any thing known, in and of itself, cannot be the knower. Any thing 'known' is already being 'known' by the ONLY KNOWING there is, which is consciousness, and you are that knowing, or knower.

AND, when one LEARNS what the SOME 'Thing' or Everything IS, EXACTLY, and what THAT 'Thing' is made up of EXACTLY and FUNDAMENTALLY, which IS NOT JUST NOTHING AT ALL, OBVIOUSLY, then that one, OBVIOUSLY, KNOWS some 'thing'.

The empty SILENT space between all ''thought'' is all there is to know, meaning, there is nothing knowing every THOUGHT ....meaning all ''thought'' is fundamentally empty, only appearing as something, meaning, 'thoughts' are appearances in the same context every dream is an appearance of something, full of images and stories, which are in essence quite inanimate, and yet appear animate, biological, and seemingly psychological and spiritual....in this apparent conception, nothing is making.

I have ASKED you PREVIOUSLY to EXPLAIN how ALL-OF-THIS could come from absolutely NOTHING AT ALL so I will NOT ASK you THIS QUESTION AGAIN, but I WILL now ASK, Could it be a POSSIBILITY that this MEANING here is for 'you' ALONE "dontaskme"? BECAUSE 'this' is CERTAINLY NOT 'the meaning' for 'me'.

See, to 'me', WHO and WHAT KNOWS EVERY 'thought' is CERTAIN NOT 'nothing', and thus what THIS ACTUALLY MEANS that 'I' KNOW WHO and WHAT KNOWS EVERY 'thought'.

For me personally, as I understand this...It's only known as no thing, because things that are ''known'' know nothing. Why can't a thing known, know anything about it's own existence? ...is the same reason a tree that is known cannot itself know it is a tree.
Only KNOWING can know, because knowing implies a 'Knower' which is not a thing, a knower is no thing, a knower is nothing, knowing every-thing.

If 'I' was to ASK 'you' here, What is 'philosophy' and 'philosophizing'? Then how would you respond, EXACTLY?

''Identification with Thoughts''
Who or what does this?
Requires more thoughts, in this conception.

[Dontaskme]

“To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge. For a man who claims to have knowledge, while actually knowing nothing, is less smarter than you, who claim to know nothing.”
— Socrates

No need to mud this out using concepts. Would be like washing away blood using blood.

To SAY and/or CLAIM that, 'I KNOW nothing', is about one of the MOST STUPIDEST of 'things' one could SAY and CLAIM. For the OBVIOUS Fact that 'it' is a PURELY SELF-CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT.

However, to SAY and/or CLAIM that, I KNOW, RELATIVELY, nothing or NOT MUCH AT ALL REALLY, is about one of the MOST INTELLIGENT of 'things' one could ADMIT.

After all there is One 'thing', and ONLY One 'thing', which IS KNOWN, FOR SURE, or WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.

Yes, and that 'ONE THING' is this immediate KNOWING without doubt or error, the only knowing/knower there is. Which is no/thing, as I've already explained, ''things'' that are known, know nothing.

One simply cannot put a label on the knower without making the knower an object known. The knower can never be the object known, simply because objects have zero knowledge of their existence.

[Dontaskme]

“To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge. For a man who claims to have knowledge, while actually knowing nothing, is less smarter than you, who claim to know nothing.”
— Socrates

No need to mud this out using concepts. Would be like washing away blood using blood.

To SAY and/or CLAIM that, 'I KNOW nothing', is about one of the MOST STUPIDEST of 'things' one could SAY and CLAIM. For the OBVIOUS Fact that 'it' is a PURELY SELF-CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT.

However, to SAY and/or CLAIM that, I KNOW, RELATIVELY, nothing or NOT MUCH AT ALL REALLY, is about one of the MOST INTELLIGENT of 'things' one could ADMIT.

After all there is One 'thing', and ONLY One 'thing', which IS KNOWN, FOR SURE, or WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.

Why does this topic have to be stupid?

After all, if there is one thing and only one thing for sure that is known with absolute certainty. Then HOW does 'ONE THING' KNOW?

It knows by not-knowing. The paradox/contradiction is totally and absolutely unavoidable, albeit illusory.

If there's just ONE THING ..which there is..then this ONE THING must have always been and could NEVER have not been. Because there would have been nothing else besides this ONE THING to relate to as being other than this ONE THING FOREVER.

[Dontaskme]

What else is a child supposed to copy and grow into, but an adult human being?

Children are NOT 'supposed' to do absolutely ANY 'thing', OTHER than TO LEARN.

What adults are 'supposed' to do is TEACH children how to be thy (Natural) Self.

Children are already being their natural self, this natural self needs no teaching to happen, it's happening self-evidently in babies and small young children all the time. It's even observed to be happening in all of nature's wildlife.

Adult human beings have not moved an inch away from their natural self they were as a child. In fact the learning you speak of is for the sole purpose of what it means to be of service to the WORLD as and through the WORK we do collectively as a means to build a thriving, functioning society. And how we do this is incrementally achieved using step by step steps, in a bid to reach certain goals we have set ourselves, which secure our survival, and that's all there is to learning. But the natural self is always present in everyone, and does not require an adult to teach it to you. Learning how to live in the world of human beings has nothing to do with the natural self.

Which is EXACTLY NOT what 'you', adult human beings, ARE, in the days when this is being written.

BUT, OBVIOUSLY, 'you', adult human beings, can NOT TEACH 'this' BECAUSE 'you' have NOT YET been TAUGHT, thus NOR LEARNED, 'this' "yourselves".

That's because being a natural being is innate, it's not something someone can teach you, it's not something you learn from someone else, just as no one ever learnt to be born, or learnt to die, or learnt to walk and talk, these things just happen and are functioning all by themselves, self-evidently.


.

[Eodnhoj7]

OR, there IS the OTHER 'thing', which we CAN CHOOSE FRO, and, which by the way, IS the ACTUAL, and IRREFUTABLE, Truth of 'things'.

The above written under the label "eodnoj7" is just NONSENSE, and VERY MISLEADING I will add.

If it was nonsense then it would not be misleading as it has to make some sense in order to mislead.

Is that so?

Is it NOT possible to MISLEAD some of the people, some of the time, with what IS, essentially, ACTUALLY NONSENSE?

Now, if what IS ACTUALLY NONSENSE, makes sense to some people, then this STILL does NOT take away from the Fact (of) 'what IS'.

On the other hand ff course it is non-sense, the logic behind the laws of logic self-negates these very same laws when self-referencing.

If you say and BELIEVE so, then 'it' MUST BE so, right?

What a misleading thing to say, with your definition of 'misleading' applying of course.

[Eodnhoj7]

“To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge. For a man who claims to have knowledge, while actually knowing nothing, is less smarter than you, who claim to know nothing.”
— Socrates

No need to mud this out using concepts. Would be like washing away blood using blood.

To SAY and/or CLAIM that, 'I KNOW nothing', is about one of the MOST STUPIDEST of 'things' one could SAY and CLAIM. For the OBVIOUS Fact that 'it' is a PURELY SELF-CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT.

However, to SAY and/or CLAIM that, I KNOW, RELATIVELY, nothing or NOT MUCH AT ALL REALLY, is about one of the MOST INTELLIGENT of 'things' one could ADMIT.

After all there is One 'thing', and ONLY One 'thing', which IS KNOWN, FOR SURE, or WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.

Why does this topic have to be stupid?

After all, if there is one thing and only one thing for sure that is known with absolute certainty. Then HOW does 'ONE THING' KNOW?

It knows by not-knowing. The paradox/contradiction is totally and absolutely unavoidable, albeit illusory.

If there's just ONE THING ..which there is..then this ONE THING must have always been and could NEVER have not been. Because there would have been nothing else besides this ONE THING to relate to as being other than this ONE THING FOREVER.

If there is only one thing, and this thing is without comparison other wise it would be more then one thing, then this thing is nothing.

[Eodnhoj7]

What else is a child supposed to copy and grow into, but an adult human being?

Children are NOT 'supposed' to do absolutely ANY 'thing', OTHER than TO LEARN.

What adults are 'supposed' to do is TEACH children how to be thy (Natural) Self.

Children are already being their natural self, this natural self needs no teaching to happen, it's happening self-evidently in babies and small young children all the time. It's even observed to be happening in all of nature's wildlife.

Adult human beings have not moved an inch away from their natural self they were as a child. In fact the learning you speak of is for the sole purpose of what it means to be of service to the WORLD as and through the WORK we do collectively as a means to build a thriving, functioning society. And how we do this is incrementally achieved using step by step steps, in a bid to reach certain goals we have set ourselves, which secure our survival, and that's all there is to learning. But the natural self is always present in everyone, and does not require an adult to teach it to you. Learning how to live in the world of human beings has nothing to do with the natural self.

Which is EXACTLY NOT what 'you', adult human beings, ARE, in the days when this is being written.

BUT, OBVIOUSLY, 'you', adult human beings, can NOT TEACH 'this' BECAUSE 'you' have NOT YET been TAUGHT, thus NOR LEARNED, 'this' "yourselves".

That's because being a natural being is innate, it's not something someone can teach you, it's not something you learn from someone else, just as no one ever learnt to be born, or learnt to die, or learnt to walk and talk, these things just happen and are functioning all by themselves, self-evidently.


.

There is only 'is-ness'.

[Dontaskme]

If there is only one thing, and this thing is without comparison other wise it would be more then one thing, then this thing is nothing.

Is it true that there has to be Nothing for Everything to exist, and there has to be Everything for Nothing to exist?