Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:41 am
My point was, you don't experience your thoughts, you are the thought.
You don't experience your feelings, you are the feelings, you don't experience your senses, you are the senses. You don't experience cognition, you are the cognising.
This is what's meant by direct experience. To see that you are the experience and the experiencer in the same instant, there is no division where there is a ''you'' and then there is a ''thought'' in that ''YOU'' ..rather, its ALL YOU
I am thought and thought is me? That's tautological.
What is 'thought' ?
I am feelings and feelings are me?
What are feelings?
Yes. It is all "me". The collective noun for all of me I use is "I". The collective noun for all of me you use is "You".
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:56 am
We know that we are .... ? HUMAN
We know that we are.....? HAPPY
We know that we are.....? GOING TO DIE
We do know what we are. Quarks and leptons and energy.
We don't know what 'quarks', 'electrons' and 'energy' are.
Yes, this is knowledge.
When we say we know, that is knowledge.
But what I'm trying to point to is that knowledge is not what we are in essence, we didn't come with knowledge, knowledge is a fictional conceptual overlay upon what we already are.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:00 pm
knowledge is a fictional conceptual overlay upon what we already are.
??
Knowledge is not fictional.
We are a dynamic system. Like everything else around us.
Dynamic systems change, therefore we change.
Change is the only constant.
Change is the only constant is knowledge, knowledge informs the illusory nature of change in that you cannot know change without also knowing its opposite.
In That ..that which appears to change never changes.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:05 pm
Change is the only constant is knowledge, knowledge informs the illusory nature of change in that you cannot know change without also knowing its opposite.
In That ..that which appears to change never changes.
.
That which I do not WANT to change. That is what I value.
I don't WANT to stop experiencing love.
I don't WANT to stop experiencing joy.
I don't WANT to stop experiencing learning.
I do not WANT to stop experiencing!
I value experiencing love, joy, learning.
I value experience.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:05 pm
Change is the only constant is knowledge, knowledge informs the illusory nature of change in that you cannot know change without also knowing its opposite.
In That ..that which appears to change never changes.
.
That which I do not WANT to change. That is what I value.
I don't WANT to stop experiencing love.
I don't WANT to stop experiencing joy.
I don't WANT to stop experiencing learning.
I do not WANT to stop experiencing!
I value experiencing love, joy, learning.
I value experience.
What is experience? I don't know!
I want therefore I am. I have free will!
Yes, agreed.
So there is no such thing as Impossible because Im possible? within the dream of separation when IMpossible is split in two the impossible becomes possible..aka Im/Possible?
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:27 pm
We can't know what is experience because we are the experience we cannot know...for we know it and do not know it in the same instant.
Only in the absolute meaning of 'knowledge'.
In the relative meaning - I know myself better today than I knew myself 10 years ago.
When I say "I don't know" what experience is. I mean - "I don't know with a sufficient degree of certainty to explain it TO YOU in a paragraph or a sentence or a book. I can not communicate this knowledge.
I may know myself, but my fiancé knows me even better. Maybe she can communicate her knowledge of me to you.
But I do have more information today than I did yesterday. I am learning!
As best as I can tell - experience is processing information!
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:27 pm
We can't know what is experience because we are the experience we cannot know...for we know it and do not know it in the same instant.
Only in the absolute meaning of 'knowledge'.
In the relative meaning - I know myself better today than I knew myself 10 years ago.
When I say "I don't know" what experience is. I mean - "I don't know with a sufficient degree of certainty to explain it TO YOU in a paragraph or a sentence or a book. I can not communicate this knowledge.
I may know myself, but my fiancé knows me even better. Maybe she can communicate her knowledge.
But I do have more information today than I did yesterday. I am learning!
As best as I can tell - experience is processing information!
Relatively speaking all this is knowledge.
But what is the source of knowledge, is that not the absolute?
You cannot know anything until after you have become aware of that what you know. Awareness then must always be present and has to exist prior to knowledge..anything known is subject to change, but awareness of all change never changes...else how could change be known?
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:36 pm
Relatively speaking all this is knowledge.
But what is the source of knowledge, is that not the absolute?
You cannot know anything until after you have become aware of that what you know. Awareness then must always be present and has to exist prior to knowledge..anything known is subject to change, but awareness of all change never changes...else how could change be known?
.
Relatively to what?
I only speak of the continuum of knowledge: zero knowledge (maximum ignorance) or perfect knowledge (zero ignorance). The unattainable ideals at both ends.
And so - I speak of relative knowledge in relation to those ideals.
In practice: how do you know that what you have is still knowledge? It may have been knowledge last week, but the world changes - knowledge becomes stale.
Applicability is the only yardstick that I have, and so the word 'knowledge' is itself value-ladden. If we speak of objectivity - then we need a new word. Information.
The criterion for knowledge is information consistent with reality (this should upset the defenders of the Correspondence theory of truth. Good!)
Is the information in my head consistent with reality? e.g is it knowledge? Well ... you have to test/verify that... Predict something about something.
