Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

[Logik]

Well if you really wanted to KNOW, then write out each of those 8 interpretations, which you say you understand, and ask if it is any one of those.

This solves nothing!

If I can misunderstand one of the Pigeon's questions in 8 different ways he can misunderstand 8 of my questions in 64 different ways.

[Atla]

It's amazing the number of words that happen to not mean anything these days. Is that some kind of virus you're all infected with?!

Do you write your comments in French and then use Google translate or something? You don't seem to know how to use English words..

Here is what "subjective" means:
Subjective
a. Dependent on or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: "The sensation of pain is a highly subjective experience that varies by culture as well as by individual temperament and situation" (John Hoberman).
So, either you don't speak English or you don't understand it.

The point of a philosophical discussion is to debate for example which meaning of "subjective" is most likely to be correct.

Is that the 'point' of ALL philosophical discussion, to you?

To some, that is NOT at all the point of philosophical discussions. In fact that is seen by some to be the exact opposite of a philosophical discussion.

Wasn't talking to you, and I wrote "for example". Learn to read.

Certain? I am asking if you think you know the Moon exists. What is it you don't understand in there? Simple question, answer yes or no.

Well I assumed that your question had a point, that the topic had a point, maybe, as it was posted on a philosophy forum. Guess it doesn't?
Okay, I'm about 98% sure that the Moon exists.

But earlier you stated: Of course I know it for sure, idiot. In regards to the moon existing. But now you are only 98% sure that the moon exists.

Did you change your view/sureness after you thought about what I wrote? Or, for some other reason?

No you lying fucktard, I also added:

(Beyond the obvious footnotes that everything might be an illusion/simulation/magic/I might have the most epic lifelong hallucination somehow/bla bla bla.)

That's the other 2%

[Age]

Can you please let me know your definition of mind and the one that owns this mind ?

I cannot seriously answer such a complex question as that but I wish someone else would

But the answer to such a simple question is a very simple and easy answer.

So then I might have some basic idea as to what a mind actually was and also what it did

I have begun to explain what the Mind is and how It works, and I have also started to explain that NO one owns a mind. Yet, you did not seem to like this explanation as you, if I recall correctly, stated some thing like: the mind is a function of the brain, and you also, if I recall correctly also, said that your own definition/explanation was what you were going to stay with for now. If any of this recollection is wrong, then please correct me.

There are two members who speak with knowledge on this but they are way above my head
I find it hard to understand what she is saying because I cannot see it the way that she does

[Age]

when you ask these questions are you yet aware of what the actual answers are?

Yes.
But it doesn’t help anyone to trumpet them out.
People have to look themselves and find their own answers. I think it does help to point out where to look, but looking they must do on their own.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Age]

For the readers I very rarely if ever explain things fully in this forum . I do this to point out and SHOW
how curiosity is just about all but lost to adult human beings in the days of when this is written

I am not really that interested in being curious unless the answer is something that is already there
I just want to hear and see the thoughts of others with as little judgement upon my part as possible

That is completely fair enough.

And, just more proof of how 'curiosity', itself, of which EVERY human being is born with, what children thrive on, and what separates human beings from ALL other animals, is completely diminished into adulthood. The very thing that has led human beings away from just being another animal, like ALL the other animals are, and into the dreamers, inventors and creators that they Truly are is just about completely gone in in children by the time that they read adulthood, when this is written.

Adult human beings are generally on interested in and curious about 'that' what fits in with their already obtained BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

Learning and discovering more and anew, in this day and age when this is written, is only for the very young as curiosity, sadly, usually is sapped away, though "education", before children even reach teenager years.

[Age]

Consciousness ALREADY realizes, understands, and KNOWS what IS thee Truth, that there is ONLY consciousness, and which is the ONE and ONLY One.

Yes, that's what I have already said.

Unfortunately though this One gets mislabeled as a 'you', which only causes more confusion and misunderstanding.

'You' is just another label for the unamed one.

But 'you' can see the contradiction here. 'You' does NOT put a label on the unnamed one. If 'you' did that, then that would be a very self-contradictory thing to do, obviously.

It's doesn't matter what name is given to the unamed one ..lables are referential to itself, no self.

If there is no self, then there is no thing to, even try to, put a label onto.

Also, it does matter what name is given to the unnamed one. An 'unnamed one', by definition, can NOT be given a label/name, obviously. If an 'unnamed one' was given a label/name, then it would obviously NOT be an 'unnamed one' anymore. The 'you' KNOWS this already.

Obviously an 'unnamed one' would NOT be given a name by the one and only one. One would NOT be that stupid to do such an obviously self-contradictory thing.

I aka consciousness the nameless one have no image of myself.

Again, the word 'consciousness' is a label and/or name TRYING TO placed onto the 'nameless'.

The 'you', or 'Consciousness', already KNOWS It's Self. It has a perfectly crystal clear image of Itself, just like It has a perfectly crystal clear image of ALL-THERE-IS.

Before it was written under the label "dontaskme" that there was ONLY ONE 'you', but now under the label "dontaskme" the word 'I' is written.

If there is only ONE 'you', then how many 'I's are there?

The one and only Consciousness KNOWS how to be Truly understood. Consciousness does NOT express contradictory, clumsily, nor in a complex, confusing, ambiguous, and non-understood way.

Consciousness just SEES and EXPRESSES the Truth of things, the way they ARE. So, why are the writings under the label of "dontaskme" in such a confusing, cumbersome, contradictory, clumsy, and complex way?

The image of myself is what I imagine in the form of a conceptual label ( a thought) which is an illusory conceptual overlay upon the ineffable nameless one aka (Empty Consciousness appearing Full)

The 'you' KNOWS that to express or describe in words the supposed 'ineffable nameless one' is inexcusably self-contradictory. To describe or express the alleged 'ineffable nameless one' with the words "Empty Consciousness appearing Full" is extremely confusing and clumsy, let alone the obvious self-contradiction, which ALL can SEE. But 'you' KNEW this already, correct?

But the concept of ONLY ONE thing existing is NOT absurd at all. What is Truly absurd is the way the One thing gets describes as.

I agree, Words are crap, but what the heck, Divine crap.

No word can define 'what is', or every word defines 'it'.

But 'you' KNOWS that words are NOT crap. 'You' KNOWS words are used to describe things. But 'you' KNEW this, correct?

The conceptually described way that the ONE and ONLY thing, which exists, gets describes here is very contradictory and absurd.

Again, there is NO need to confuse and make complex what IS really very simple.

I agree, that which is very simple can be very complicated, and that which is very complicated can be very simple.

.

But those words do NOT agree with what 'you' said. In fact those words actually disagree with and contradict what 'you' said.

'You' KNOW that there is NOTHING complicated at all, and that ALL is very simple. To think that there are things like complexity to Consciousness, Itself, is some thing that Consciousnesses/You already KNOWS does NOT exist.

[Age]

If Consciousness is all there is, which is what you stated earlier, then how can there be "other" 'objects'?

And, how can there be 'knowing' and 'it' be one with Consciousness if Consciousness is all there is? If there is nothing outside of Consciousness, then there can NOT be one with Conscious.

Being one with consciousness is just referring to itself, it's self referential. In that all objects are not outside of the subject, both subject and object are one with each other, two sides of the same coin.

So, logik is one with Consciousness just like non-logic is. Is this correct?

When the subject and object duality collapses upon self realisation that consciousness is all there is, and there is no other, then that's nondual realisation.

.

But what was just written, under the label "dontaskme", is both subject and object are one with each other, two sides of the same coin. But then what else was written, under that same label, is that there is no other, and, then that is nondual realisation.

So, WHEN is the one labelled "dontaskme" going to write solely from the perspective of nondual realisation, and STOP writing things like; both ...? If there is ONLY One, then there is NOT both.

When is the one self-labeled "dontaskme" ever going to reach FULL nondual realisation?

If the one labeled "dontaskme" Truly WANTS to be understood, then STOP writing contradictory and confusingly.

There is NOTHING hard nor complex in explaining that what IS. So WHY are the writings under the label "dontaskme" having so much trouble being understood?

[Age]

Well if you really wanted to KNOW, then write out each of those 8 interpretations, which you say you understand, and ask if it is any one of those.

This solves nothing!

So, you KNOW this HOW?

If you do NOT even try some thing, then HOW do you KNOW what the outcome will be?

If I can misunderstand one of the Pigeon's questions in 8 different ways he can misunderstand 8 of my questions in 64 different ways.

If that is what you BELIEVE, then so be it.

You can BELIEVE what ever you choose to BELIEVE and carry on the exact same way that you have been. But if you are looking for a different outcome, then do you believe you will get one.

The whole reason you, human beings, NEVER seem to get any where is because you BELIEVE you already KNOW what is true, right, and/or correct.

Instead of just being somewhat curious and asking a few OPEN clarifying questions, to gain some clarity, you prefer to hold onto your own BELIEFS and produce outcomes that prove, to yourself, that your own BELIEFS are actually true, right, and correct.

Also, if you are incapable of writing out your interpretation of one question in the 8 different ways that you allege that you have, without them being misunderstood in 64 different ways, then WHY do you insist another person explains what they mean when they wrote out a question. For all we KNOW you might misunderstand that is 8, or more, different ways also.

You do, after all, have a tendency to misunderstand things when it suits you, but expect others to understand you when you want them to.

You seem to want others to KNOW that you work with logic in computers, as though this holds some sort of importance, and that computation logic has the answer/solution to solving ALL problems/questions in language.

You have once again turned another thread around from the opening post/topic to some thing completely off tangent.

You allege that you have 8 different interpretations of the topic question. I, for one, would like to see them. Do you care to show them?

[Logik]

Well if you really wanted to KNOW, then write out each of those 8 interpretations, which you say you understand, and ask if it is any one of those.

This solves nothing!

So, you KNOW this HOW?

If you do NOT even try some thing, then HOW do you KNOW what the outcome will be?

If I can misunderstand one of the Pigeon's questions in 8 different ways he can misunderstand 8 of my questions in 64 different ways.

If that is what you BELIEVE, then so be it.

You can BELIEVE what ever you choose to BELIEVE and carry on the exact same way that you have been. But if you are looking for a different outcome, then do you believe you will get one.

The whole reason you, human beings, NEVER seem to get any where is because you BELIEVE you already KNOW what is true, right, and/or correct.

Instead of just being somewhat curious and asking a few OPEN clarifying questions, to gain some clarity, you prefer to hold onto your own BELIEFS and produce outcomes that prove, to yourself, that your own BELIEFS are actually true, right, and correct.

Also, if you are incapable of writing out your interpretation of one question in the 8 different ways that you allege that you have, without them being misunderstood in 64 different ways, then WHY do you insist another person explains what they mean when they wrote out a question. For all we KNOW you might misunderstand that is 8, or more, different ways also.

You do, after all, have a tendency to misunderstand things when it suits you, but expect others to understand you when you want them to.

You seem to want others to KNOW that you work with logic in computers, as though this holds some sort of importance, and that computation logic has the answer/solution to solving ALL problems/questions in language.

You have once again turned another thread around from the opening post/topic to some thing completely off tangent.

You allege that you have 8 different interpretations of the topic question. I, for one, would like to see them. Do you care to show them?

Because the problem is not the question - the problem is the strategy one employs.

Sophists like Speakpigeon aren’t here to agree on anything, so they do everything in their power to hinder not improve communication.

Cooperation is a prerequisite to Communication

[Dontaskme]

If there is no self, then there is no thing to, even try to, put a label onto.

That's what I said, I said, no thing names itself...any apparent naming, is no thing naming itself.
No one is born with a name... a name comes as a concept...a concept is empty at it's core.

There is nothing outside of language.

Langauge is an optical illusion of light and sound.. heard as words...appearing in silent unnamed consciousness that is not a thing. There are no things/words, there's just no thing being every thing. There is no thing being a thing.

No thing has ever seen a conceptual named thing, conceptual known things are images of the imageless...they are illusory appearances of consciousness.


No thing has ever seen consciousness because consciousness is not a thing seeing..so no concept has ever been seen, a concept is only KNOWN...BY THE ONLY KNOWING THERE IS...consciousness, the unknown knowing.


.

[Age]

Do you write your comments in French and then use Google translate or something? You don't seem to know how to use English words..


The point of a philosophical discussion is to debate for example which meaning of "subjective" is most likely to be correct.

Is that the 'point' of ALL philosophical discussion, to you?

To some, that is NOT at all the point of philosophical discussions. In fact that is seen by some to be the exact opposite of a philosophical discussion.

Wasn't talking to you,

I KNOW, and I KNEW beforehand.

and I wrote "for example". Learn to read.

I did. That is how i am responding.

Are you suggesting that if one states that' The point of [some thing] is ... But then just adds the words for example, then another can not just ask a question for clarity?

All I did was ask you a question to clarify from what perspective you are coming from and also pointed out some facts.

Well I assumed that your question had a point, that the topic had a point, maybe, as it was posted on a philosophy forum. Guess it doesn't?
Okay, I'm about 98% sure that the Moon exists.

But earlier you stated: Of course I know it for sure, idiot. In regards to the moon existing. But now you are only 98% sure that the moon exists.

Did you change your view/sureness after you thought about what I wrote? Or, for some other reason?

No you lying fucktard,

Once again you accuse me of lying. Now, WHERE is this supposed lie exactly?

I also added:

(Beyond the obvious footnotes that everything might be an illusion/simulation/magic/I might have the most epic lifelong hallucination somehow/bla bla bla.)

That's the other 2%

Okay, thank you for, this time, clarifying my very simple straightforward OPEN question.

Again, are you able to SHOW where the alleged lie is now? And, HOW can an OPEN clarifying question contain a lie?

Also, so you say you know 98% for sure that the moon exists, yet, the very actual reason WHY you do NOT know 98% for sure that the moon exists, you are NOT even aware of yet, which by the way is NOT even one of your yet explained, but alleged, "obvious" footnotes.

You have absolutely NO way of knowing at all that the moon exists. Now, would you like to discuss this?

[Dontaskme]

So, WHEN is the one labelled "dontaskme" going to write solely from the perspective of nondual realisation, and STOP writing things like; both ...? If there is ONLY One, then there is NOT both.

One is meaningless without something to relate it to, the relation is purely illusory.

Both the mirror and it's reflection are inseparable one, appearing as two... mirror/reflection... two but not two.

The mirror is consciousness, the reflection is the contents/appearances of consciousness.

It's really that simple.

.

[Age]

This solves nothing!

So, you KNOW this HOW?

If you do NOT even try some thing, then HOW do you KNOW what the outcome will be?

If I can misunderstand one of the Pigeon's questions in 8 different ways he can misunderstand 8 of my questions in 64 different ways.

If that is what you BELIEVE, then so be it.

You can BELIEVE what ever you choose to BELIEVE and carry on the exact same way that you have been. But if you are looking for a different outcome, then do you believe you will get one.

The whole reason you, human beings, NEVER seem to get any where is because you BELIEVE you already KNOW what is true, right, and/or correct.

Instead of just being somewhat curious and asking a few OPEN clarifying questions, to gain some clarity, you prefer to hold onto your own BELIEFS and produce outcomes that prove, to yourself, that your own BELIEFS are actually true, right, and correct.

Also, if you are incapable of writing out your interpretation of one question in the 8 different ways that you allege that you have, without them being misunderstood in 64 different ways, then WHY do you insist another person explains what they mean when they wrote out a question. For all we KNOW you might misunderstand that is 8, or more, different ways also.

You do, after all, have a tendency to misunderstand things when it suits you, but expect others to understand you when you want them to.

You seem to want others to KNOW that you work with logic in computers, as though this holds some sort of importance, and that computation logic has the answer/solution to solving ALL problems/questions in language.

You have once again turned another thread around from the opening post/topic to some thing completely off tangent.

You allege that you have 8 different interpretations of the topic question. I, for one, would like to see them. Do you care to show them?

Because the problem is not the question - the problem is the strategy one employs.

Using the strategy of just asking a question that was employed here I do NOT see as being any so called "problem" at all.

Sophists like Speakpigeon aren’t here to agree on anything, so they do everything in their power to hinder not improve communication.

Cooperation is a prerequisite to Communication

HOW did you arrive at the conclusion that by asking a question, maybe to just gain another's perspective of things, is because that one who asked the question is not here to agree on anything?

I am pretty sure some have arrived at a conclusion that you, yourself, are not here to agree on anything. 'Projection' is one word some might be thinking of right now. Doing everything in one's power to hinder and not improve communication might be another word 'projection' might be linked to here.

In fact have you agreed on anything with anyone here, in this forum?

Also, is NOT clarifying the definition of a word that you, yourself, are using in a discussion a hindrance or a improvement to communication?

[Atla]

Is that the 'point' of ALL philosophical discussion, to you?

To some, that is NOT at all the point of philosophical discussions. In fact that is seen by some to be the exact opposite of a philosophical discussion.

Wasn't talking to you,

I KNOW, and I KNEW beforehand.

and I wrote "for example". Learn to read.

I did. That is how i am responding.

Are you suggesting that if one states that' The point of [some thing] is ... But then just adds the words for example, then another can not just ask a question for clarity?

All I did was ask you a question to clarify from what perspective you are coming from and also pointed out some facts.

But earlier you stated: Of course I know it for sure, idiot. In regards to the moon existing. But now you are only 98% sure that the moon exists.

Did you change your view/sureness after you thought about what I wrote? Or, for some other reason?

No you lying fucktard,

Once again you accuse me of lying. Now, WHERE is this supposed lie exactly?

I also added:

(Beyond the obvious footnotes that everything might be an illusion/simulation/magic/I might have the most epic lifelong hallucination somehow/bla bla bla.)

That's the other 2%

Okay, thank you for, this time, clarifying my very simple straightforward OPEN question.

Again, are you able to SHOW where the alleged lie is now? And, HOW can an OPEN clarifying question contain a lie?

Also, so you say you know 98% for sure that the moon exists, yet, the very actual reason WHY you do NOT know 98% for sure that the moon exists, you are NOT even aware of yet, which by the way is NOT even one of your yet explained, but alleged, "obvious" footnotes.

You have absolutely NO way of knowing at all that the moon exists. Now, would you like to discuss this?

No, I don't want to discuss things with you beacuse you don't speak English and you have no idea what knowledge is.

While getting rid of the ego something seems to have gone very wrong for you and you went insane, which is pretty common actually. Now you seem to think you are somehow connected to the voice of the Universe or something.

Your previous nickname "ken" 's comments show this very well too.

[Dontaskme]

When is the one self-labeled "dontaskme" ever going to reach FULL nondual realisation?

Never.

There is no such thing as nonduality, but then again nonduality is not a thing.

There is no thing to realise, except maybe an idea, or a belief, what is an idea/belief?

I've no idea.

.