Reality is Inaccessible

[Dontaskme]

When you say "everyone" here does this also include the one known as "dontaskme" here?

Yes it does.

I do not know anything except I am known, and that which is known knows nothing.

[Dontaskme]

If "knower and known are one and the same", and if "there is no knower", then there is no known thing also. There is, however, one thing that can be irrefutably known.

If as I've stated knower and known are one in the same instant, then why are you now stating ''there is no knower''?

There can only be a knower in the context of knowledge. And knowledge can only ever point to the illusory nature of existence, in the conceptual context it's not-knowing known existence.

See, although there is, in Reality, only One actual Thing, which is just continually changing in shape and form always, this Thing gets separated in concept only, and not by actuality, so there is an illusion formed by 'you', human beings. The human brain has the ability to distinguish, and more important here label. This ability, however, is just the natural progression of the one Thing evolving into being able to actually know thy Self.

But all of this becomes very clear and fully understood by more and more human beings as Life, Itself, continually evolves.

There is no Self knowing itself. Knowledge of I am is a conceptual overlay upon not-knowing I am. Beingness, or aliveness is without doubt or error, but any knowledge of aliveness is a conceptual overlay, it's the dream of separation. Aliveness does not need knowledge to exist, in the same vein a tree does not need the knowledge it is a tree to exist, it's just pure existence.

[Age]

By the way, the only thing that can be 'known', for sure, are the thoughts, within a human body.

It's known that thoughts are inside a human body. It is also known that 'thoughts' are actually nowhere and everywhere.
Can a thought been SEEN ...?

WHY would you feel the need to ask this question?

Have you ever seen a 'thought'?

And, why did you write the 'seen' word here in capital letters?

only as an object known.

What exactly is a 'thought', to you?

Any concept known / seen can never be your direct experience.

Whose direct experience?

If, however, those thoughts are a proper, true, and accurate representation or not of what is external to thought, itself, is a whole another matter. Which, by the way, can also be resolved.

There is nothing external to thought, the whole idea of the external world is placed there by thought itself.

My MISTAKE. Better worded would be, 'If, however, those thoughts are a proper, true, and accurate representation or not is a whole other matter.

Reality does not have a need to exist, in the same context a tree does not need the knowledge of itself to exist, it just exists without knowing, it has no knowledge of it's existence.

Even if this is true, then what has this got to do with what we were just talking about?

Therefore, conceptual knowledge is only ever pointing to it's ilusory nature, insofar as it can only be a fictional representation upon what is otherwise this not-knowing reality.

Are you able to word this in a way that a nine year old, or any one else, could understand?

REality is this immediate presentation, is never a representation, which is a fake conceptual overlay upon it..

NO one here ever said that 'reality is a representation'. Where did you get this false concept from?

[Dontaskme]

DAM:

The knower is never in the object it knows.

You just said here that the 'concept' (of some thing) is an object known, but what I actually asked you was;

Is 'Life', Itself, an object?

Yes, life is an object. An object is a concept known.

[Age]

Response: A 'thing' is known, a 'known' implies a knower.

The actual question I posed to you was; But who and/or what is the 'knower'?

Age, the questioner is the only one who is able to answer. Else why would the question arise at all?

These two sentences of yours do not even logically follow, let alone are actually true.

In what 'world' is it that only the questioner is the only one who is able to answer?

Questions arise for a number of reasons, and certainly NOT just because the questioner is the only one who is able to answer.

Do trees ask questions?

WHY would you resort to asking such an absurd and ridiculous thing as this?

No, they do not, so all you need to work out is who is asking the question, and when you have worked that out, there will be your answer.

There will be "my answer" to what, EXACTLY?

You do not need to ask anyone but yourself.



.

And you do not need to say anything, but you continually do.

[Dontaskme]

Can a thought been SEEN ...?

WHY would you feel the need to ask this question?

Have you ever seen a 'thought'?

And, why did you write the 'seen' word here in capital letters?

don't talk to me about using caps, please...there's no need to go into that long drawn out activity, you already know the answer.

I asked the question can thoughts be seen, in relation to what I proposing can be known but never seen.

Concepts are known, but they are never seen...except in the conceptual knowledge that both seeing and knowing could be said to mean exact the same thing.

We are dealing with 'knowledge' here, that's all.

.

[Age]

When you say "everyone" here does this also include the one known as "dontaskme" here?

Yes it does.

So, if and when what you wrote about "attofishpi" is re-read, what you were really doing was just talking about 'you', "yourself", correct?

I do not know anything except I am known, and that which is known knows nothing.

So, who and/or what is the 'I', which you claim you know is known?

Also, how can logically claim that you know "I am known" but also claim, in the same sentence, that that one knows nothing.

Can you explain the obvious contradiction in which you claim that you do not know any thing except for one thing but actually know no thing?

If yes, then will you?

[Dontaskme]

In what 'world' is it that only the questioner is the only one who is able to answer?

Well in my logical rational world, a question can only arise if there is the sense of separation whereby there is a questioner who is in search of an answer, assuming there is an answer. So the only question is, who wants to know. And when that can be answered, then there is no need to ask ..for one would already know the answer to who wants to know. Therefore only that one could answer.

Questions arise for a number of reasons, and certainly NOT just because the questioner is the only one who is able to answer.

I'm arguing that questions can only arise to the idea there is a sense of separation, whereby there is one who questions and another one who answers. I contest that this separation is an illusion, demanding that all knowledge is a fictional mental contruction.

Do trees ask questions?

WHY would you resort to asking such an absurd and ridiculous thing as this?

To illustrate a point that reality is as it is,and has no need for questions.

No, they do not, so all you need to work out is who is asking the question, and when you have worked that out, there will be your answer.

There will be "my answer" to what, EXACTLY?

To the question.

It's all very simple.

[Age]

If "knower and known are one and the same", and if "there is no knower", then there is no known thing also. There is, however, one thing that can be irrefutably known.

If as I've stated knower and known are one in the same instant, then why are you now stating ''there is no knower''?

But I am NOT stating that there is no knower. I said what I did because you claim, "there is no knower", right?

There can only be a knower in the context of knowledge. And knowledge can only ever point to the illusory nature of existence, in the conceptual context it's not-knowing known existence.

Is this true and real or false and illusory?

And, who and/or what knows this?

See, although there is, in Reality, only One actual Thing, which is just continually changing in shape and form always, this Thing gets separated in concept only, and not by actuality, so there is an illusion formed by 'you', human beings. The human brain has the ability to distinguish, and more important here label. This ability, however, is just the natural progression of the one Thing evolving into being able to actually know thy Self.

But all of this becomes very clear and fully understood by more and more human beings as Life, Itself, continually evolves.

There is no Self knowing itself.

NOT within the knowledge within that human body/being known here as "donataskme" there certainly is NOT.

But, thee Self already knows thy (or Its) Self. you have just not yet become aware of who and what this Self IS. Like ALL knowledge becomes known, you just have NOT YET come to know this knowledge.

Knowledge of I am is a conceptual overlay upon not-knowing I am. Beingness, or aliveness is without doubt or error, but any knowledge of aliveness is a conceptual overlay, it's the dream of separation. Aliveness does not need knowledge to exist,

NO ONE here has EVER said, stated, inferred, insisted, claimed, NOR even just implied that Life/Aliveness needs knowledge to exist. So, WHY do you continue with this fallacy?

in the same vein a tree does not need the knowledge it is a tree to exist, it's just pure existence.

'you', human beings do NOT need the knowledge that 'you' are human beings, to exist, but you do have this knowledge. Just like thee One and ONLY True Self never needed the knowledge of Its Self, to exist, but It now has this knowledge. Of which 'you' still do NOT YET have.

[Age]

DAM:

The knower is never in the object it knows.

You just said here that the 'concept' (of some thing) is an object known, but what I actually asked you was;

Is 'Life', Itself, an object?

Yes, life is an object. An object is a concept known.

What is a 'concept not known', to you?

What is a 'concept', to you?

And, can an object exist without yet being a 'concept known', to you?

[Dontaskme]

So, if and when what you wrote about "attofishpi" is re-read, what you were really doing was just talking about 'you', "yourself", correct?

I'm talking about the one who claims to know something, including God.

I do not know anything except I am known, and that which is known knows nothing.

So, who and/or what is the 'I', which you claim you know is known?

I do not know who or what I knows except what is believed, using thought and concetual knowledge that I makes up, as and through the process of imagination. The actual I can never be an experience, nor can it be touched. In the same context there is no one in a dream.

Also, how can logically claim that you know "I am known" but also claim, in the same sentence, that that one knows nothing.

I will repeat to you again the same response I always give you. I am known, but the known that is known does not know how or who is knowing except as believed using thought and concetual knowledge that I make up as and through the process of imagination.

Can you explain the obvious contradiction in which you claim that you do not know any thing except for one thing but actually know no thing?

If yes, then will you?

I cannot explain how contradictions work, they just do.

Can anyone explain how the emptiness of a mirror is able to reflect a fullness. That's basically all you need to know, there is nothing else that can be known above or beyond this immediate knowledge.

[Dontaskme]

NO ONE here has EVER said, stated, inferred, insisted, claimed, NOR even just implied that Life/Aliveness needs knowledge to exist. So, WHY do you continue with this fallacy?

I continue with this fallacy because this fallacy likes to continue...Seen here in another informed fallacy >

'you', human beings do NOT need the knowledge that 'you' are human beings, to exist, but you do have this knowledge. Just like thee One and ONLY True Self never needed the knowledge of Its Self, to exist, but It now has this knowledge. Of which 'you' still do NOT YET have.

It's all very complicatedly simple isn't it.

[Age]

Can a thought been SEEN ...?

WHY would you feel the need to ask this question?

Have you ever seen a 'thought'?

And, why did you write the 'seen' word here in capital letters?

don't talk to me about using caps, please...there's no need to go into that long drawn out activity, you already know the answer.

I am NOT talking to you about using capital letters. I just asked you WHY you used the 'seen' word in that sentence of yours with capital letters. Especially considering the sentence within which you used that word. If you are not able to just answer a very simple clarifying question posed to you, then if I was you I would be wondering WHY NOT, and answering.

And, contrary to what you BELIEVE is true I have NO idea WHY 'you' used the word 'seen' in capital letters in that sentence of yours.

I asked the question can thoughts be seen, in relation to what I proposing can be known but never seen.

The word 'seen' can be used in two VERY DIFFERENT CONTEXTS, so I was just seeking clarification with your capital use of that word.

And, obviously thoughts can NEVER be seen, with the physical eyes.

Concepts are known, but they are never seen...

A 'concept' is essentially just a thought, and obviously ANY and EVERY thought can NOT be seen, with the physical eyes. So, there is NO use stating concepts are never seen.

However, what do you mean by "concepts are known"?

except in the conceptual knowledge that both seeing and knowing could be said to mean exact the same thing.

Therefore, my previous clarifying question.

We are dealing with 'knowledge' here, that's all.

.

Who and/or what is "dealing with 'knowledge' here", and that is all?

[Age]

So, if and when what you wrote about "attofishpi" is re-read, what you were really doing was just talking about 'you', "yourself", correct?

I'm talking about the one who claims to know something, including God.

But, if and when what you wrote is re-read, what can be clearly seen is that what you were talking about 'everyone', which you clarified, includes 'you', "dontaskme".

I do not know anything except I am known, and that which is known knows nothing.

So, who and/or what is the 'I', which you claim you know is known?

I do not know who or what I knows except what is believed, using thought and concetual knowledge that I makes up, as and through the process of imagination. The actual I can never be an experience, nor can it be touched. In the same context there is no one in a dream.[/quote]

But is this thee one and only actual Truth of things, or, is this just more of what you make up through the process of imagination?

And, I NEVER asked you who and/or what knows. I asked; 'who and/or what is the 'I', which you claim you know is known?'

Also, how can logically claim that you know "I am known" but also claim, in the same sentence, that that one knows nothing.

I will repeat to you again the same response I always give you. I am known, but the known that is known does not know how or who is knowing except as believed using thought and concetual knowledge that I make up as and through the process of imagination.

What does "I am known", actually mean or refer to, to you?

Can you explain the obvious contradiction in which you claim that you do not know any thing except for one thing but actually know no thing?

If yes, then will you?

I cannot explain how contradictions work, they just do.

Contradictions exist when human beings say things that oppose, or are inconsistent, within themselves.

That is how contradictions work.

Can anyone explain how the emptiness of a mirror is able to reflect a fullness.

Yes, and by the way, a mirror is obvious not empty or devoid of EVERY thing.

That's basically all you need to know,

What, EXACTLY, is all I, supposedly, basically need to know?

And, did we not previously just agree that Life/Aliveness, Itself, does NOT need to know ANY thing, to exist?

So, who and/or what is this 'you', which you now claim basically needs to know SOME thing? And, what is the reason that 'they' now need to know SOME thing?

there is nothing else that can be known above or beyond this immediate knowledge.

But, there is ONLY One thing that can be KNOWN, for sure, anyway.

[Dontaskme]

I am NOT talking to you about using capital letters. I just asked you WHY you used the 'seen' word in that sentence of yours with capital letters. Especially considering the sentence within which you used that word. If you are not able to just answer a very simple clarifying question posed to you, then if I was you I would be wondering WHY NOT, and answering.

I do not know why I use caps, it just happens to be an option, caps or lower case, what ever comes out is what comes out, I do not really question why what ever comes out comes out, it's not at all important to me whatsoever.

And, contrary to what you BELIEVE is true I have NO idea WHY 'you' used the word 'seen' in capital letters in that sentence of yours.

Don't sweat it then, it's no skin off my nose. It doesn't affect me here, it's not a life threatening event for me here, you there informing me, you have no idea why I used caps. So the whole issue is irrelevant to me.

I asked the question can thoughts be seen, in relation to what I proposing can be known but never seen.

The word 'seen' can be used in two VERY DIFFERENT CONTEXTS, so I was just seeking clarification with your capital use of that word.

And, obviously thoughts can NEVER be seen, with the physical eyes.

That's what I said, and now you just confirmed to yourself what you already knew.

Concepts are known, but they are never seen...

A 'concept' is essentially just a thought, and obviously ANY and EVERY thought can NOT be seen, with the physical eyes. So, there is NO use stating concepts are never seen.

If there is no use, then stop stating concepts are never seen. Parrot.

However, what do you mean by "concepts are known"?

I mean knowledge. The knowledge that fire is hot and will burn you is known. It's not hard to understand that concepts are known.

Who and/or what is "dealing with 'knowledge' here", and that is all?

The one who claims to know knowledge.