Reality is Inaccessible

[Age]

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.

Do you agree that there are human beings, in the 'world'?

If yes, then WHY?

Do you disagree that there are human beings, in the 'world'?

If yes, then WHY?

So the only question is, who wants to know.

But this is already known.

Only 'you', human beings, want to know things. This is because of what 'you' naturally ARE.

And when that can be answered, then there is no need to ask ..

And that is WHY 'you' are asking it and NOT 'I'.

for one would already know the answer to who wants to know. Therefore only that one could answer.

Okay, if you say so. But you also do say you only make things up through a process of imagination.

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 you actually 'contest' that this separation is an illusion, especially when it is 'you' who is asking the questions? Which would obviously also mean that question are only arising in 'you'.

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.[/quote]

Are you suggesting that 'you', human beings, are NOT real?

After all, it is 'you', human beings, who ask questions. As 'you', "dontaskme" have just proven irrefutably true.

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.

Have 'you' yet worked out who is asking the question? (The answer by the way is very simple, and very easy, to uncover and thus find.)

Any, furthermore, is there only one question?

If no, then WHY do you write "the" question?

[Dontaskme]

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".

Yes that includes me, also known as a you to you there.

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.

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?

It's a believed truth, appearing as some imagined truth in this one here. This one here being the only one that is able to access knowledge, the only accessible available.

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?'

All I know is the I is known, and that which is known cannot know anything. That's all I can know about I

Also, how can logically claim that you know "I am known" but also claim, in

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

It means nothing to me. Or it means something, which would be the same knowing.

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

That is how contradictions work.

Well it matters not to me here, because I know nothing except what I make up or believe, which is meaningless and pointless, until I place it's opposite meaning.

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

What you mean like a glass tumbler is not empty or devoid of everything before it's able to contain water...don't make me laugh.

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

What I wrote.

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?

Nothing needs to know itself, but in knowledge the oppostite can also be true.

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

One thing cannot know itself. because things are known and that which is known cannot know anything, In the same context, a tree cannot know it is a tree. So there is no thing knowing there is a known concept known as tree.

[Dontaskme]

Okay, if you say so. But you also do say you only make things up through a process of imagination.

Yes, that is correct, knowledge is made of imagination which is pure emptiness at it's core. Knowledge arises from the same place it is made of, namely nothingness. In other words, all known knowledge is imagined. Including the knower.

Is there anything else I can help you with?

[Dontaskme]

Do you actually 'contest' that this separation is an illusion, especially when it is 'you' who is asking the questions? Which would obviously also mean that question are only arising in 'you'.

Questions do apparently arise, just as thoughts do apparently arise, and in their arising, answers also arise in response. When there is no questions, there are no answers..

Where there are questions, there are answers. Questions will only stop when there is no more need for answers. In the same context, knowledge of something will always demand a responsive reaction to that something. Reality is totally reflexive, reflective, reactive responsive.

Reality is basically no thing and everything simultaneously.

Therefore, the one who claims to know everything also knows nothing.

And the one who claims to know good, also knows evil, there is no meaning in any thing known without it's associated opposite meaning.

It's no good God believers claiming God is good and not evil...that's just pure wishful thinking, and not how the reality of a knower works at all.

All believers are full of their own emptiness, namely, emptiness full of their own believed shit...including this.

If someone is trying to sell you their story, believe it only if you want to. But it will only be a story that they have made up. It will not be anything at all, because reality only presents itself and NEVER REPRESENTS ITSELF.

[Age]

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 >

But 'fallacies', themselves, obviously can not and do not 'continue'. Only 'you', human beings, 'continue' to say and/or write things, which are fallacies.

As you have just already, once again, proven True.

'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.

There is actually absolutely NOTHING complicated in the Universe, except for 'that', which human beings "complicate", or perceive to be "complicated".

Everything really is just very simple, and easy.

[Age]

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,

Okay. That is all I was curious about, so there is nothing more needed to be said.

There are a LOT of things 'you', human beings, do, which you do NOT know why you do.

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 when you do question WHY, you do the things you do, and then answer Honestly, then you will discover thee answer and solution to how to prevent doing the wrong, which causes and creates the illness of this 'world' in which you are currently living in, when this is being written.

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.

Even 'you', "yourself", have NO IDEA why you do the things you do. This partly explains WHY you write and do things, which are so wrong, so often.

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.

But thoughts can be SEEN. Are you still NOT YET AWARE of this FACT?

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.

But I am NOT the one stating 'concepts are never seen'. I just SHOWED and stated that there is NO use stating 'that'.

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

I mean knowledge.

This "answer" does NOT logically fit in and work with the actual question I asked you.

The knowledge that fire is hot and will burn you is known.

But fire can NOT burn 'you'. But, then who and what the 'you' is EXACTLY, which fits in PERFECTLY with Everything, is NOT YET known by you either.

It's not hard to understand that concepts are known.

But NOT ALL concepts are known. For example, the concept of 'you' and/or 'I' is NOT known, by you.

And, it is NOT hard to understand this FACT.

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

The one who claims to know knowledge.

And, you have NO IDEA AT ALL YET who that IS, correct?

[Dontaskme]

Everything really is just very simple, and easy.

The opposite is also true.

There is actually absolutely NOTHING complicated in the Universe, except for 'that', which human beings "complicate", or perceive to be "complicated".

We're talking about knowledge here, not humans. To know simple you would also have to know complication for simply to have any associated meaning.

So that which is simple is complicated, and that which is complicated is simple.

[Dontaskme]

This "answer" does NOT logically fit in and work with the actual question I asked you.

Then may I suggest you answer your own questions.

It's that simple, unless you prefer to complicate it.

How am I supposed to answer you.

When you say ridiculous things like this >

But fire can NOT burn 'you'.

If fire doesn't burn me, you to you there...then who or what are you actually talking about, because fire defo burns me here, you to you there.

Fire cannot burn itself, but it can burn a you self.

[Age]

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".

Yes that includes me, also known as a you to you there.

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.

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?

It's a believed truth, appearing as some imagined truth in this one here.

But it could actually be a falsehood, correct?

Or, do you actually BELIEVE it is a truth SO MUCH that, to you, it could NOT be a falsehood at all?

This one here being the only one that is able to access knowledge, the only accessible available.

WHY are you, there, the ONLY ONE that is able to access knowledge?

And, WHY is 'that' "the only access available", especially when, to you, "reality is inaccessible"?

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?'

All I know is the I is known, and that which is known cannot know anything. That's all I can know about I

Or, you completely incapable of being able to learn anything more nor new?

Also, how can logically claim that you know "I am known" but also claim, in

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

It means nothing to me. Or it means something, which would be the same knowing.

Okay. If you are NOT YET capable of clarifying, then that is perfectly fine with me.

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

That is how contradictions work.

Well it matters not to me here, because I know nothing except what I make up or believe, which is meaningless and pointless, until I place it's opposite meaning.

How, exactly, does you placing an opposite meaning to a thing, supposedly, make that thing have meaning and a point?

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

What you mean like a glass tumbler is not empty or devoid of everything before it's able to contain water...don't make me laugh.

Are you 'trying to' suggest or say here that a glass tumbler does NOT contain air before water is placed in the glass tumbler?

Is there ANY place in the Universe that is devoid of EVERY thing?

If yes, then WHERE?

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

What I wrote.

So, now, to you, the 'I' NEEDS to KNOW what 'you' write, to exist, although this completely contradicts your other claim that the 'I' does NOT need to know ANY thing, to exist.

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?

Nothing needs to know itself, but in knowledge the oppostite can also be true.

Can also be true, to who?

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

One thing cannot know itself.

NO one ever said NOR even suggested this here. So, WHY did you say this, AGAIN?

WHY do you quote my words, but then say things that have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I actually said and wrote?

because things are known and that which is known cannot know anything, In the same context, a tree cannot know it is a tree. So there is no thing knowing there is a known concept known as tree.

WHAT is the actual purpose of you continually wanting to say and repeat these sorts of things, before you "die"?

What is 'it', exactly, that you are hoping to achieve here?

[Age]

Okay, if you say so. But you also do say you only make things up through a process of imagination.

Yes, that is correct, knowledge is made of imagination which is pure emptiness at it's core. Knowledge arises from the same place it is made of, namely nothingness. In other words, all known knowledge is imagined. Including the knower.

Is there anything else I can help you with?

Will you admit that what you say and claim here could actually be false, wrong, and/or incorrect or partly false, wrong, and/or incorrect?

[Dontaskme]

But NOT ALL concepts are known. For example, the concept of 'you' and/or 'I' is NOT known, by you.

Yes they are all known, all concepts are known..

There is no knowledge of any concept that is not known. Only the known can be known, not the not-known.

You is a concept known, I is a concept known.

I don't think you understand what I am saying, but I don't care, just keep on with the fallacy that is the knowing game. It's the only knowing you know.

[Dontaskme]

Will you admit that what you say and claim here could actually be false, wrong, and/or incorrect or partly false, wrong, and/or incorrect?

Any form of knowledge how ever it appears to the knower could be wrong or right, true or false according to belief.

No belief, no story.

Knowledge, and the belief in that knowledge is the only knowing there is...that can be known.

Doesn't matter whether what is known is true, false, wrong, right, incorrect, or correct, concepts are whatever they want or need to mean according to their knower and believer.

In reality, reality has no need for knowledge, ...the universe has no need to exist, the universe just is without ever knowing.

The Need to know, the need to exist, is a man-made up human concept, in this conception...therefore without those made up concepts aka knowledge, nothing of anything is known, because only known things, aka concepts, can be known...and concepts know nothing.

.

[Age]

Do you actually 'contest' that this separation is an illusion, especially when it is 'you' who is asking the questions? Which would obviously also mean that question are only arising in 'you'.

Questions do apparently arise,

What do you mean 'apparently'?

Are you disputing that question do actually arise?

just as thoughts do apparently arise, and in their arising, answers also arise in response. When there is no questions, there are no answers..

When there is no sun, there are no human beings, or, when there is no water, there is no human beings. BUT, so what?

Where there are questions, there are answers.

But I have asked thousands, if not hundreds, of questions, within this forum, but there are not always answers, coming forward anyway.

Questions will only stop when there is no more need for answers.

There is now, to you, a need for answers?

If yes, then WHY?

In the same context, knowledge of something will always demand a responsive reaction to that something. Reality is totally reflexive, reflective, reactive responsive.

Is 'reality' even accessible to you?

Reality is basically no thing and everything simultaneously.

This is what you continually state and say, but you are not yet able to actually back up and support this claim of your imagination with any actually logically reasoned explanation, correct?

Therefore, the one who claims to know everything also knows nothing.

But has there EVER been a human being who claims to know everything?

If yes, then who were they?

And, nothing else besides 'you', human beings, claims anything, correct?

Also, can one know nothing without HAVING TO know everything?

Furthermore, to know 'nothing', itself, is just to know what 'nothing' IS, exactly. Which is NOT hard nor complicated at all, correct?

And the one who claims to know good, also knows evil, there is no meaning in any thing known without it's associated opposite meaning.

But to know what is good and what is not is another very simple and very easy thing to do and know.

Knowing the meaning of everything is also a very simple and easy process.

It's no good God believers claiming God is good and not evil...

WHY is that no good in your own made up imagined 'world'?

Is God evil in your own little made up 'world'?

that's just pure wishful thinking, and not how the reality of a knower works at all.

Is the 'reality' accessible, to you?

If yes, HOW did you gain access to 'reality', itself?

And, how, exactly, does the "reality of a knower" work, at all?

All believers are full of their own emptiness, namely, emptiness full of their own believed shit...including this.

Yes you have already informed us that what you make up in your imagination is just what you believe is true but is not true at all.

If someone is trying to sell you their story, believe it only if you want to.

Are you trying to sell us your story?

If no, then do you envision, in your own made up imagined 'world', that "others" in this forum are trying to sell their story?

If yes, then WHY?

But it will only be a story that they have made up.

Just like the story that you have made up, correct?

It will not be anything at all, because reality only presents itself and NEVER REPRESENTS ITSELF.

Just like your story is not anything at all either, correct?

Is this reality, which you now say, "presents itself", accessible, or inaccessible?

And, who and/or what is this 'reality' presenting itself to, exactly?

And, WHY did you once again say that "reality NEVER REPRESENTS ITSELF", AGAIN, when I have ALREADY explained that NO one has even implied this, let alone said this?

[Terrapin Station]

for whatever is perceived, there must be 'the perceived' which is inaccessible.
In a way this is very logical.

If you don't agree with the above,

What "way" is that "very logical"?

then the independent things out there must be inaccessible because of the reality gap.

Um, no, and lol re assuming a "reality gap."

It is either or, so you have to resolve your own dilemma.

The only "dilemma" I'd say I have is people claiming silly things on boards like this.

[Dontaskme]

You already have all the answers to your questions Age.

You do not need to seek clarification for your own questions... your own need to know knowledge.

Unless you do not believe your own self grown knowledge, or you believe that there are others who have a different knowledge to you, and that this other knowledge exists independently of your own, in that case, either you take those other independant forms of knowledge to be your own, or reject them outright, it's your need, no one elses.