The Antithetical Nature Of Intellectualism

[simplicity]

Although "understanding" the human intellect [intellectualism] might seem somewhat paradoxical if you subscribe to the gist of this post, it makes as much sense as anything can. This is because our point of departure is our ego-based universal view, that the entirety of creation revolves around each one of us. Let me give you a meaningful example.

Philosophy holds itself out as a method to cultivate clarity, viz, understanding, to the human condition. Unfortunately, many folks reach the limit of this exploration but are never able to transcend the same. What lies beyond the intellectual answers all of the questions [and much more...the most prescient realization being that Truth (Reality) can only be experienced (and never understood)].

This same reasoning [realization] applies to all things.

[Age]

Although "understanding" the human intellect [intellectualism] might seem somewhat paradoxical if you subscribe to the gist of this post, it makes as much sense as anything can. This is because our point of departure is our ego-based universal view, that the entirety of creation revolves around each one of us.

BUT this is CERTAINLY NOT the case for ALL of 'us', in regards to the 'individuality' of "each 'one' of us".

Some of the 'us' SEE the entirety of Creation revolving around ALL-OF-US as a 'collective' One, of each 'one' of us 'things'.

This MEANS that My point-of-view, or what 'you' might refer to as My "point of departure" is NOT from one individual 'things' so-called "universal view", but, literally, from thee One and ONLY Universal VIEW, which comes from, and thus is GAINED and SEEN, literally, from Everything's, UNITED, POINT-OF-VIEW.

Let me give you a meaningful example.

Philosophy holds itself out as a method to cultivate clarity, viz, understanding, to the human condition.

But, what IS 'philosophy', to 'you', EXACTLY?

AND, notice when 'you' consider and think about what the word 'philosophy' means, or refers to, to 'you', EXACTLY, notice HOW EVERY 'thing' 'here' IS 'now' REVOLVING 'you', and 'your' point of views, ALONE?

Did 'you' NOTICE and SEE that what IS 'philosophy' to EVERY 'one' is NOT the EXACT SAME as what 'philosophy' IS, to 'you'?

'you' are, literally, just 'one' of MANY so-called 'cogs in the machine". 'you', are, just THE 'thinking' [and thus, literally, just THE intellect] within that one human body.

The entirety of Creation does NOT ' revolve around 'you' ', 'you', literally, ONLY exist because of the TINY PORTION of Creation, Itself, that that body has experienced.

SEE, 'intellect' is just the information or knowledge that has been 'grasped', from what a human body has experienced. This 'intellect' [knowledge or information] is just what 'you', literally, ARE. And to STUDY 'this' is to just 'sit back and NOTICE or BECOME AWARE of the 'thoughts' WITHIN 'this' body.

This can ONLY be done, successfully, through 'intelligence', which is just HAVING the ABILITY to learn, understand, and reason absolutely ANY 'thing' and EVERY 'thing'.

The 'knowledge' ALREADY GRASPED is the 'intellect', which is just HELD UP WITHIN 'thought', itself, which is, literally, just WHAT 'you' ARE, EXACTLY.

Unfortunately, many folks reach the limit of this exploration but are never able to transcend the same.

This is because 'you', human beings, do NOT study 'thought', itself. In other words, 'you', literally, do NOT take a GOOD HARD LOOK AT 'your' NOR "yourselves". This I have ALREADY SHOWN and PROVED Truth throughout this forum THROUGH and BY my "incessant" CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

What lies beyond the intellectual answers all of the questions [and much more...the most prescient realization being that Truth (Reality) can only be experienced (and never understood)].

HERE is a PRIME EXAMPLE of 'intellect' AT WORK, and 'intelligence' NOT coming into PLAY, AT ALL.

There is a saying; 'you are too smart for your own good', and this here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of this. That is; 'you' are, literally, LOOKING AT this ONLY PERCEIVED "dilemma", from the 'thoughts' within that body ONLY, [or from an intellectual perspective ONLY] and NOT LOOKING AT 'this' from a Truly OPEN and Honest, [and Truly intelligent] perspective.

When 'things' are LOOKED AT from what I call an APE perspective, that is FROM an Assuming on Past Experiences perspective ONLY, then absolutely NOTHING 'new' NOR 'more' can be GAINED. However, when LOOKING AT absolutely ANY 'thing' from a Truly OPEN perspective FIRST, and then ONLY USING Past Experiences, to back up and support ANY and ALL NEW 'insights', then this is WHEN thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth is FOUND, SEEN, and thus THEN OBTAINED and GAINED.

After all, it is ONLY when one is Truly OPEN when one can LEARN ANY 'thing'.

Oh, and by the way, if SOME 'thing' CAN BE 'experienced', then 'it' CAN ALSO BE LEARNED, and UNDERSTOOD.

LEARNING and UNDERSTANDING what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' IS, and Reality, Itself, is absolutely NO different AT ALL.

Absolutely ANY and EVERY 'thing' can be LEARNED, UNDERSTOOD, and "REASONED", as PROVED IRREFUTABLY True ALREADY, by 'you', human beings.

The WHOLE REASON WHY 'you', human beings, are DIFFERENT from ALL OTHER animals is because of this ABILITY to learn, understand, and reason absolutely ANY and EVERY 'thing', and the WHOLE REASON WHY 'you', human beings, are CONTINUALLY learning and understanding MORE and ANEW is because of BEING born OPEN; to BEING ABLE to learn AND understand absolutely ANY and EVERY 'thing'.

For example, if one was to go back and bring ANY new born human being from ANY 'place' on earth, from ANY 'time period' in the past, then that baby WILL speak the language that that body experiences, like to eat the foods that that body experiences, and LEARN the 'things' that are in the 'place' and 'time period' that this human being is 'now' IN. And, it does NOT matter how far into the future this new born human being is taken to AS WELL. It WILL LEARN the 'things' that that human body 'experiences'. This is because a new born human being is absolutely OPEN to absolutely ANY 'thing'. BUT, sadly and unfortunately, because of the amazing ability of the human brain to GATHER, and GRASP and MAINTAIN, the incoming 'information' from the 'experiences' of body, through the five senses, and turn this 'information' into 'knowledge' and STORE or HOLD ONTO this 'knowledge' as well as be able to RECALL 'it', then because of OTHER 'experiences' this 'knowledge' can be BELIEVED to be absolutely True, and as such this CLOSES OFF and SHUTS DOWN the OPENNESS, which was ONCE 'there'.

This same reasoning [realization] applies to all things.

ONLY to a VERY CLOSED individual.

AND, here we have a PRIME EXAMPLE of a VERY CLOSED individual of the FORM of BELIEVING a True 'intellectual', which is just a human being who IS BELIEVING that the 'knowledge' that 'it' has, individually, ALREADY OBTAINED is thee One and ONLY Truth.

Which, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, is OBVIOUSLY NOT.

[simplicity]

Although "understanding" the human intellect [intellectualism] might seem somewhat paradoxical if you subscribe to the gist of this post, it makes as much sense as anything can. This is because our point of departure is our ego-based universal view, that the entirety of creation revolves around each one of us.

Some of the 'us' SEE the entirety of Creation revolving around ALL-OF-US as a 'collective' One, of each 'one' of us 'things'.

This MEANS that My point-of-view, or what 'you' might refer to as My "point of departure" is NOT from one individual 'things' so-called "universal view", but, literally, from thee One and ONLY Universal VIEW, which comes from, and thus is GAINED and SEEN, literally, from Everything's, UNITED, POINT-OF-VIEW.

Know Thyself and you will soon dispose of the delusion that The Collective exists. All groups are formed by the few for their own benefit.

The only POV you can have is your own [and even that is completely erroneous]. Imagine attempting to understand the POV of many? And what does that even mean?

[simplicity]

Allow me to state this in a way which may be more accessible. Intellectualism holds out that we can "understand" when Reality clearly suggests that this is not possible. Here's another example [which I've used several times].

Mathematics is the language of science, held-out as a method describing the physical relationships among and between matter. The difficulty lies in that [predictably] mathematics also has no basis in Reality, as well. Math only works under a very specific set of presuppositions, the most important one being that one must conveniently ignore the notion that everything in existence is [technically] unique [subject to unique Universal forces] and therefore there can be no such thing as 2, yet 3 or 4, etc. And [of course] mathematics completely falls apart as you head towards the extremes [zero and infinity].

This is but one example of a universal state. Everything is truly unique. The difficulty lies not with Reality, but instead, with the necessity of our holding on to those things which create the greatest degrees of attachment [we are all familiar with the likely suspects].

It is the breaking of this attachment [that we can "know"] that allows transcendence [acceptance of life as it is, instead of how we think it is].

[Impenitent]

“The world is all that is the case.” - (early) Wittgenstein (everything is its label)

“The meaning of a word is its use in the language.” (late) Wittgenstein (the labels change via label-user)

even ludwig figured out that the labels are never the things in themselves

the earnest application of mathematics (closed language) to that which can never be completely defined (each individual sensory appearance) has been a form of a problem since men began to measure...

-Imp

[Age]

Although "understanding" the human intellect [intellectualism] might seem somewhat paradoxical if you subscribe to the gist of this post, it makes as much sense as anything can. This is because our point of departure is our ego-based universal view, that the entirety of creation revolves around each one of us.

Some of the 'us' SEE the entirety of Creation revolving around ALL-OF-US as a 'collective' One, of each 'one' of us 'things'.

This MEANS that My point-of-view, or what 'you' might refer to as My "point of departure" is NOT from one individual 'things' so-called "universal view", but, literally, from thee One and ONLY Universal VIEW, which comes from, and thus is GAINED and SEEN, literally, from Everything's, UNITED, POINT-OF-VIEW.

Know Thyself and you will soon dispose of the delusion that The Collective exists.

'you', OBVIOUSLY, MISSED what I was SAYING, and MEANING.

To 'you', human beings, there IS a PERCEPTION of 'things' (with an 's'). The 's' MEANS there is MORE than ONE 'thing'. These PERCEIVED, SUPPOSED 'things' when COMBINED TOGETHER become a 'collective'. A group of 'things' IS a 'collective. Therefore, when ALL of the PERCEIVED, and SUPPOSED, 'things' are COMBINED TOGETHER into One GROUP, then this formed group is, OBVIOUSLY, A Collective that EXISTS.

Now, do 'you' KNOW what the One and ONLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct ANSWER IS to "KNOW thy Self'?

If no, then 'you' you do NOT YET KNOW as to what EXACTLY is DISPOSED OF, NOR REMAINS, with the COMING of this KNOWLEDGE.

But, if you want to CLAIM that 'you' KNOW the Proper and Correct ANSWER to KNOW thy Self, then PLEASE INFORM the REST of 'us' what 'it' IS, EXACTLY.

All groups are formed by the few for their own benefit.

By just SAYING 'this', and thus CONTRADICTING "your" OWN previously CLAIM, then 'you' have just PROVEN that 'you' do NOT YET KNOW thy 'Self'.

If you want to STILL CLAIM here that there are a 'few', then the DELUSION of some so-called "The Collective" STILL EXISTS and REMAINS within 'you'.

The only POV you can have is your own [and even that is completely erroneous].

ONCE AGAIN, 'you' have COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISUNDERSTOOD what I have been SAYING and MEANING. AND, you WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO while 'you' KEEP ASSUMING what 'it' is that 'I' am SAYING, and MEANING.

OF COURSE the ONLY 'point of view' 'one' can have is the 'point of view' from, literally, that 'one's' PERSPECTIVE or POINT OF VIEW, or in other words, THEIR OWN.

BUT, WHO is the 'one' with THEIR OWN VIEWS? Is the QUESTION here.

AND, WHEN one KNOWS THYSELF, then THAT QUESTION IS ANSWERED.

Now, IF 'you' HAD BEEN LISTENING TO ME and HEARING what 'I' have BEEN SAYING, then 'you' WOULD HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE or POINT OF VIEW on what 'it' IS that I HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY SAYING and MEANING.

The point of view 'you', human beings, HAVE can be completely erroneous.

BUT the POINT OF VIEW from the One who KNOWS thy Self can NEVER be Wrong. And, this is because of WHO this One IS, EXACTLY.

Imagine attempting to understand the POV of many?

IMAGINE attempting to UNDERSTAND the point of view of one of 'you', adult human beings. Especially when EACH and EVERY one of 'you' does NOT even UNDERSTAND 'you' OWN point of view "yourselves".

I have ALREADY POINTED OUT and HIGHLIGHTED copious amounts of INCONSISTENCIES, CONTRADICTIONS, and HYPOCRISIES among 'your' points of views here in this forum. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True ABOVE.

And what does that even mean?

Whatever 'you' WANT 'it' to MEAN. After all it was 'you' who SAID and WROTE 'it'.

[simplicity]

Although "understanding" the human intellect [intellectualism] might seem somewhat paradoxical if you subscribe to the gist of this post, it makes as much sense as anything can. This is because our point of departure is our ego-based universal view, that the entirety of creation revolves around each one of us.

Some of the 'us' SEE the entirety of Creation revolving around ALL-OF-US as a 'collective' One, of each 'one' of us 'things'.

This MEANS that My point-of-view, or what 'you' might refer to as My "point of departure" is NOT from one individual 'things' so-called "universal view", but, literally, from thee One and ONLY Universal VIEW, which comes from, and thus is GAINED and SEEN, literally, from Everything's, UNITED, POINT-OF-VIEW.

Know Thyself and you will soon dispose of the delusion that The Collective exists.

To 'you', human beings, there IS a PERCEPTION of 'things' (with an 's'). The 's' MEANS there is MORE than ONE 'thing'. These PERCEIVED, SUPPOSED 'things' when COMBINED TOGETHER become a 'collective'. A group of 'things' IS a 'collective. Therefore, when ALL of the PERCEIVED, and SUPPOSED, 'things' are COMBINED TOGETHER into One GROUP, then this formed group is, OBVIOUSLY, A Collective that EXISTS.

You assume there is more than one thing, but there is not. Each object is unique, therefore "the collective" is a phantasm. Even grouping objects together [for convenience] exists only as an abstraction. This error leads to an entire take on Reality which is not so accurate.

[Age]

Know Thyself and you will soon dispose of the delusion that The Collective exists.

To 'you', human beings, there IS a PERCEPTION of 'things' (with an 's'). The 's' MEANS there is MORE than ONE 'thing'. These PERCEIVED, SUPPOSED 'things' when COMBINED TOGETHER become a 'collective'. A group of 'things' IS a 'collective. Therefore, when ALL of the PERCEIVED, and SUPPOSED, 'things' are COMBINED TOGETHER into One GROUP, then this formed group is, OBVIOUSLY, A Collective that EXISTS.

You assume there is more than one thing, but there is not.

WHEN have I ever SUPPOSEDLY assumed that there is more than One 'Thing'?

WHAT made you ASSUME such a 'thing'?

Each object is unique, therefore "the collective" is a phantasm.

Are you ASSUMING there is more than One 'Thing'?

If yes, then WHY?

Even grouping objects together [for convenience] exists only as an abstraction.

Like when you group together objects [for any reason]?

It was, after all, only you who assumed and claimed that there were actual objects here.

This error leads to an entire take on Reality which is not so accurate.

If you want to have a discussion on what 'Reality' IS, EXACTLY, and ACCURATELY, then let 'us' BEGIN.

Until then, YOUR INCONSISTENCIES and CONTRADICTIONS here are BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS, well to me anyway.

[Sculptor]

Although "understanding" the human intellect [intellectualism] might seem somewhat paradoxical if you subscribe to the gist of this post, it makes as much sense as anything can. This is because our point of departure is our ego-based universal view, that the entirety of creation revolves around each one of us. Let me give you a meaningful example.

Philosophy holds itself out as a method to cultivate clarity, viz, understanding, to the human condition. Unfortunately, many folks reach the limit of this exploration but are never able to transcend the same. What lies beyond the intellectual answers all of the questions [and much more...the most prescient realization being that Truth (Reality) can only be experienced (and never understood)].

This same reasoning [realization] applies to all things.

The text does not match the heading.
The heading is not meaningful. In order to be antithetical you have to state exactly what Intellectualism is antithetical TO.
Another problem here seem to be that you have misunderstood the meaning of intellectualism. It certainly is not ""understanding" the human intellect". You might also want to say why you have used scare quotes on the word understanding.
I'd love to subscribe to the gist of the post but I do not think it has a clear gist.

If you are trying to say that emotion and pure lived experience cannot always be well described by intellectual endeavours then so much is obvious. The problem is that without the intellectual effort there is absolutely no way to share, discuss and explain any of these so-called transcendent states, and so without "intellectualism" you render yourself to an apelike state of grunts and screams.
You shall only understand that when you look up the basic definition of intellectualism.

Intellectualism can add a great deal to our appreciation of lived experiences.
Let's say that you cannot really convey and share the experience of skydiving, except with words such as exhilaration, or excitement.
That experience itself cannot offer more insights into the hows and whys of such an event.
Why would you feel exhilaration? Intellectualism might take you on an additional journey that asks that question and gives physiological reasons, psychological reasons, and even evolutionary reasons. For an animal recently evolved from tree dwelling apes, for example, the sensation of falling is a very important one with great selective potential. Maybe the exhilaration you feel has something to do with you overcoming the most base instinct of falling and through reason telling yourself that you are not actually going to die (as long as the chute works). It could also examine the hormones and neurones - how and where they interreact with the brain. I'm sure you can think of many more ideas to pursue.
Now the philosopher still has the exhilaration. Nothing is taken away. But he has the additional understanding and ability to think about his experience meaning his life is one examined and not just and only experienced; soon forgotten, like the last kick.
The intellectual has more.

[trokanmariel]

Although "understanding" the human intellect [intellectualism] might seem somewhat paradoxical if you subscribe to the gist of this post, it makes as much sense as anything can. This is because our point of departure is our ego-based universal view, that the entirety of creation revolves around each one of us. Let me give you a meaningful example.

Philosophy holds itself out as a method to cultivate clarity, viz, understanding, to the human condition. Unfortunately, many folks reach the limit of this exploration but are never able to transcend the same. What lies beyond the intellectual answers all of the questions [and much more...the most prescient realization being that Truth (Reality) can only be experienced (and never understood)].

This same reasoning [realization] applies to all things.

If one has the inability to translate, the possession of transcendence to the writing of transcendence, could that be a mirror, to the need for communication without consequence being the need for trade?

The logic, of the mirror being that the stain on trade as an invisible nature is the visible stain of transcendence on writing.

For William Shakespeare

[simplicity]

Until then, YOUR INCONSISTENCIES and CONTRADICTIONS here are BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS, well to me anyway.

All intellection is this way. This should be obvious to everybody [even you].

[simplicity]

Although "understanding" the human intellect [intellectualism] might seem somewhat paradoxical if you subscribe to the gist of this post, it makes as much sense as anything can. This is because our point of departure is our ego-based universal view, that the entirety of creation revolves around each one of us. Let me give you a meaningful example.

Philosophy holds itself out as a method to cultivate clarity, viz, understanding, to the human condition. Unfortunately, many folks reach the limit of this exploration but are never able to transcend the same. What lies beyond the intellectual answers all of the questions [and much more...the most prescient realization being that Truth (Reality) can only be experienced (and never understood)].

This same reasoning [realization] applies to all things.

The text does not match the heading.
The heading is not meaningful. In order to be antithetical you have to state exactly what Intellectualism is antithetical TO.
Another problem here seem to be that you have misunderstood the meaning of intellectualism. It certainly is not ""understanding" the human intellect". You might also want to say why you have used scare quotes on the word understanding.
I'd love to subscribe to the gist of the post but I do not think it has a clear gist.

If you are trying to say that emotion and pure lived experience cannot always be well described by intellectual endeavours then so much is obvious. The problem is that without the intellectual effort there is absolutely no way to share, discuss and explain any of these so-called transcendent states, and so without "intellectualism" you render yourself to an apelike state of grunts and screams.
You shall only understand that when you look up the basic definition of intellectualism.

Intellectualism can add a great deal to our appreciation of lived experiences.
Let's say that you cannot really convey and share the experience of skydiving, except with words such as exhilaration, or excitement.
That experience itself cannot offer more insights into the hows and whys of such an event.
Why would you feel exhilaration? Intellectualism might take you on an additional journey that asks that question and gives physiological reasons, psychological reasons, and even evolutionary reasons. For an animal recently evolved from tree dwelling apes, for example, the sensation of falling is a very important one with great selective potential. Maybe the exhilaration you feel has something to do with you overcoming the most base instinct of falling and through reason telling yourself that you are not actually going to die (as long as the chute works). It could also examine the hormones and neurones - how and where they interreact with the brain. I'm sure you can think of many more ideas to pursue.
Now the philosopher still has the exhilaration. Nothing is taken away. But he has the additional understanding and ability to think about his experience meaning his life is one examined and not just and only experienced; soon forgotten, like the last kick.
The intellectual has more.

Thank you for communicating with me sans anger.

Several comments. First off, the direct opposite of intellutualism appears to those who realise the limits of the same. What folks believe they are accomplishing through the intellectual process is completely inaccurate. What they end up with is a take on things nowhere close to what it is. I will give you the example of...every damn thing. Take your pick.

I would also suggest that grunting and groaning is a much more precise method of expressing oneself [and the obvious choice of our species when participating in sexual activities]. I would imagine that a frantic/frenzied scream of pleasure from your partner would do a lot more for you than them saying, "Oh, Sculptor, you are the man!!" You get my drift.

Personally, I do not believe that intellectulaization can add anything to any experience. You have already experienced it, what more can you ask for? You need a re-cap?

Like everything else, the more complex [intellectual] it becomes, the further it moves from the Truth of the matter [and what's better (in any measure) than getting as close to the Truth as is possible?].

[Atla]

Although "understanding" the human intellect [intellectualism] might seem somewhat paradoxical if you subscribe to the gist of this post, it makes as much sense as anything can. This is because our point of departure is our ego-based universal view, that the entirety of creation revolves around each one of us. Let me give you a meaningful example.

Philosophy holds itself out as a method to cultivate clarity, viz, understanding, to the human condition. Unfortunately, many folks reach the limit of this exploration but are never able to transcend the same. What lies beyond the intellectual answers all of the questions [and much more...the most prescient realization being that Truth (Reality) can only be experienced (and never understood)].

This same reasoning [realization] applies to all things.

Maybe it's just me, but your comments seem to be in a version of English I can't decipher.

For example by antithethical you seem to mean something other than antithetical (self-contradictory, self-undermining maybe?).
By intellectualism you seem to mean something other than intellectualism (conceptual existence maybe?).
what does intellectualism have to do with "understanding" the human intellect?
creation revolves around us??? you mean around the "I", I"-based thinking?
why restrict philosophy to the human condition?

yes Reality can only be experienced that's a pretty basic insight, but why would all other questions be answered too?

[Age]

Until then, YOUR INCONSISTENCIES and CONTRADICTIONS here are BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS, well to me anyway.

All intellection is this way.

AND, 'intelligence' is NOT "this way", and that is WHY 'this' is PROVED True.

This should be obvious to everybody [even you].

But what is OBVIOUS, well to me anyway, is NOT YET obvious, to even 'you'.

So, WHY is 'this'.

[simplicity]

Although "understanding" the human intellect [intellectualism] might seem somewhat paradoxical if you subscribe to the gist of this post, it makes as much sense as anything can. This is because our point of departure is our ego-based universal view, that the entirety of creation revolves around each one of us. Let me give you a meaningful example.

Philosophy holds itself out as a method to cultivate clarity, viz, understanding, to the human condition. Unfortunately, many folks reach the limit of this exploration but are never able to transcend the same. What lies beyond the intellectual answers all of the questions [and much more...the most prescient realization being that Truth (Reality) can only be experienced (and never understood)].

This same reasoning [realization] applies to all things.

Maybe it's just me, but your comments seem to be in a version of English I can't decipher.

It's how it is with everybody and includes every attempt to communicate. How is it possible that anybody can REALLY understand another? Just the same, that's another subject for another day.

For example by antithethical you seem to mean something other than antithetical (self-contradictory, self-undermining maybe?).

What I mean is that the intellectual process is the direct opposite of what is held out to be. In other words, the process simply creates further confusion [whether this is acknowledged or not is another matter].

By intellectualism you seem to mean something other than intellectualism (conceptual existence maybe?).
what does intellectualism have to do with "understanding" the human intellect?
creation revolves around us??? you mean around the "I", I"-based thinking?
why restrict philosophy to the human condition?

As opposed to what condition?

yes Reality can only be experienced that's a pretty basic insight, but why would all other questions be answered too?

Please explain why Reality can only be experienced. Answering [realizing] one question answers them all.