Why knowing 'Yourself' will never make sense.

[Age]

'I' ALREADY KNOW who and what the KNOWER IS,

EXACTLY, and so have ALREADY PROVED 'your' CLAIM here to be absolutely and irrefutably False, Wrong, and Incorrect

'I' have ALREADY DONE what 'you' CLAIM IS IMPOSSIBLE.

You just saying....('I' ALREADY KNOW who and what the KNOWER IS )...doesn't mean anything, it's just an empty claim, empty of any sense whatsoever..

I KNOW, and the REASON WHY I do it is to 'draw out' the Truly CURIOS and Truly INTELLIGENT ones.

I CERTAINLY have NO 'need' to back up and support my claims beforehand. I KNOW they are irrefutably True, so that is ALL I 'need' here.

It's like saying....I already know I existed before I existed.

It is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like that. This is BECAUSE what you say here is Truly ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, NONSENSICAL, and NOT ABLE TO be backed up and supported with ACTUAL PROOF.

It's like saying...I already know what's going to happen before it happens.

AGAIN, it is NOTHING like it.

To KNOW is to be in relationship to some thing, it is to know a thing. So all you have said is that the knower is a thing.

.

That is NOT ALL I have said.

But, it could also be said that EVERY thing is, literally, a 'thing'.

[Dontaskme]

LOL ONCE AGAIN. It is NOT 'the label' that is known as a 'human being'. 'The label' 'human being' is put on, or placed upon, the 'thing', (which is known as 'human being'. That 'thing' is the 'human body' with 'a being' inside it.

I've absolutely no idea what you are trying to say....sorry, that makes no sense to me here.



.

[Age]

If we mean some kind of 100% knowing oneself, well, that would be unlikely.

"oneself" is an oxymoron or contradiction in terms. BUT, to KNOW thy Self, and the self, 100% has ALREADY BEEN DONE.

But to know yourself more, to consider some less aware and knowledgable about themselves, to consider someone else more aware and knowledgable about him or herself, to realize 'oh, that's what's going on in me', to get more insight into one's patterns, to realize what one really wants and a host of other kinds of knowing yourself all make sense and I have experienced it in relation to myself and seen/felt it in others.

This knowing, or learning, more happens individually, and collectively.

And has been happening continually hitherto, so there is NO reason to think or assume that it would stop continuing until KNOWING 100% is reached, correct?

[Dontaskme]

But, it could also be said that EVERY thing is, literally, a 'thing'.

A Thing is known.

And that which is KNOWN....KNOWS NO THING.


And is why knowing 'Yourself' will never make sense.

Do you want me to repeat this to you again and again and again?

[Age]

If we mean some kind of 100% knowing oneself, well, that would be unlikely.
But to know yourself more, to consider some less aware and knowledgable about themselves, to consider someone else more aware and knowledgable about him or herself, to realize 'oh, that's what's going on in me', to get more insight into one's patterns, to realize what one really wants and a host of other kinds of knowing yourself all make sense and I have experienced it in relation to myself and seen/felt it in others.

Thanks for your input...just for arguments sake, in no way am I dismissing your input with what I am about to say in reply, nor am I saying you are wrong and that I am right...I'm just trying to POINT to the emptiness, using words, that is the concept of SELF

What you have described in your response, is a genuine knowledge that is our immediate and direct sensory experience. So your response is indeed a KNOWLEDGE which can only be KNOWN conceptually....in other words, concepts are known in their immediate conception. But the KNOWER of concepts cannot and never know of it's own conception, think about that point carefully. The 'knower' of concept, in and of itself, cannot KNOW of it's own conception that it claims to know.

ONCE AGAIN, 'you', "dontaskme", the little and very small 'human being' is 'trying to' TELL 'us' what is REAL and True, FOR absolutely EVER MORE.

How many times do you have to be INFORMED that just because little 'you' has NOT YET come-to-KNOW some thing that that therefore means that that thing can NEVER EVER be KNOWN by absolutely ANY 'thing', FOREVER MORE, BEFORE you come-to-UNDERSTAND that this is NOT necessarily True?

And, how many times do you have to be INFORMED that what you say can NEVER become KNOWN is ALREADY KNOWN, BEFORE you START to QUERY this CLAIM?

You go on to talk about a ..'your-self...' But this knowledge of 'your-self' is not the 'self' I am referring to. The 'I' which is just another concept for 'SELF' who claims to know sensory experience is also an experience, insofar as here, there is a sense known, a sense of autonomous identity, as a concept known, so to speak. So yes this sense of self, self-awareness is known but only as a sensory experience..

But 'you' can NOT talk about the 'I' because, according to 'your' OWN "logic", 'you' can NEVER KNOW who NOR what that is EXACTLY?

However much the concept of 'I' is known, it is not known, nor can it ever be known how 'I' is known. . because concepts cannot know anything.

WHY do 'you' keep 'trying to' TELL "others" what the Truth IS?

Especially when it is 'you' who keeps TELLING 'us' that we can NOT KNOW the Truth of things here.

Concepts are known, but the known cannot know what is knowing them. So what this is pointing to is that only the KNOWN can be known, not the KNOWER.

False AND Wrong, AGAIN.

If the knower could be known the knower would be able to choose to be born or not be born...

And what are you basing this conclusion on EXACTLY?

it would know to choose life because it would know life even before life became an experience for it....but no one who knows they are born ever chose to be born...because there is no knower, there is no self who can know itself...there is here only sensation and experience that arise and fall, come and go, is on and off...asleep or awake...etc

It's like do we even die? is death even possible? insofar as it can be an experience known?

No, death cannot be known, because only what is known can be known...death is a concept known in the living only.

If there is only the living state that can be known through sensory experience, then there cannot be a 'someone' aka an 'I' or 'Self' here who knows they know they are this living experience. This immediate living experience is not being known by a 'someone' the knowing is totally ONE without a SECOND.


So the conundrum for the mind is HOW can ONE THING exist, and know it exists, without splitting itself in two into knower and known?

It cannot. It does not ... except in this illusory conception. There is no SELF, the self is an illusion.

.

[Age]

'you', human beings, OF COURSE. Or, in other words, the 'thing' known as 'human being'.

So here you are again repeating the same thing you said before.

LOL You TOLD me to answer your question, and when I do, you come back with this response.

So again, I will respond by saying can a label label itself as such?

OF COURSE NOT.

'labels', themselves, are NOT things ABLE TO label ANY 'thing'.

ONLY the 'thing' known by the label 'human being' can label 'things'.

Can the label on a can of tomato soup know there is tomato soup inside the can?

Are 'you' REALLY this BLIND and DEAF?

Can a THING tell itself it is a THING?

YES. The 'thing', known as 'human being, CAN tell 'itself' that 'it' is a 'thing'.

That's what you are claiming can..but that claim is wrong.

Is it REALLY?

Could 'you' have MISTAKEN ANY 'thing' here?

[Dontaskme]

I KNOW, and the REASON WHY I do it is to 'draw out' the Truly CURIOS and Truly INTELLIGENT ones.

I CERTAINLY have NO 'need' to back up and support my claims beforehand. I KNOW they are irrefutably True, so that is ALL I 'need' here.

You are only drawing out the intelligence of your own self...and no one elses self.

Of course there is no need to back up your own claim, you are the only author of any claim you make. No one else makes what is only your claim that is true for you.

Stop inventing another you... that you feel you need to draw out.. you already know what's true, and so does everybody else ...so no need for you to invent others to draw out.

If you there know...then others will know too...there is no need to inform others what they already know...


.

[Age]

Why ALLOW other 'things' to have control OVER 'your' feelings?

Why don't you just mind your own fucking business.

This has nothing to do with you. This is to do with me and Walker, it is both our feelings that are involved, so please stay out of what doesn't concern you personally.

You have no idea what is the history between Walker and I ...so just keep your busy body nose out...ok

So, in other words, 'you' REALLY have absolutely NO idea NOR clue as to why 'you' ALLOW other 'things' to HAVE and TAKE control OVER 'your' feelings.

[Dontaskme]

ONLY the 'thing' known by the label 'human being' can label 'things'.

No, that's wrong...human being is a label KNOWN....not by the label itself....because labels that are known cannot know any thing.


Do you want me to keep repeating this same conceptual mantra to you over and over again?

[Dontaskme]

Why ALLOW other 'things' to have control OVER 'your' feelings?

Why don't you just mind your own fucking business.

This has nothing to do with you. This is to do with me and Walker, it is both our feelings that are involved, so please stay out of what doesn't concern you personally.

You have no idea what is the history between Walker and I ...so just keep your busy body nose out...ok

So, in other words, 'you' REALLY have absolutely NO idea NOR clue as to why 'you' ALLOW other 'things' to HAVE and TAKE control OVER 'your' feelings.

This is between Walker and I ...you have no business in what is our business, so again, just stay out of what has nothing to do with you.

[Age]

LOL ONCE AGAIN. It is NOT 'the label' that is known as a 'human being'. 'The label' 'human being' is put on, or placed upon, the 'thing', (which is known as 'human being'. That 'thing' is the 'human body' with 'a being' inside it.

I've absolutely no idea what you are trying to say....sorry, that makes no sense to me here.



.

Okay. But it REALLY is VERY OBVIOUS what I am saying here.

You asked me, "why is the label that is known as a 'human being' also known as a 'thing' that can put a label on itself...can things do that?"

Firstly, I NEVER EVER said 'the label' is known as a 'human being'. This is just SO ABSURD that it is absolutely RIDICULOUS.

'you', human beings, are literally known by 'the label' 'human being'.

EACH and EVERY 'label' is known as 'a label', and NOT the other way around as you, LAUGHABLY, proposed here.

Secondly, EVERY 'thing' is also known as 'a thing'.

Thirdly, ONLY the 'thing' known as 'human being' can put 'labels' on ANY and EVERY 'thing', including 'itself'. So, some 'things' can do that. And, they are 'you', human beings, ONLY.

[Iwannaplato]

If we mean some kind of 100% knowing oneself, well, that would be unlikely.

"oneself" is an oxymoron or contradiction in terms. BUT, to KNOW thy Self, and the self, 100% has ALREADY BEEN DONE.

Cool, who did it?

This knowing, or learning, more happens individually, and collectively.

Agreed.

And has been happening continually hitherto, so there is NO reason to think or assume that it would stop continuing until KNOWING 100% is reached, correct?

I don't rule it out.

[Iwannaplato]

Never mind, discussions like these are only interesting for minds that are searching for knowledge

You're searching for knowledge? What knowledge are you searching for?
I could have misunderstood. Maybe you didn't find the discussion interesting.

[Iwannaplato]

I'm not telling anyone anything, I'm simply leaving a message for the reader...it's up to the reader to resonate or not.
There is only one reader by the way....reading information that arises as many authors of the information being read.

Anyways, thanks for nothing...bye.

I wrote for readers also. Why are you thanking me for nothing? Or are both our contributions nothing?

[Iwannaplato]

It's not supposed to be a complete truth.

So, maybe you can know yourself, then.