SELF

[Age]

Okay, I'll try again ...

You seem to be trying to elaborate and extemporise on the all-too-simple theme that reality is unknowable, and that all my perception and in particular my perception of a universe of multitple individual diverse entities, including myself as one such, is an illusion.

Is that close? Where is it different from your ideas?

We all share the same I ...even though the beliefs of each I are very much not the same at all.

In what sense can the one 'I' be individuated into "each I", all with different beliefs? How does that work?

VERY SIMPLY, ACTUALLY.

Through 'individual thought' CONFUSION LIES.

The One 'I' can NOT be individuated into 'each I', as the 'i' known as "dontaskme" here BELIEVES is true.

What ACTUALLY HAPPENS and OCCURS IS thee One, and ONLY, 'I' IS 'individuated' into each of 'you', individual, human beings. Which, when the 'ego' is let go of and removed, ALL of 'you' are just 'i's', and NOT 'I's', AT ALL.

'you', human beings, are, SERIOUSLY, NOT worthy of being capitalized. Although 'you', adult human beings, love to BELIEVE that 'you' are GREATER, PRIM and PROPER, and/or worthy of being capitalized ABOVE "others", but, IN ACTUALITY, 'you' are CERTAINLY NOT.

The ONLY ones 'you' are FOOLING here are "yourselves".

[Age]

illusion - false appearance or deceptive impression of reality

In what sense is it possible for experience itself to be false? By what standards of external verification could you judge the deceptiveness of your experience of self? Other people can't tell you whether your self is verified. You can't be wrong that you're having an experience of self. There is no sense in which self can be an illusion.

Are 'you' OPEN to LOOKING INTO this MUCH FURTHER?

[Dontaskme]

Do 'you' PURPOSE go out of 'your' way "dontaskme" to CONFLATE INTO CONFUSION what IS, ESSENTIALLY, VERY BASIC, VERY SIMPLE, and, REALLY, VERY EASY to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND?

Do 'you' PURPOSE go out of your way ''Age'' to think other people are conflating into confusion what is basic and very simple and easy to comprehend and understand.

Do 'you' PURPOSE tell yourself. 'I think therefore I think I Am' ?

Nope, thoughts are randomly self arising, usually reactive, in response to a reaction. There is here, no action, only reaction.

If I can think I think I am then I can also assume and project what others are thinking, except I cannot.

[Age]

Okay, I'll try again ...

You seem to be trying to elaborate and extemporise on the all-too-simple theme that reality is unknowable, and that all my perception and in particular my perception of a universe of multitple individual diverse entities, including myself as one such, is an illusion.

The 'known' concept of self is the illusion.

How COULD ANY 'known concept' be an illusion?

What the 'concept' is of, EXACTLY, COULD be AN illusion, but if a 'concept', itself, is 'known', then that 'known concept' can NOT be AN illusion.

Not the actual self.

What IS 'the ACTUAL self'? And, how does one DIFFERENTIATE between 'the ACTUAL self' and 'the NON ACTUAL self'? (ALL of the ANSWERS here, by the way, are ALREADY KNOWN, well at least by some of 'us' here.)

The 'self' is without doubt or error, it's already self evident, it doesn't know, it is the knowing, it's a lone, all one, only appearing as the illusory many.

But that so-called 'self' is thee 'Self'. Which IS a VERY DIFFERENT 'thing', from 'you', "selves".

Also, 'I', thee 'Self', ALREADY DO KNOW.

Self is just another way of describing this mysterious ( everything and nothing ) without beginning nor end, the first and the last.

AND, as 'I' have been CONTINUALLY INFORMING 'you', individual, human beings, here WHEN 'you' can ALSO answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' properly AND correctly, then the so-called 'mystery' VANISHES. As thee ACTUAL Truth IS REVEALED. This is ALSO WHEN thee Knower BECOMES KNOWN.

There IS, by the way, NOTHING mysterious AT ALL here. That is; WHEN 'you' ALSO become Truly Honest, Open, and Wanting to CHANGE, for the better.

So how can that which is eternally one be anything other than just itself, one without a second.

'you', "dontaskme", ask this question like 'you' ALREADY KNOW the ANSWER, BUT 'you' WILL GO ON to SAY some 'thing' further which TOTALLY CONTRADICTS this.

Self cannot know itself, it is the knowing, it doesn't need to know itself, as that would require two the knower and the known.

And here the CONTRADICTION IS.

LOOK "dontaskme" just because 'you' do NOT, individually, KNOW some 'thing' YET, this in NO WAY means that that 'thing' can NOT become KNOWN forever more, NOR that some of 'us' ALREADY KNOW that 'thing', and KNOW 'it' to be IRREFUTABLY True.

Also, 'your' so-called 'logic' FAILS here ABSOLUTELY, and well as TREMENDOUSLY.

Is that close? Where is it different from your ideas?

I do not know what this is referring to.

It would HELP if 'you' CONCENTRATED ON what "others" are SAYING and ASKING.

We all share the same I ...even though the beliefs of each I are very much not the same at all.

In what sense can the one 'I' be individuated into "each I", all with different beliefs? How does that work?

It works from the perspective of knowledge.

Wrong.

Knowledge is consciousness.

Wrong.

So the consciousness here, which is just another word for I - believes in ideas that may or may not be recognised by the I there which is your consciousness.

Just LOOK AT how MANY Wrong MISINTERPRETATIONS these people, back in 'these' days, REALLY HAD. And this MANY in just this VERY SHORT sentence.

There was NO wonder WHY it took those human beings SO LONG to FINALLY come and RECOGNIZE the ACTUAL Truth when there WAS SO MUCH CONFUSION as being DISPLAYED here, ALL the result of 'them' FOOLING 'their' OWN "selves".

There's only ONE reader of knowledge, although knowledge itself does appear to arise to the one reader as being written by many authors, many authors appear, which is just another word for knowing consciousness.

WHY do 'you' NOT SAY and CLAIM there is only ONE author, but MANY readers?

WHY do 'you', "dontaskme", ONLY LOOK AT and SEE 'things' from one VERY TINY and VERY NARROWED perspective?

However, knowledge can only appear as the 'object' of knowing, and not as the actual knower, the actual knower is eternal, which is unknowable, only the temporal is known as and through the objective conceptual story.

LOL This one TINY little, temporal, individual human being REALLY BELIEVES that 'its' OWN views, BELIEFS, and/or knowledge is the ONLY ACTUAL TRUE and RIGHT knowledge.

WHY can the KNOWING One NEVER come to KNOW thy 'Self', especially when 'It' HAS ETERNITY to LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and REASON?

And, WHY can a VERY LITTLE TEMPORAL human being like 'you', "dontaskme", KNOW that thee One and ONLY One can NEVER come to KNOW Its 'Self'?

What we have here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of when the human beings, back in the days when this was being written, would ACTUALLY BELIEVE that if 'they', INDIVIDUALLY, did NOT KNOW some 'thing', then that 'thing' MUST BE 'UNKNOWABLE'. Which, REALLY IS, MORE LAUGHABLE the MORE this is thought about.

Eternal Self has no knowledge except what is artificially via conception imposed upon itself. That's how it works.

LOL

So, what this ALL MEANS IS; the one temporal human being, KNOWN as "dontaskme" here, BELIEVES that 'it' KNOWS MORE than thee ACTUAL Eternal 'Self' could EVER KNOW, and, ACTUALLY KNOWS MORE ABOUT thee Eternal Self than thee Eternal Self, 'Itself', does.

Which just goes to SHOW just HOW MUCH 'ego' was REALLY existing WITHIN those adult human beings, back in the days when this was being written.

[Age]

So, we have:

1) Knowledge is consciousness.

2) So the consciousness here
2.1) So the knowledge here

3) which is just another word for I
3.2.1) I

4) believes in ideas
4.3.2.1) I believe in ideas

5) that may or may not be recognised by the I there which is your consciousness.
5.3.2.1) that I may or may not recognise.

from 4.3.2.1 and 5.3.2.1:
I believe in ideas that I may or may not recognise.

If you don't know what's wrong with that there is no hope for you, babe!

Ok, but what-ever you are replying there in response to what I have said and see, is quite frankly none of my business. I have no recognition or understanding of what your reply is pointing to. I can only acknowledge and understand what is my own personal direct experience. I can share my experience of SELF on this forum, but I cannot make the reader understand, if what is being shared has not been their personal direct experience.

'you' ALSO can NOT make the 'reader' understand, if what you are saying and writing does NOT make sense, or is, literally, NOT understandable.

For example, saying or writing, 'The 'I' there, which is 'your' consciousness', will NEVER make sense, and thus will NEVER be understandable. Especially considering the OTHER CLAIMS that 'you' make here.

How could ANY 'I', logically, be 'its' OWN consciousness, or 'its' OWN ANY 'thing' ELSE?

We are talking about the SELF here.

But, obviously, ONLY IF 'it' is the EXACT SAME 'self' being talked about.

Are 'you' AWARE that "others" are NOT talking about the EXACT SAME 'self'? And, are 'you' EVEN AWARE that 'you', "yourself", RARELY even talk about the EXACT SAME 'self' here?

Now, if you have any more questions or queries that you would like to discuss on this topic of SELF. I'm always open to engage...as long as it doesn't become overly complicated in an intellectual context, because in my personal vision, it's all very simple indeed.

LOL But 'you' have NOT even BEGUN to 'engage', "dontaskme".

As "mickthinks" has be CLEARLY POINTING OUT and SHOWING 'you' are NOT answering the questions asked OF 'you', and so 'you' are, LITERALLY, NOT REALLY engaging here AT ALL.

'you' just KEEP RE-REPEATING 'your' OWN ALREADY GAINED knowledge and BELIEFS, which 'you' have, OBVIOUSLY, obtained FROM "others", like 'you', "dontaskme".

And please do not call me babe. There's no need to get pedantic and frustrated.

Is this the right usage of the word 'pedantic' here?

We are strangers on the internet, we are just one of an infinite number of waves in the ocean, strutting our stuff ...bye the way, this forum is just an additional hobby of mine, I do not take it seriously at all.

This could be DISPUTED.

Also, you regularly RESORT to this CLAIM when what you have been SAYING and CLAIMING is SHOWN to be False, Wrong, or Incorrect.

I understand the concept of Self, and that's all I need to know, nothing else matters to me.

'you' may well 'understand' a concept of 'Self' from your OWN very limited view, based on your OWN very limited past experiences, but what you so-call 'understand' could be completely and utter False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, correct?

I enjoy talking about a subject I am confident about talking about. If you do not believe what I am saying, there is absolutely nothing I can do about that, and it doesn't change a thing.



.

And here is A PRIME EXAMPLE of one who is NOT even OPEN enough to just CONSIDER that what 'it' ASSUMES, BELIEVES, or even thinks is true could JUST MAYBE be False, Wrong, or Incorrect.

[Age]

Do 'you' PURPOSE go out of 'your' way "dontaskme" to CONFLATE INTO CONFUSION what IS, ESSENTIALLY, VERY BASIC, VERY SIMPLE, and, REALLY, VERY EASY to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND?

Do 'you' PURPOSE go out of your way ''Age'' to think other people are conflating into confusion what is basic and very simple and easy to comprehend and understand.

NO.

I just sometimes REPORT what I OBSERVE and SEE and/or ASK for CLARITY.

Do 'you' PURPOSE tell yourself. 'I think therefore I think I Am' ?

NO.

Nope, thoughts are randomly self arising, usually reactive, in response to a reaction. There is here, no action, only reaction.

Is this WHY some of what you SAY and WRITE here is Truly CONTRADICTORY, NONSENSE, and ILLOGICAL?

If I can think I think I am then I can also assume and project what others are thinking, except I cannot.

As I was SAYING.

[Dontaskme]

I just sometimes REPORT what I OBSERVE and SEE and/or ASK for CLARITY. .

Clarity is knowing the observer cannot be seen, the observer can only be reported as and through the observed, inseparable from the observer.

[Agent Smith]

The self (doesn't) exist(s).

[Age]

I just sometimes REPORT what I OBSERVE and SEE and/or ASK for CLARITY. .

Clarity is knowing the observer cannot be seen, the observer can only be reported as and through the observed, inseparable from the observer.

Is this ANOTHER one of those 'things', which 'you' REPORT to be UNKNOWABLE?

Also, the 'observer' can be CLEARLY 'SEEN', which IS IRREFUTABLE IF 'you' EVER sought out CLARIFICATION instead of just ASSUMING and BELIEVING otherwise.

[Agent Smith]

There's something on this planet, I mean there are some things on this planet, that has ... ummm ... have ... selves.

[Agent Smith]

Self

[Agent Smith]

in other words: LoveThySelf

Si, si!

[Dontaskme]

I just sometimes REPORT what I OBSERVE and SEE and/or ASK for CLARITY. .

Clarity is knowing the observer cannot be seen, the observer can only be reported as and through the observed, inseparable from the observer.

Is this ANOTHER one of those 'things', which 'you' REPORT to be UNKNOWABLE?

Also, the 'observer' can be CLEARLY 'SEEN', which IS IRREFUTABLE IF 'you' EVER sought out CLARIFICATION instead of just ASSUMING and BELIEVING otherwise.

Reporting this unknowing, is all that is happening.

Before an interpretation of something is made, there is nothing known about this something. This something is simply this unknowing known.

The observer can't be seen, except to say it is the seeing, the only seeing there is. That's the only way the seeing is seen. As an understanding, but not as a physical object known, because that which is known as an object knows nothing.

Also, Age, I never used the word ''unknowable'' you did.

What is not known, will eventually become known, but what is unknowable can never be known.

[Dontaskme]

in other words: LoveThySelf

Si, si!

There is no self to love.

Love is another word for unconditional.

Unconditional is life free to be, life is everything all at once, including the freedom to hate, and kill. Or the freedom to love and nurture.

The idea of a self is reflexive action. It's everything reacting only to itself, there is no individual self there.

[Age]

Clarity is knowing the observer cannot be seen, the observer can only be reported as and through the observed, inseparable from the observer.

Is this ANOTHER one of those 'things', which 'you' REPORT to be UNKNOWABLE?

Also, the 'observer' can be CLEARLY 'SEEN', which IS IRREFUTABLE IF 'you' EVER sought out CLARIFICATION instead of just ASSUMING and BELIEVING otherwise.

Reporting this unknowing, is all that is happening.

Before an interpretation of something is made, there is nothing known about this something. This something is simply this unknowing known.

The observer can't be seen, except to say it is the seeing, the only seeing there is.

Could you be Wrong here? Or is this just NOT even a POSSIBILITY, to you?

Is it AT ALL POSSIBLE that I could ACTUALLY SHOW and PROVE HOW it is ACTUALLY POSSIBLE to SEE the 'Observer'?

That's the only way the seeing is seen.

Could there be a POSSIBILITY that there is ACTUALLY ANOTHER WAY?

Or, are you just completely and utterly CLOSED OFF here?

As an understanding, but not as a physical object known, because that which is known as an object knows nothing.

How MANY TIMES do we have to go through this? The 'objects' known as 'human beings' KNOW 'things'. As 'you', "dontaskme", are PROVING ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True here.

Also, Age, I never used the word ''unknowable'' you did.

Okay, if you say so.

What is not known, will eventually become known, but what is unknowable can never be known.

HOW can 'you' DIFFERENTIATE between what is NOT YET KNOWN and what is UNKNOWABLE?