Yes, thanks, bearing in mind that paradoxes are only descriptive ideas. And only true as a frame of reference, as defined, ie: as a description of what it is that is being discussed, which can only be illusory conjecture. In other words, a mental construct. Since there is no experience of a ''Knower'' while paradoxically, there is ''Knowing'' albeit illusory.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2025 4:14 pmThis is the most profound thing I've ever seen you write. Actually, might be the most, or one of the most, profound things I've ever seen on this forum at all. I think there's something to this. I think that this framing of paradoxes is, if not true, at least touching close to some truths.
For example: Paradoxes don't exist in the natural universe because a paradox is a contradiction in our descriptions of the universe, not contradictions in the Universe itself. So Art in fact is simply the universe itself as it naturally is, while the nature of this universe, is by definition, an illusory descriptive of it, which is an ARTificial representation.
The 'knower' is a metaphysical concept, meaning 'knowing' is illusory. Knowledge is division, which is the nature of the mind. The natural, is effortless and already the case without existence or separation. The mind of course cannot grasp there is no separation, because what can the mind do with nothing, the mind has to construct something, for any concept to make sense, and that is knowledge.
And yet, even the mind is illusory, because the mind is simply nothing constructing something, albeit illusory, but real nonetheless, as the concept is known by nothing. Nothing knows itself, so to speak.
Nothing knows itself is a paradox within knowledge only, but this paradox in knowledge, is not a natural paradox, it's artificial.